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
r22



Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 805
r22
@Borsuc
I think you have a valid point about the culture of Linux. But isn't this a bi-product of it's freedom being open source. Many people work on Linux, so in their efforts to keep everything consistent they stick to archaic standards that may not be practical now. The reflection is Windows development is the chaotic (as opposed to archaic) where some software uses the registry or INI files or CONFIG files or DAT files and sometimes DLLs are installed in the system directory or in the software's directory.

I make my parents use Linux (less *fixing* spyware/toolbars for me). Only annoyance I've had with Linux is freaking WiFi USB dongle support.
I use Win XP 64bit I went from an Apple2e -> Win 3.1 -> Win95/98 -> XP. Growing up with Windows I find it hard to adapt to Linux, but the new Win7 interface scares me as well (I totally ignored Vista, like luddite)
I work with ASP.NET/MS SQL Server, and C/C++ on embedded Linux (2.4.?? kernel)
Post 10 Jan 2010, 01:44
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Reply with quote
Tyler



Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 1216
Location: NC, USA
Tyler
r22 wrote:

where some software uses the registry or INI files or CONFIG files or DAT files and sometimes DLLs are installed in the system directory or in the software's directory.

C:\ProgramData\ = 3.5GB
C:\Users\Tyler\AppData\ = 2.92GB
And probably another 10GB in .ini files
Post 10 Jan 2010, 02:12
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
f0dder wrote:
Opening a file to examine it's type == slower than looking at file extension

True, but not enough to be a PITA. 2 seconds or so for a directory containing thousands of files on a relatively old machine is not that bad.

f0dder wrote:
and doesn't MIME only map extension->contenttype?

Yes it does, but I was rather talking about something like the FreeDesktop.Org's shared-mime-info:
Quote:

[...] examining the file's name or contents, and looking up the correct MIME type in a database.
[...]
A way for applications to extend the rules for guessing the type of a file:
[...]
Files with <html> near the start are text/html files.

There's also mime-actions which extends the shared-mime-info.

f0dder wrote:
Which means you can execute the .png as an executable, whereas on Windows you'd have your graphics program launched which would then bitch about unsupported format

But perhaps (some miracle hehe) users will notice that something is wrong and won't even open the file when they see the usual icon for images (or a thumbnail) is not displayed and the icon for applications is displayed instead.
And as I said some file managers behave just like Windows Explorer.

f0dder wrote:
Yeah, obviously - but "ls *.sh" would give me all shell scripts in a folder without having to examine their contents. Of course you can have +x files colored differently, and there's probably a ls option to show only those, but then you get both scripts and executables...

I've never been in such situation, but I guess something like grep -rli '#\!/bin/sh' * should return fairly accurate results.

f0dder wrote:
Is this supported to be a readable file, test data, some binary format, ... - the "file" tool can of course identify some of this, but I really do think file extensions are more convenient, easier to sort by, easier to locate-search for, etc. There's no reason you can't mix extensions and content-detection, if you so desire

Hmm, how about find * | file -f -? And nothing's preventing you from piping that again to awk, sed, sort, etc. I guess there are 2 constraints here: the users' knowledge of unix utilities and their imagination. Very Happy

f0dder wrote:
Yeah, I know - and you have to get the case right.

Which is very easy IMO. All this becomes so natural in no time! And you can even get the different alternatives available in the entire $PATH.

f0dder wrote:
While Windows' cmd.exe is handicapped compared to bash, I think it's autocomplete with ability to cycle between suggestions (rather than displaying possible matches) is a lot nicer.

Oh, you mean like binding the up and down arrows to the complete-word-fwd and complete-word-back editor commands in the C shell, for example? Wink
Anyway, I don't use that because it would take much more time to cycle through the entire list. When I need to autocomplete, I just type the first one or two characters, display suggestions with ^D and add characters from there, and finally autocomplete it with TAB.

f0dder wrote:
but it's slightly more efficient to test for a filemask to list all hidden folders

But I fail to see the practical relevance of such an exercise. What's so interesting in a list of completely unrelated configuration and caching files and directories in a user's home directory? The only possible practical application of this could be... a spyware? Hmm...

f0dder wrote:
Also, I think owner/group/world r/w/x permissions is pretty inflexible, and that NT-style (well, VMS-style) ACLs is a better idea

This security model has be working fine for decades now and is still usable in 2010 IMO. Besides it has been extended countless times on different systems. Many *nix systems also support ACLs and many more.

f0dder wrote:
lagging window resize isn't the display driver but the widget toolkit logic and/or the X11 protocol

If your video card driver supports acceleration and you keep things lightweight, it'll work flawlessly even on old hardware. And if you have a machine younger than 5 years you could even run KDE without any lag.

f0dder wrote:
and the documentation is sub-par (manpages suck, really. And there's not always HTML versions, and when there are they're often pretty horribly formatted... and often the docs are insanely out of sync with the code).

On some (or most?) GNU/Linux distros maybe. But *BSD (the entire family) documentation is excellent and way more helpful than "Windows help", which should more properly be renamed "Basic Windows troubleshooting for the mentally challenged". It's kept up to date. The handbook, man pages and the numerous articles are very informative and well written. Books and articles are widely translated and are available in many formats, from HTML, to PDF, to PS, to plaintext, etc. and man pages are available online.

f0dder wrote:
Then there's the issue of pretty much every application have it's own config file format, whereas the registry on Windows is pretty unified

Yes, there would be more order if application configurations were standardized. But I don't think it's such a big problem. Besides, most are very simple, flat, plain text configurations. Windows' .ini files were not so bad compared to that obese, cripple mess called the registry.

f0dder wrote:
you better remember the right configure flags otherwise there's no telling which folder-prefixes are used and where configuration files are stored.

The buildtime configuration process is fairly well documented in general and even *relatively* easy.
Post 10 Jan 2010, 02:34
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
Borsuc wrote:

I'm tired of this response from people in any related field or whatever. First they ask for arguments for criticism, then they dismiss the argument as "who needs it anyway?"

You see, when people say that Linux is still "old" with the command line interface ONLY they are not right at all. But when I say that the hierarchy is still archaic and I assume unable to be renamed, that's true. Or so it seems.

I take it you're not such a huge fan of the Unix directory structure and you officially declared it to be archaic. But the point you're trying to make up here ^ is so ambiguous that I'm completely unable to get it. Sorry, does not compute.


Borsuc wrote:
Why won't you admit it, Linux is still stuck in the past with certain things -- Windows is too, but not with this. And you know what, at least I admit it.

So? Is this a Me too! game or what? You admit the system you use is <whatever criticism you're making>? Why should I even contemplate doing the same if the system I use does everything I need the way I need it, and its "file naming policy" bothers me as much as the color of my desk, that is, not at all?

Yes, I admit it: the system that satisfies me everyday does not satisfy me and is horribly outdated in its concept, design and implementation.
You satisfied? Hmm, that sounded quite convoluted and totally dishonest. I'll try to do better next time.


Borsuc wrote:
You know, even if NTFS has ugly intestines they do not MANIFEST on application directories -- I didn't see a folder named CLSID on ANY app that I have.

And your point is?
The *nix filesystems are completely transparent and don't ever hide *anything* from the user, yet I've never witnessed anything shocking while browsing my disks contents, if that's what you're implying.


Borsuc wrote:
Actually you can have more, you can have any char, or so I read somewhere (unlike in Windows where some characters are not allowed, like ':').

Yeah any character is allowed and can be escaped to avoid confusing the shell. But I was just replying, if I'm still allowed to do that...


Borsuc wrote:
But that's not what I asked, I was talking about the "culture" not the technical capability. Linux is very capable, but the culture drags it down. At least for me.

What fucking culture? The only "culture" there is, is open-source and far from being some imaginary religion of the St. Stallman Church, it's a purely technical, pragmatic and utilitarian "culture" (or shall I say business strategy).
There are many organizations funding and developing *nix systems, some of them are actually for-profit big-bucks corporations, and they keep many of the decades-old Unix concepts simply because they still work very well for their users (and clients).
Post 10 Jan 2010, 02:35
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
r22 wrote:
Only annoyance I've had with Linux is freaking WiFi USB dongle support.

One of the results of the lack of open standards, and the high levels of secrecy and paranoia in the wireless industry.
Post 10 Jan 2010, 02:45
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
Tyler wrote:
C:\ProgramData\ = 3.5GB
C:\Users\Tyler\AppData\ = 2.92GB
And probably another 10GB in .ini files

*ahem*
Code:
%df -h
Filesystem     Size    Used   Avail Capacity  Mounted on
/dev/ad0s3a    248M    174M     54M    76%    /
/dev/ad0s3g    989M    248M    661M    27%    /home
/dev/ad0s3d    248M    140K    228M     0%    /tmp
/dev/ad0s3f    5.3G    1.4G    3.5G    29%    /usr
/dev/ad0s3e    496M     75M    381M    16%    /var
    
Post 10 Jan 2010, 02:49
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
booter



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 67
booter
As ManOfSteel noted: "Instead of being organized by name, it's organized by type" may be the main cause of users having problems with Linux. In windows (in a simple case) you deal with just plain list of files without any structure of directories involved. That's easy and comfortable.

Another thing - a simple principal of system quality: user should be able to do complete system maintenance with GUI tools. If your OS does not provide this capability its quality is "below common industry standards". Period. If you don't have manpower to do it, don't spread your crappy stuff Smile I'm perfectly fine with command line utilities, plus I consider each OS control function should be implemented as both GUI and command line tool, but nowdays GUI is commonly considered as imperative requirement because it's easier for less experienced users.

Talking about Windows vs Linux culture, compare 3rd party applications native to each system and you'll see that Windows community cares about user convenience much more, including documentation, UI, etc.
GNU/Linux community may be too self-oriented to raise their creations up to the level of end-user demands Sad

People are willing to pay for their convenience (the whole our civilization is all about that). If windows is more convenient it wins. End of story.
Post 10 Jan 2010, 04:43
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
booter wrote:
"Instead of being organized by name, it's organized by type" may be the main cause of users having problems

You clearly haven't read the entire post. Users don't even need to care about the organization if they think it's too complicated for their limited knowledge. Running an application is as simple as typing it's name and getting help is as simple as typing that same name preceded by man. So it's even easier than under Windows, which also doesn't always have proper documentation when you need it.
And for idiots who can't even do that, the desktop environments that ship with the majority of GNU/Linux distros have those .desktop files which are the equivalent of the directories stored in Start > Programs in Windows.


booter wrote:
you deal with just plain list of files without any structure of directories involved

Sure... if you overlook the fact that any program that is more complex than a small game or utility will still store many things outside the program's directory, for instance in the registry, and this knowledge (which is still beyond your average user) can often be crucial!
For example, I once noticed WinRAR has a "settings bug". It crashes then I can't run it anymore unless, as I discovered, I delete the entire (corrupt) configuration. Reinstalling does not solve the problem. The configuration is hidden from the user (in the registry, in HKCU), so the inability to use the application for your average user means either ditching the application that costs 29$ or paying some tech guys who will probably only bother formatting and reinstalling Windows and WinRAR. I've seen countless similar cases under Windows. And zero under FreeBSD.
User friendliness? Boo f*****g hoo.


booter wrote:
user should be able to do complete system maintenance with GUI tools

AFAIK, in systems that *claim* to be targeted to desktop users and be user-friendly, there *is* complete use and maintenance with GUI tools, from the auto-detection of hardware, to the installation and removal of applications, to the configuration of the desktop environment components, etc.


booter wrote:
If your OS does not provide this capability its quality is "below common industry standards". Period. If you don't have manpower to do it, don't spread your crappy stuff

Many systems don't even *pretend* to be user friendly since they're mostly targeted at production systems, and these don't have any graphical component since no one *in that industry* wants or needs it.
But their flexibility is stunning and clearly far above the average. They're not crappy. They're far superior if the user is up to it. Maybe it's the user that's inferior. After all, a computer is a much more complex machine than a car radio, and many people can't even use their car radio without RTFM.
Yeah, don't forget to publish what I just said in your favorite tabloid.


booter wrote:
compare 3rd party applications native to each system and you'll see that Windows community cares about user convenience much more, including documentation, UI, etc.

Never noticed that. At least it's not shockingly noticeable. To begin with, Windows' documentation is crappy and totally useless when you *really* have a problem that is more complex than trying to print without having your printer plugged or not knowing how to play Minesweeper.
And many applications (including very expensive commercial ones) don't even have documentation or it's only available online (very annoying IMO), or when it's available, it's as crappy and totally useless as Windows' documentation.


booter wrote:
People are willing to pay for their convenience (the whole our civilization is all about that). If windows is more convenient it wins.

Yes, and I've argued more than once that user-friendliness (and convenience) is incompatible with quality (flexibility, stability, robustness, security, etc.)


booter wrote:
End of story.

Amen.
Post 10 Jan 2010, 11:43
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
ManOfSteel wrote:
Users don't even need to care about the organization if they think it's too complicated for their limited knowledge. Running an application is as simple as typing it's name and getting help is as simple as typing that same name preceded by man.
oh so Linux by default has a PATH environment variable for every app, when it's what I want to AVOID in Windows.

Also, I want to click or select apps with the arrows, not "type" Smile

And no, I don't use the explorer start menu... neither the crappy Windows Explorer file manager (but the awesome Total Commander), and most times I launch apps by going to their very neatly organized folders the way I freaking want, not the system and select them, and pressing enter.

I hate the "Application Data" in Windows or "home" directory in Linux. I hate the registry. I hate centralized-fucking settings where OTHERS decide where and how to put it, others arrange MY system.

I've even disassembled many apps to redirect their fucking "Application Data" storage to the app folder.

Can you redirect the "home" dir in Linux per app and store the settings in a subfolder of said app?

ManOfSteel wrote:
Sure... if you overlook the fact that any program that is more complex than a small game or utility will still store many things outside the program's directory, for instance in the registry, and this knowledge (which is still beyond your average user) can often be crucial!
For example, I once noticed WinRAR has a "settings bug". It crashes then I can't run it anymore unless, as I discovered, I delete the entire (corrupt) configuration. Reinstalling does not solve the problem. The configuration is hidden from the user (in the registry, in HKCU), so the inability to use the application for your average user means either ditching the application that costs 29$ or paying some tech guys who will probably only bother formatting and reinstalling Windows and WinRAR. I've seen countless similar cases under Windows. And zero under FreeBSD.
User friendliness? Boo f*****g hoo.
I redirect the registry to a file in the application folder with jauntePE and set it to read-only. Never have such problem.

And yes, the registry and the AppData folders and such are the biggest piece of crap EVER to be invented AGAINST ease-of-use. I've seen things that go against ease of use before but never to this scale.

ManOfSteel wrote:
After all, a computer is a much more complex machine than a car radio, and many people can't even use their car radio without RTFM.
Yeah, don't forget to publish what I just said in your favorite tabloid.
I disagree completely. Computers are definitely much more complex but software is ALWAYS more intuitive than hardware. In fact that's how you judge how intuitive an app is, if it's simple to understand if you fiddle around with it for 3 hours or so the first time and "get it" how MOST of it works.

ManOfSteel wrote:
Yes, and I've argued more than once that user-friendliness (and convenience) is incompatible with quality (flexibility, stability, robustness, security, etc.)
Fortunately there are also user-friendly ways that can automate the latter with a bit of customization by the user, which is what I did.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 10 Jan 2010, 18:53
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
Borsuc wrote:
oh so Linux by default has a PATH environment variable for every app, when it's what I want to AVOID in Windows.

*nix systems have a PATH environment variable and applications (e.g. the shell) use it to locate executables, yes. Anything wrong with that? I'd like to hear about your better alternative.
Oh and you can always use absolute paths if it satisfies your bizarre requirements.


Borsuc wrote:
Also, I want to click or select apps with the arrows, not "type"

These are available only on Tuesdays, Fridays and Saturdays from 8.30 p.m. to 5 a.m. Rolling Eyes


Borsuc wrote:
I hate the [...] "home" directory in Linux.

Don't use it... I mean the home directory... or both.


Borsuc wrote:
I hate centralized-fucking settings

Why all the bolded hate speech? Anyway, centralization means order, like having all your stuff in closets instead of disseminated throughout the house. But if you don't like it, what can I say.


Borsuc wrote:
Can you redirect the "home" dir in Linux per app and store the settings in a subfolder of said app?

Not really, since most of the filesystem is read-only. You can "redirect" (symlink) things but not there, logically. You must be looking for an OS called Windows 3.x or Windows 95. What's incredible is that you were trying to convince me that the Unix directory structure is an archaic concept.

I guess you could install all your applications in your home directory or any another location and symlink settings to these sub directories of yours. But I must say this is totally weird.


Borsuc wrote:
Fortunately there are also user-friendly ways that can automate the latter with a bit of customization by the user, which is what I did.

You circumvented a badly designed system / Bad Idea (tm). You made the annoying into more bearable. That's not really what I meant by the criteria of quality I mentioned. Honey-coating dung does not make it into a delicious cake.

There are criteria such as stability that can be fulfilled technically without user intervention. But taking advantage of the flexibility of a system or truly implementing and maintaining security requires more knowledge and experience than people like to think. And a system that has a steep learning curve is user-unfriendly by definition.
I've never used, seen, or heard of a system that marries both extremes, but you are free to prove me wrong... practically.
Post 10 Jan 2010, 22:12
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
ManOfSteel wrote:
*nix systems have a PATH environment variable and applications (e.g. the shell) use it to locate executables, yes. Anything wrong with that? I'd like to hear about your better alternative.
Oh and you can always use absolute paths if it satisfies your bizarre requirements.
No I simply meant to exclude them from PATH -- that is, not accidentally running an exe by typing it (or even duplicates).

ManOfSteel wrote:
Don't use it... I mean the home directory... or both.
I could be wrong, but apps use it without my permission and most don't allow me to specify in the options where to select the settings folder.

ManOfSteel wrote:
Why all the bolded hate speech? Anyway, centralization means order, like having all your stuff in closets instead of disseminated throughout the house. But if you don't like it, what can I say.
Are you joking? Smile

The whole reason I hate it is because of CHAOS. Settings and the app are scattered in two different folders.

Here's an example. If I take my apps with me on a USB stick or other media, I have to do TWO fucking copies, and it won't even run from the USB drive directly obviously, I'll first have to COPY the settings to the fucking "centralized" folder on the new machine.

Pure annoyance, unfriendliness and chaos.

See my point?

Also, when upgrading to a new hard drive, I simply have to do one copy, of the folder "Programs" to have them all back -- perfectly ordered and easy. Also, when I want to uninstall an app, I simply delete its folder -- and that's it. But obviously in your "ordered" case I have to dig up TWO fucking folders, or even the registry in Windows, to do it. Rolling Eyes

ManOfSteel wrote:
Not really, since most of the filesystem is read-only. You can "redirect" (symlink) things but not there, logically.
Ok here's a simple question. Does Linux even give you the freaking OPTION to put files wherever you want -- I don't care about that "user rights" security crap, I use sandboxes. Therefore, does Linux give you the OPTION to, let's say, make your own folder (like say "Programs", wherever you want -- with the exception of the "hardcoded" folder names, I don't care about those) and then put there ANYTHING YOU WANT, and yes, that means write-able or read-only or anything YOU choose?

This is another case why Linux might suck, depending on your answer: you can't customize it the way YOU want.

Example: I put everything on the D: drive (partition) and all the Windows default folders on C:. This allows me to completely IGNORE the "default folders" and only show MINE the way I want -- i.e only those on the D: drive (partition), in this case. Is it so much to ask from Linux?

I don't care about dev, about home, about usr, about lib, about etc, about "Windows", about "Documents and Settings" or "Users" or whatever, and such and such -- unless obviously I have to modify some system configuration there (but that's rarely). I don't even want to see them on normal usage. Is it so much to ask?

ManOfSteel wrote:
You must be looking for an OS called Windows 3.x or Windows 95. What's incredible is that you were trying to convince me that the Unix directory structure is an archaic concept.
I think the Unix structure was long before Win95 existed.

ManOfSteel wrote:
You circumvented a badly designed system. You made the annoying into more bearable. That's not really what I meant by the criteria of quality I mentioned. Honey-coating dung does not make it into a delicious cake.
You're right, a badly designed system, but it gave me the flexibility to do it (and obviously without having to dig through source code, proprietary or not Laughing). Does Linux give it to me? Smile (this is an honest question)

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 10 Jan 2010, 22:35
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8904
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Quote:

The whole reason I hate it is because of CHAOS. Settings and the app are scattered in two different folders.

i agree with this.
Post 11 Jan 2010, 00:56
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
booter



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 67
booter
sleepsleep wrote:
Quote:

The whole reason I hate it is because of CHAOS. Settings and the app are scattered in two different folders.

i agree with this.
Me too.
Windows (actually DOS) users are used to an applications "encapsulated" in their respective directories. Such applications are often called "portable" (not inter-OS compatible, but movable from one computer to another).
You can think of such encapsulated application as of separate server that provides some specific functionslity and mostly independent from others.
With this approach: ideally, each application should run on its own virtual machine. BTW, the computer industry is actually going in this direction Smile I see no real reason why nix systems require every application to follow some common (not very distinctive, though) rools instead of just leaving it alone in its own directory.
Post 11 Jan 2010, 08:43
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17287
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
booter wrote:
I see no real reason why nix systems require every application to follow some common (not very distinctive, though) rools instead of just leaving it alone in its own directory.
It's all in the name of "security". We can't have apps having access to things like their own bin folder! All the security would go out the window. 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 for someone that doesn't care about security then this paradigm becomes a stumbling block. Either way, you have to make sacrifices and tradeoffs. If you are used to one particular way then the other way always seems silly.
Post 11 Jan 2010, 08:52
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
Borsuc wrote:
No I simply meant to exclude them from PATH -- that is, not accidentally running an exe by typing it (or even duplicates).

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????


Borsuc wrote:
I could be wrong, but apps use it without my permission and most don't allow me to specify in the options where to select the settings folder.

Still talking about *nix? With all this Windows<->*nix hopping I can't follow you anymore.
Yes, applications quite "awkwardly" save their settings in your home directory. You can symlink files elsewhere if it pleases you.


Borsuc wrote:
The whole reason I hate it is because of CHAOS.

Obviously there's no point in continuing to argue this. You're giving your personal opinion on what seems more natural to you on DOS/Windows, not what's more practical or logical or secure or robust.


Borsuc wrote:
If I take my apps with me on a USB stick or other media

And the point of doing that would be ____? It's not like there are many offices or public Internet access points using *nix systems.
At best what you're describing may only be useful under Windows. Still not of any use for me though, even under Windows, but whatever...


Borsuc wrote:
Also, when upgrading to a new hard drive, I simply have to do one copy, of the folder "Programs" to have them all back -- perfectly ordered and easy.

When moving to a new drive, I'd either clone the partition or copy anything I need and reinstall.
And when I upgrade my system on the same drive, I keep my settings exactly where they are (/home is a separate partition) and download-install the new binaries and manuals. You can't imagine how simple and fast it is.

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.

Besides, OSS projects are (usually) so dynamic there are new versions all the time. Why miss all the bug fixes and improvements, and keep your outdated applications when their whatsnew list is 10 meters long. You're thinking in a Windows/proprietary/commercial way.


Borsuc wrote:
Also, when I want to uninstall an app, I simply delete its folder -- and that's it. But obviously in your "ordered" case I have to dig up TWO fucking folders

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.


Borsuc wrote:
Does Linux even give you the freaking OPTION to put files wherever you want

prefix options of the configure script.


Borsuc wrote:
give you the OPTION to, let's say, make your own folder

I already answered that question in my last post. You should learn to read more carefully.


Borsuc wrote:
Is it so much to ask from Linux?

No.


Borsuc wrote:
I think the Unix structure was long before Win95 existed.

I consider a *hierarchy naming scheme* to be okay and not to be a matter of practical annoyance, but you consider it, for purely personal subjective reasons, to be archaic.
Then you defend, as the Natural Order of Things, a *file organization model* that has been used for the last time more than 15 years ago in a now completely outdated system.
But you still don't notice the contradiction. Okay.
Post 11 Jan 2010, 14:32
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
booter wrote:

Me too.
Windows (actually DOS) users are used to an applications "encapsulated" in their respective directories

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?


booter wrote:
but movable from one computer to another

This is a non-argument. I have more than one machine and if I want/need to, I install the same application on all machines, and only duplicate the settings -- always a single file for small applications or a directory for larger applications -- from my home directory of machine X to my home directory of machine Y. Does that sound too complicated to you?
Besides as I already said in my reply to Borsuc, OSS applications are constantly evolving so this "application briefcase" will be outdated the next time you need it.


booter wrote:
ideally, each application should run on its own virtual machine

You're describing something like chrooting and jailing. These are heavily used for network security on servers. But such additional layer on desktops is a waste of time to setup and a bad use of resources and provides no real advantages on *nix systems which are *already* protected in other ways *by default*.
Post 11 Jan 2010, 15:07
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
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.


Last edited by ManOfSteel on 11 Jan 2010, 15:51; edited 1 time in total
Post 11 Jan 2010, 15:38
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17287
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
FWIW: I think centralised settings are a good thing as long as two conditions are met: 1) all settings/data must be able to be copied with standard file copying tools. and 2) Separate folders for every programs that needs its own stuff.

The Windows registry is the worst possible way to do app configs IMO. It is inscrutable and brittle. Backups are a nightmare. If your registry gets nuked you are screwed and have to reinstall EVERYTHING!

BUT. Centralised configs/data also precludes easy app migration. You have to remember to copy over the configs also each time. But it depends mostly upon how one uses one's computer(s). For itinerant apps central configs are a scourge. For someone that always uses the same computer centralised configs are just fine. Like most things in this world, it depends upon your situation.
Post 11 Jan 2010, 15:51
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
revolution wrote:
centralised settings are a good thing as long as two conditions are met: 1) all settings/data must be able to be copied with standard file copying tools. and 2) Separate folders for every programs that needs its own stuff.

You own your home directory and have read, write and execution permissions over anything under it. Settings (including the shell's and X's) are always separate, single files in your home directory or subdirectories for applications that need more than one file.
IOW they are separate file and directories that can be copied, moved, removed, compressed, transfered through FTP/SSH, by you or root.


revolution wrote:
You have to remember to copy over the configs also each time.

Or just leave them where they are, even during complete system upgrades, by having a separate partition for /home.


Last edited by ManOfSteel on 11 Jan 2010, 16:09; edited 1 time in total
Post 11 Jan 2010, 16:05
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17287
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
ManOfSteel wrote:
Or just leave them where they are, even during complete system upgrades, by having a separate partition for /home.
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.
Post 11 Jan 2010, 16:09
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 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.