flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Please do not port software to Windows!

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
ManOfSteel wrote:
You often accidentally type a command/application name and press enter when you're fully awake and/or not high? And I thought you didn't want to type, but click.
And what if you accidentally run an application? Your machine's gonna blow or what? Unless you're coding malware, hmm.

Duplicates????
I'm talking about mistakes in batch files obviously.

ManOfSteel wrote:
And the point of doing that would be ____?
Ah, see what I was saying, I was right all along. When Linux sucks in an area, the response is "who needs it?" Smile

Here's the point: What if I want to store my apps on a portable media, like a USB stick and run them from there? What if I want to keep my hard drive clean, or maybe not even have an internal hard drive at all?

Oh I forgot *nix is hard-coded to use this "system" configuration so obviously not flexible and archaic system. A modern system is based on plug-and-play devices, not a static "system" Like it or not, look around you. Most things become smaller and more portable, the LOGICAL hierarchy, JUST LIKE IN HARDWARE, is to have it BASED ON DEVICES, NOT BASED ON A IMAGINARY "SYSTEM" (where stuff can be stored on any device).

ManOfSteel wrote:
Also the binary/settings separation tells me right away what are the inalterable files that I don't have to mess with and what are my settings. Settings are small, can be backed up easily and are usually version independent.
oh I can see right away what the settings are in the app folder too, very easy to see graphically and because of the extension which, oops, may be absent in Linux. Wink

not to mention the rest of the apps who store settings in a subfolder.

This is the logical hierarchy: an app who has settings uses stuff below the hierarchy obviously. Just like a hardware device, or hardware hierarchy. Could it be the reason why DOS/Windows have caught up so well with the public back in the day (when there was also Mac!)? Wink

At the top of the hierarchy should be each individual storage device, obviously, as they are not logically connected in below levels, so why would they be hierarchically connected? In Windows this is a "drive" letter -- the only problem is that a partition is considered as a separate device: logically it should be a single device having sub-devices called 'partitions'.

ManOfSteel wrote:
And when I want to deinstall an application, I simply issue a pkg_delete <name> && rm -r ~/<config> command, killing two fucking birds with one fucking stone. Oh you beat me... by 5 seconds.
talk about user unfriendliness and non-ease-of-use Wink
you know what a logical, and intuitive for a total noob solution would be?

select the folder, press delete on the keyboard.

Very Happy

revolution wrote:
It's all in the name of "security".
It's called OBSOLETE security. That's the worst security model I've ever seen, along with UAC in Vista for instance. If you are not trusting your apps then use a sandbox, which is a much more modern way of doing this.

ManOfSteel wrote:
But not only. It also brings order and less clutter. Everything is organized in a hierarchy. And when you open your home directory, all you see are your work/personal files and your applications customized configuration (or not, since they're hidden by default). Isn't that logical?
No it's not logical. How would you go about it putting it on portable media and running it from there?

You see, an app is an app. The most logical way would be to have everything it needs in one single folder. Just like hardware or any other device.

ManOfSteel wrote:
Aha! Some honesty. Maybe involuntary, but still. So you people are in fact trying to copy <whatever> to *nix systems, as if a pilot flew a Boeing 747 like he flew a Cessna, or a jet like a helicopter. That's not very efficient or healthy, you know?
Personally, I think this provides no advantages, effectively nullifies any kind of well-tuned security scheme, and can totally bork the entire system in the case of a minor application bug or user error (weren't you the one qualifying humans as "unreliable components of the system"?)

If you like such badly-designed systems why don't you just *not* use *nix systems (or any modern system for that matter), and we can end this ludicrous discussion right now?
But that's not what this is about.

People always wonder why Windows is much more popular than Linux. Let's exclude the clueless joes for the moment. The simple answer is because Linux is counter-intuitive for many and has an annoying hierarchy system.

There's your answer. Whether or not you care about it is another matter, but why won't Linux guys admit that the system sucks for most people instead of wondering why Linux or Mac is not as popular as it should be?

(because Mac has a similar system I assume)


Here's a statement: Windows and DOS are much more intuitive and simpler to use for most people, I gave arguments why even the "system" is arranged more logically for the DESKTOP USER.

Why do Linux guys always heat up on this when they know it's true?

Either you change Linux's archaic hierarchical concept or stop the hatred against Windows' popularity when it doesn't deserve it since it is better in this area. By better I don't mean "more powerful" but easier to use and more intuitive.

For one thing, I hate it how Linux assigns an application to "a computer" or "a system" instead of a simple storage on a device -- removable or not.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 11 Jan 2010, 16:23
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
revolution wrote:
That only works when you are working on the same machine. I didn't say it but I was implying the migration of the app to another machine. Actually this is what Borsuc is referring to. Portable apps are not particularly friendly to centralised stuff. If one never needs portability in apps then it is a non-issue.

Okay. So you install the application on the other machine (which takes as much time and work as copying it), and copy the settings file or directory from your home directory on machine X to your home directory on machine Y.
All you need on a pendrive for your transfers is 1 file (setup) and 1 directory (settings), or 2 files (setup & settings).

If you want total independence and like to have fun, I guess you could even make your own live CD with your favorite applications and a MD/tmpfs that is populated on boot-up with your home directory and settings. Wink
Post 11 Jan 2010, 16:28
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
ManOfSteel wrote:
Okay. So you install the application on the other machine (which takes as much time and work as copying it), and copy the settings file or directory from your home directory on machine X to your home directory on machine Y.
All you need on a pendrive for your transfers is 1 file (setup) and 1 directory (settings), or 2 files (setup & settings).

If you want total independence and like to have fun, I guess you could even make your own live CD with your favorite applications and a MD/tmpfs that is populated on boot-up with your home directory and settings. Wink
What if I want to run them from the USB drive directly?

Also, installing takes a lot longer than copying. With a copy you can copy the entire programs folder. If you have 1000 apps or 10,000 it will take the same effort, obviously the only time-loss is the actual AUTOMATIC computer file transfer.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 11 Jan 2010, 16:32
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8975
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
i think, the best idea is like portable app for windows.
extract the app into any directory you wish, start it, config it to ur style, if you copy the whole directory, then run it on another pc, it will have ur configured styled displayed, this is the best part.

http://portableapps.com/

linux could perform something like this too if i am not mistaken, by repackaging the installed software into a new package and deployed it into another machine.

but, if you compare the "EFFORT" between both, it is clearly the copy the whole directory and place it into another pc wins. so easy.
Post 11 Jan 2010, 17:44
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Exactly. It's an extremely intuitive and modular plug-and-play approach just like people used to do it with hardware "tools", obviously software being a LOT more convenient.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 11 Jan 2010, 18:30
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
Borsuc, repeating the same ideas on and on won't make them truer. So I'll stop replying to your mere reformulations of these ideas that are based on your own, personal, subjective preferences instead of any practical application.

When I prove to you it only takes very simple and basic commands (e.g. for deinstalling an application) to do what you want, you still tell me it's counter-intuitive, *and* consciously overlook all the times I also told you there are graphical tools for doing the exact same thing.

I already told you that you *can* make your "portable applications" under *nix systems, but oops you didn't even care to quote that, because all you've been doing here, and all you want to keep doing, is to criticize things you barely (if at all) know and try to convince people that what they've been using for years, sucks in reality (yours).

To end this pointless discussion, I'll point out that 1) *you* are the one constantly saying you hate *nix systems, what they look like, what they do, and how they do it, and 2) you accuse me of hating Windows and spreading this hate when I never said I hate Windows, and I don't, and I've been using it since 3.0 on 33Mhz machines. I know better than do what *you* always do.

And BTW I'm not a "Linux guy".
Post 11 Jan 2010, 19:23
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17348
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
There is a scenario where centralised settings are essential. Multi-user systems. If you use the program folder for all settings then every user has to accept the same settings. Clearly not desirable. But if you set up the system properly with separate user folders then local settings are great and nobody has to accept common settings that someone else changed.

However I don't see this as a Windows-vs-Linux argument. Since Windows fully supports central settings and user local settings just as Linux does. However, Windows encourages using the crappy registry which is a huge mistake IMO. The registry idea might be fine for system stuff to stop casual Joe's from messing things up, but for user stuff there is no justification for the use of the registry.
Post 11 Jan 2010, 19:33
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
@ManOfSteel: Ok, we were talking about different contexts. My context wasn't you or your preferences, it was to the *unix guys all over (including mac) when wondering why most people say it's less intuitive than Windows, and such.

By the way, with that deinstalling command you posted, there's nothing intuitive about it. Sure it may be fast to do, or copy-pasted, but seriously make the distinction, there's nothing intuitive about it. In fact a different system. Intuitiveness is universal, it's not different from system to system in CONCEPT.

Put a child who has never touched Linux OR Windows in his life, and you'll see, he CAN point and select with the mouse after fiddling with it (without going to "man" pages), it's just a very logical way that humans think intuitively that way. It was the whole reason the mouse was even invented, but even BEFORE that, arrows-selection was the superior intuitive mode -- and it's actually true even in other devices, like digital cameras and such. Do you honestly think that typing arbitrary commands is more intuitive, you would necessarily have to look and read something to understand it -- Not intuitive at all. I used my digital camera without reading the manual at first, if you want to know what intuitive "selection" is. And then, what else to do for deleting it?

Well, if a button called "delete" wouldn't do the job, the system wouldn't be intuitive. But it is. Razz

revolution wrote:
There is a scenario where centralised settings are essential. Multi-user systems.
Or servers... but again not the point. If Linux wants a higher market share for normal desktop usage it should drop that approach -- before Windows becomes Linux (the way it's heading, with UAC and shit Mad).

revolution wrote:
However I don't see this as a Windows-vs-Linux argument. Since Windows fully supports central settings and user local settings just as Linux does. However, Windows encourages using the crappy registry which is a huge mistake IMO. The registry idea might be fine for system stuff to stop casual Joe's from messing things up, but for user stuff there is no justification for the use of the registry.
Yes of course Windows is much worse with the registry but like I said before, it gave me the option to redirect it (via a third-party app obviously) to a file near the app executable. This concept in Linux seems very foreign. I mean the "PortableApps" concept.

Linux always boasts about how good it is for servers and other such things on the net, but seriously, when people criticize Linux, it's because of its DESKTOP capabilities and intuitiveness, not freaking server usage.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 11 Jan 2010, 20:45
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17348
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Borsuc wrote:
Linux always boasts about how good it is for servers and other such things on the net, but seriously, when people criticize Linux, it's because of its DESKTOP capabilities and intuitiveness, not freaking server usage.
I criticise Linux for not running on my system, not because of desktop-anything. And until the manufacturers start writing Linux drivers as a matter of standard procedure then Linux is doomed to be a minority player forever. Will we ever see a Blu-Ray player on Linux? I doubt it. Hollywood will never allow it.
Post 11 Jan 2010, 20:58
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
booter



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 67
booter
ManOfSteel wrote:
revolution wrote:
It's all in the name of "security"

But not only. It also brings order and less clutter. Everything is organized in a hierarchy. And when you open your home directory, all you see are your work/personal files and your applications customized configuration (or not, since they're hidden by default). Isn't that logical?

revolution wrote:
Much better for apps to have access to all the settings of every other app and mess up your configs but not mess up your bins

But they don't do that either. I've never seen any "buggy" application removing, moving or otherwise corrupting another application's settings, e.g. Xinit ($HOME/.xinitrc) messing up FVWM's settings ($HOME/.fvwm/*) or mplayer's ($HOME/.mplayer/*) or vice versa.

1. The less hierarchy the better.
- It's more natural to scroll through the list then navigate the tree.
- With hierarchy you have to remember where to go, which is frustrating.
- nix distros have different hierarchy and can't agree which is better.
2. Every application should be treated as potentially dangerous.
- It may be infected with virus.
- It may be intentionally designed to spy on you.
- It may spread malware.
- It may change your custom settings for its own needs.
3. On Windows, requirement of installation means eather intention to hide something from end-user or laziness of application developer. On nix we also have necessity to deal with "system customs" Smile
4. When one application can intentionally or by mistake harm another in any way we should consider it lack of security. When user can't control what every particular application can do it's even more dangerous. In 70s we could think of applications as a "good guys" that came from our friends developers. Today it's totally untrue. You have to be extremely careful not to damage your system with any new stuff (yes, including bug fixes and security updates).
5. Virtualization at application level (also called snadboxing) does not create additional level. It just creates one "by-application" level. No "hierarchy" is required/desired/supported/used... whatever - just plain list of application directories (though of course, you can create some directory structure to categorize them at your own discretion).
6. Sharing components between applications should be avoided (unless full backward compatibility is provided).
Couple good examples:
- In Oracle DB setup you can specify what version it should behave like.
- WinSock allows you to specify the version to behave like at initialization.
Bad examples:
- Different versions of Windows C runtime DLLs are incompatible, which led to SXS insanity.
- In Linux (CentOS, as I remember) when I tried to install a packege it requested massive upgrades, but they could not go through because of some incompatibilities, etc. etc.

Suppose you have two applications one requires "old" shared component, but the other needs a "new" one. In windows I would just put the "old" one to the directory of the app that needs it and the "new" to another one. What would you do in such situation with nix?
Note: lately MS came up with "centralized" SXS approach, which creates a lot of problems for users, but simplifies MS "servicing" - that's MS name for fixing bugs and security holes.
Post 12 Jan 2010, 00:50
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
But in all seriousness it's pretty obvious why a bottom-up approach (*nix) is pretty dumb. The logical point where to start "scanning" a hierarchical tree is from the top, from the head, because there's only one node (or multiple, but in that case, the two heads don't interact with one another in lower nodes...). On the other hand to scan from the bottom you have to remember the nodes, AND need more recursion if doing it automatically (rather than a human).

Though I know of no one who actually starts to look at a hierarchical tree from the bottom for "readability" or intuitiveness. Even "modular design" is much easier to grasp the meaning of if you start with top-down approach. I mean, that's what the 'schematics' are for in documentation -- top-down approach.

In other words, *nix system is not immediately precise when you look. You may not even know exactly where (on what device etc) a file is. Dumb.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 12 Jan 2010, 17:51
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Rookie



Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 44
Location: Planet Romania
Rookie
Having everything (apps+settings) in one place would mean either
a) no multi-user environment
or
b) having multiple copies of the binaries, one for each user
Whichever the case, it would make for a very poor and costly corporate/working environment OS.

As far as the file system structure goes, you're just nitpicking. You prefer your files grouped by purpose. Windows has them grouped by function (settings go to the registry, data files go to appdata, binaries to program files etc). And Linux, as already mentioned, has them grouped by type. You can find strengths and weaknesses for each one and each one is pretty intuitive in it's own way. And you can have your way on Linux as well. Just put all the files of a certain app in /programs/appanme then symlink them to where it expects them to be, the same way you said you're redirecting them on Windows.

Although I've been a heavy Windows user since I stopped being a heavy DOS user, I much prefer the unified approach of Linux. In Windows you have fixed drives, removable drives, optical drives etc. Let's say you have an "internal" hdd attached to your mobo's sata controller and an "external" hdd, which is identical to the internal one, but uses a sata-usb adaptor for connection. Both are NTFS formatted. You'll be able to defrag (or use some other tools) the "internal" one, but not the external one, because that one gets flagged as removable. Nevermind working with virtual drives - you need 3rd party tools for that.

Not the case for Linux. You get all your devices in /dev (so you know where to look for them), and it doesn't really care if you're fsck-ing your camera's SD card or a 24TB attached RAID array. Need a drive image mounted? Use its path instead of a drive's one with the mount command then, and it will now be treated as a block device instead of a regular file. And sometimes it's just as easy the other way around, using a devices as a regular file.

And this doesn't hurt the modularity at all. Insert a new storage device, on Windows you'll get the partitions as very "intuitive" drives letters under the corresponding storage device category, as already mentioned. But on Linux, you get /dev/sdc for example. Need to access its third partition? It's on /dev/sdc3. Wait, didn't you say you'd like something like that on Windows? Smile

Back to the OP, I can understand not wanting to port your application to a different OS, but this one seems to be for all the wrong reasons. The different architecture may cripple the functionality, hardware and human costs for testing and offering support might be prohibitive etc. But not letting me use his applications on my OS of choice not only reduces the possible userbase, by a great number in Windows' case, but it also limits the freedom he so much values and advocates. It's actually going the Microsoft way, forcing you to use the OS [version] they want you to for a certain app.
Post 13 Jan 2010, 07:05
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Rookie wrote:
As far as the file system structure goes, you're just nitpicking. You prefer your files grouped by purpose. Windows has them grouped by function (settings go to the registry, data files go to appdata, binaries to program files etc). And Linux, as already mentioned, has them grouped by type. You can find strengths and weaknesses for each one and each one is pretty intuitive in it's own way. And you can have your way on Linux as well. Just put all the files of a certain app in /programs/appanme then symlink them to where it expects them to be, the same way you said you're redirecting them on Windows.
But isn't a symlink dependent on the system in question? Or is the symlink part of the app? You see, my redirection under Windows does not need to be configured for the system, it's configured in the application -- i.e I can launch it from a USB drive on a computer which is certainly not configured. That's what I want, to be part of the app.

Configuring the system to suits my needs is not what I want. The apps should be configured by themselves, so that when doing a fresh install, or using them from a USB drive, I don't have to reconfigure my system yet again.

Rookie wrote:
Although I've been a heavy Windows user since I stopped being a heavy DOS user, I much prefer the unified approach of Linux. In Windows you have fixed drives, removable drives, optical drives etc. Let's say you have an "internal" hdd attached to your mobo's sata controller and an "external" hdd, which is identical to the internal one, but uses a sata-usb adaptor for connection. Both are NTFS formatted. You'll be able to defrag (or use some other tools) the "internal" one, but not the external one, because that one gets flagged as removable. Nevermind working with virtual drives - you need 3rd party tools for that.
But that's not the fault of Windows OS itself it's the fault of the programs it comes with, the defrag tool being pretty weak. That's not an argument against Windows, there are free defragmenters out there that work with any drive. Wink

Rookie wrote:
Not the case for Linux. You get all your devices in /dev (so you know where to look for them), and it doesn't really care if you're fsck-ing your camera's SD card or a 24TB attached RAID array. Need a drive image mounted? Use its path instead of a drive's one with the mount command then, and it will now be treated as a block device instead of a regular file. And sometimes it's just as easy the other way around, using a devices as a regular file.

And this doesn't hurt the modularity at all. Insert a new storage device, on Windows you'll get the partitions as very "intuitive" drives letters under the corresponding storage device category, as already mentioned. But on Linux, you get /dev/sdc for example. Need to access its third partition? It's on /dev/sdc3. Wait, didn't you say you'd like something like that on Windows? Smile
I agree that drive letters aren't particularly intuitive (and never said they were) but typing the device name manually when mounting is a PITA too -- of course you don't need to do that under Linux but then it wouldn't be descriptive -- wouldn't it look like 'hdd0' 'hdd1' and such? Not that different from drive letters.

Just a question. Does the 'dev/hddx' folder include all the files on the respective hard drive just like in Windows? Because if so, then is it possible to configure the Linux system to be, for user usage (not admin) display ONLY the dev folder with 'hddx' being a drive letter (of course I don't want a drive letter, I prefer a more descriptive name like in Linux), so that I can use them logically like in Windows?

Something like this being the hierarchy:

Code:
hdd0
    \
     folder1
            \
             file1
             file2
             ...
     folder2
     folder3

hdd1
    \
     ...    
this would be like in Windows.

is this possible? If so, then it sucks much less -- although still you can't redirect the $home$ thing via the app itself (not the system) Sad

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 13 Jan 2010, 16:33
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8975
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
now another question pops up,
should the OS be seperated to 2 kind,
multi user and single user?
nowadays, most people own their own pc/laptop and use it under single account only. so, should OS be built based on single or multi user separately?
Post 13 Jan 2010, 18:49
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Rookie



Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 44
Location: Planet Romania
Rookie
Borsuc, do yourself a favor and try a LiveCD distro. Knoppix is quite popular on our home planet so it won't be a problem finding a fast mirror and for me it ran smoothly out of the box on most systems I threw at it. And if you wish to and choose to do so, it can commit any configuration changes you have made to a location you specify, so you can use these on a different system. Or you could try Ubuntu, which to me seemed to be quite easy on the Windows user (never tried it myself, but I know quite a lot of people that gave up Windows only after trying Ubuntu). 30-40mins/day doing trivial stuff will answer you a lot of questions. Smile



My vote goes definitely to multi-user OS. You use a single interactive account, but if you open up taskmgr in Windows, for example, you'll see the processes running under various users, like Local Service and Network Service. This helps security a lot, as you don't have to run all your services and applications under a single account that has to be all-powerful on that system so everything can work properly. You give each process just the privileges and system access it needs to worky.

_________________
This is who I choose to be.
Post 13 Jan 2010, 22:17
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Rookie wrote:
Borsuc, do yourself a favor and try a LiveCD distro. Knoppix is quite popular on our home planet so it won't be a problem finding a fast mirror and for me it ran smoothly out of the box on most systems I threw at it. And if you wish to and choose to do so, it can commit any configuration changes you have made to a location you specify, so you can use these on a different system. Or you could try Ubuntu, which to me seemed to be quite easy on the Windows user (never tried it myself, but I know quite a lot of people that gave up Windows only after trying Ubuntu). 30-40mins/day doing trivial stuff will answer you a lot of questions. Smile
The problem is that I'm very worked up at the moment, don't think I have time for that. Sad

hmm but you still have to point it to the new config file, or does simply launching the app (or some shell code) do that for you? Basically what I'm asking for is something simple and plug-and-playable like, let's say, putting a removable media (USB stick, etc) and instantly go browse through it, and double click/enter on selection to launch the app -- obviously redirected. I don't mind if it's a batch script, as that's what I'm using in Windows too. I think it's possible right?

Here's an example under Windows if it used environment variables (but most apps don't so I have to use a third-party tool for redirection, but whatever):

Code:
@echo off
set HOME=%~dp0settings
start "program" "%~dp0program.exe" %*    
this redirects "HOME" to a subdir 'settings' in the app's folder. (of course there's no HOME env var in Windows, but you get the point)

If that's possible, then it's cool. Also, how is the hierarchy inside the 'dev' folders? Is it top-down like I described (like in Windows)? Thanks!

Rookie wrote:
My vote goes definitely to multi-user OS. You use a single interactive account, but if you open up taskmgr in Windows, for example, you'll see the processes running under various users, like Local Service and Network Service. This helps security a lot, as you don't have to run all your services and applications under a single account that has to be all-powerful on that system so everything can work properly. You give each process just the privileges and system access it needs to worky.
Well I'd say that's pretty manual and old security -- I much prefer sandboxes as a much modern security model in comparison, or for the really lazy, antiviruses. (which I hate, because they waste resources, but hey at least they're automatic even if crap).

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 13 Jan 2010, 22:41
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
booter



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 67
booter
Rookie wrote:
Having everything (apps+settings) in one place would mean either
a) no multi-user environment
or
b) having multiple copies of the binaries, one for each user
Whichever the case, it would make for a very poor and costly corporate/working environment OS.

There are at least 4 ways to deal with this:
- All users use same settings (very common case)
- Application provides per-user settings
- Application may be started from user's direcory, where its setting located (mostly network-installed apps)
- Application has its own "user accounts" and its own login procedure (mostly for high-security stuff and web applications)
Rookie wrote:
(settings go to the registry, data files go to appdata, binaries to program files etc).
That's what "decent" applications never do Smile
Rookie wrote:
But on Linux, you get /dev/sdc for example. Need to access its third partition? It's on /dev/sdc3. Wait, didn't you say you'd like something like that on Windows? Smile
I have it with \\.\PHYSICALDRIVE
Post 14 Jan 2010, 04:08
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Please, one of the worst possible things to ever have been invented is the registry, then the appdata folder (talking about Windows, obviously!). Settings only "go" there if you want to make your apps more PITA than easy-to-use. Can't say I'm a fan of that.

But please can someone answer how is the hierarchy inside the 'dev' folder under Linux? I mean inside a specific device -- is it like in Windows? i.e you see the folders of a drive like in Windows, top-down? I hope so, that would make Linux a lot more appealing to me Smile
Post 14 Jan 2010, 15:17
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
mattst88



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 260
Location: South Carolina
mattst88
Borsuc wrote:
But that's not the fault of Windows OS itself it's the fault of the programs


Just like where config files are stored isn't the "fault" of Linux.

You're making a simple issue political. Stop it.

An issue that doesn't have a right answer, I might add.

_________________
My x86 Instruction Reference -- includes SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4 instructions.
Assembly Programmer's Journal
Post 14 Jan 2010, 21:40
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
mattst88 wrote:
Just like where config files are stored isn't the "fault" of Linux.
and the solution is?

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 14 Jan 2010, 23:19
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.