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
That 80% thing was just an example Razz

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 28 Dec 2009, 23:31
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
Hi,

I recently received this... seemed rather accurate and on topic. Smile

Image

Sorry for the too-large-pic SPAM but it's just so cool. Very Happy

LP,
Jure
Post 06 Jan 2010, 23:21
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Best is Win Fag's POV of OS X Laughing
Post 06 Jan 2010, 23:59
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
booter



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 67
booter
Linux sucks against Windows (unfortunately).
1. Linux documentation is mostly terrible.
2. The source code is huge making it almost useless.
3. Packaging system is terrible - try to remove what you don't need, such as speech recognition, but keep administrative GUI.
4. Linux distributions (excluding Puppy, DSL, and other very special distros) are bloated.
5. "You can try this" - is typical form of support from their community.
6. The general feeling is like they say to you: "That's the way we like it. You're getting it for free, so you can go f* yourself if you dissatisfied".
7. The quality of UI, helps, docs is just a huge step down against Windows.

Summarizing, in general they just don't bother with perfection because it's much more interesting to go ahead adding new features.
I'm not saying Windows is perfect, but at least it's mature.
I would say the quality standards in Windows community are much higher.
Somehow Linux guys are not very competitive with UI perfection.
How can they show off with these poor UI? (Why else bother yourself with programming, but to show off? Smile )
Finally (again) Linux docs sucks!!!
They are mostly unclear (not step by step instructions) and lack examples.
The worst is that they tell you what you can without giving any clue if you should do it or not and why.
Post 08 Jan 2010, 04:03
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
TmX



Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 821
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
TmX
booter wrote:
Linu
How can they show off with these poor UI?


have you tried Compiz?
that's a good thing, for showing off Wink
Post 08 Jan 2010, 06:02
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Goplat



Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 181
Goplat
The great thing about Linux: It isn't crippleware.

Most 32-bit versions of Windows are limited to 4GB of physical memory for no other reason than to force people to shell out the money to buy the 64-bit version. (The far more expensive 32-bit Windows Server 2008 Enterprise has no such limitation, so this is a deliberate act of sabotage, not simple incompetence.)

But in 64-bit Windows there's mandatory driver signing, which effectively makes it so that only corporations can write code to run in kernel mode; hobbyist programmers (like me) get the shaft. Personally, it's not that often that I feel the need to use drivers that weren't written by a Microsoft-approved company, but it does happen: VDK, a driver to mount a disk image file as if it were an actual drive, comes to mind; it's quite a useful tool for people who use VMs.

I've been using Windows since version 3.1 but I think if >4GB memory becomes the norm, my next computer is going to run Linux... I refuse to have to choose between crippling my computer's performance and crippling my freedom.
Post 08 Jan 2010, 08:29
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
booter wrote:
The source code is huge making it almost useless.

I agree with some things you said, but this one is definitely funny. The application is big, its source code is long, therefore it sucks. That's some rock-solid logic!
And I didn't know you actually had to read the entire source to be able to use the software. That's news to me.

booter wrote:
"You can try this" - is typical form of support from their community.

So they're proposing potential solutions or alternatives? What's wrong with that? What are they supposed to do? Or am I misunderstanding what you mean?
Yeah some GNU/Linux communities are not very helpful as I've heard, but... they're trying. Maybe you could get some experience on your own, become an expert and help them yourself. Seriously.

booter wrote:
The general feeling is like they say to you: "That's the way we like it. You're getting it for free, so you can go f* yourself if you dissatisfied".

I wouldn't be impolite and would help people fix problems if I were them. But they might not be totally wrong. My systems are exactly like I want them to be and I would never want some noobs to influence the way they work or the development process. I see noobs whining and wanting to impose their own ideas everyday, even on 15+ years-old projects.
BTW, I don't think you get any more say about how Windows (or anything else for that matter) works. If Microsoft (or any other organization) ever asks your opinion, it's just for PR and corporate image purposes. No one cares what you think, not even the parliamentarians you elect.

booter wrote:
The quality of UI [...] is just a huge step down against Windows.

Easy. Choose a minimalistic GNU/Linux distro or non-GNU/Linux alternative and install the interface *you* want. There are graphical interfaces out there that are a billion times more customizable and lighter than Windows's interface.

booter wrote:
I would say the quality standards in Windows community are much higher.

I would say the quality standards of the BSD communities are light-years away from all the rest. Wink
Post 08 Jan 2010, 15:01
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
The Linux docs may suck but the Windows "Help and Support" is definitely no gem either, possibly worse.

Anyway ManOfSteel, the problem with "choosing" and installing "what you want" is that a newcomer does NOT know what he/she wants, because he/she is new to Linux and doesn't know its bells and whistles.

And the first impression is what counts -- so he/she will say it's bloated. For a long time.


To me:

Windows XP > Linux >>>> Windows 7 >> Windows Vista

I just want a Windows XP on 64-bits that works like 32-bits, not with compulsory driver signing, kernel "protection" that prevents my sandbox to run, etc Sad
Post 08 Jan 2010, 16:39
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
Borsuc wrote:
Anyway ManOfSteel, the problem with "choosing" and installing "what you want" is that a newcomer does NOT know what he/she wants, because he/she is new to Linux and doesn't know its bells and whistles.

Indeed it is, because I and the other millions around the world who don't use our machine's factory/retailer pre-installed Windows, are in fact born with The Fabulous Manual imprinted in our eDNA, and most importantly, don't have any real life whatsoever to live, so we can spend all our time (i.e. eternity) with our minds plugged in cyberspace and unite into the Great Overmind.
Post 08 Jan 2010, 18:00
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
booter



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 67
booter
ManOfSteel wrote:
booter wrote:
The source code is huge making it almost useless.

I agree with some things you said, but this one is definitely funny. The application is big, its source code is long, therefore it sucks. That's some rock-solid logic!
And I didn't know you actually had to read the entire source to be able to use the software. That's news to me.

booter wrote:
"You can try this" - is typical form of support from their community.

So they're proposing potential solutions or alternatives? What's wrong with that? What are they supposed to do? Or am I misunderstanding what you mean?
Yeah some GNU/Linux communities are not very helpful as I've heard, but... they're trying. Maybe you could get some experience on your own, become an expert and help them yourself. Seriously.

booter wrote:
The general feeling is like they say to you: "That's the way we like it. You're getting it for free, so you can go f* yourself if you dissatisfied".

I wouldn't be impolite and would help people fix problems if I were them. But they might not be totally wrong. My systems are exactly like I want them to be and I would never want some noobs to influence the way they work or the development process. I see noobs whining and wanting to impose their own ideas everyday, even on 15+ years-old projects.
BTW, I don't think you get any more say about how Windows (or anything else for that matter) works. If Microsoft (or any other organization) ever asks your opinion, it's just for PR and corporate image purposes. No one cares what you think, not even the parliamentarians you elect.

booter wrote:
The quality of UI [...] is just a huge step down against Windows.

Easy. Choose a minimalistic GNU/Linux distro or non-GNU/Linux alternative and install the interface *you* want. There are graphical interfaces out there that are a billion times more customizable and lighter than Windows's interface.

booter wrote:
I would say the quality standards in Windows community are much higher.

I would say the quality standards of the BSD communities are light-years away from all the rest. Wink

I meant that advantage of being open source is insignificant if the source is so big.

When I ask for support I expect they would try to reproduse the problem and fix it, then respond with one of three possible replies:
- we could not reproduce, please provide more info
- you should do following (step by step) ... to fix this problem
- thanks, we will fix it ASAP

Each Linux GUI pulls a lot of stuff with it, wich consequently pulls other stuff, etc. Also, major Linux distributions don't provide "minimalistic" versions and less popular small distributions are incompatible, etc. etc.

Is there distro transfer utilities that would allow me to move my settings and setups to another distro or I have to start all over again with every distro I want to try?

I should really try Free BSD Smile

BTW, does anobody know how to disable default "power off" on the display in Linux?
Post 08 Jan 2010, 22:30
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Also why do some open-source programs that are ported to Windows from Linux come with shit folders called "share" or "lib" or "man" and such -- I mean I only get lib and man, but wtf, does the "culture" there also include an 8.3 DOS naming convetion, because that's what I see, truncated name (man=manual, lib=library), lowercase, sometimes a dot in front, no spaces, etc.

It is plain annoying to me. I wonder if the rest of the Linux system is made of "short-name lower-case no-space" convention, gives it an ugly "old" perspective. Like it can't support long filenames properly (I know it can).

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 09 Jan 2010, 00:19
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
booter wrote:
I meant that advantage of being open source is insignificant if the source is so big.

I don't see how size can even matter. The whole purpose of open-source is that a knowledgeable person anywhere on Earth can locate a specific problem/bug/vulnerability in a specific area, work to fix it and propose a patch through a problem report to the competent people.
The source is not meant to be contemplated, studied, memorized or something. And if you're looking for something specific out of curiosity, there's always find and/or grep.

booter wrote:

When I ask for support I expect they would try to reproduse the problem and fix it, then respond with one of three possible replies:
- we could not reproduce, please provide more info
- you should do following (step by step) ... to fix this problem
- thanks, we will fix it ASAP

I've seen that in many places. Maybe you weren't very lucky and you found a really unhelpful community.
There are many forums and chatrooms. If one's not helpful, move to another.

booter wrote:
Each Linux GUI pulls a lot of stuff with it, wich consequently pulls other stuff, etc.

You're probably talking about the major desktop environments such as GNOME and KDE. These are formed of window managers plus a bunch of commonly used desktop applications.
You can always get some lightweight WM (e.g. Fluxbox, Openbox, FVWM, etc.), then add individual applications (favorite media player, text editor, browser, file manager, etc.)

booter wrote:
Also, major Linux distributions don't provide "minimalistic" versions and less popular small distributions are incompatible, etc. etc.

I might be wrong, but Arch Linux seems to be a minimalistic distro where users can choose what to install themselves.

booter wrote:
Is there distro transfer utilities that would allow me to move my settings and setups to another distro or I have to start all over again with every distro I want to try?

Applications store the user settings in the user home directory (e.g. /home/youruser), so copying that directory between systems should work. Theoretically you could even share it between multiple systems.
Since you can get more or less the same applications on all distros and even on non-GNU/Linux systems, that should not be a problem.
Post 09 Jan 2010, 01:21
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
Borsuc wrote:
Also why do some open-source programs that are ported to Windows from Linux come with shit folders called "share" or "lib" or "man" and such -- I mean I only get lib and man

Because for ease-of-porting reasons, they keep the same hierarchy in every system to which the software is ported.

What is wrong with you? Why do you always have to qualify something as "shit" when it's alien to your beliefs and habits?

It's not that Windows directories are more or less "shitty" compared to other systems' system directories. I mean, what's the difference between /lib and c:\WINNT\system32 or /usr/share/man and c:\WINNT\Help? Is it the smell? Is it the shape? Is it the color?

BTW, you should see the "horrors" that can be seen on NTFS partitions: $Boot, $LogFile, $MFTMirr, $AttrDef, $UpCase, $BadClus, $Bitmap, $Secure, $Volume, System Volume Information/tracking.log, RECYCLER/<one CLSID for each past and present user>, $Extend/$ObjId, $Extend/$Quota, $Extend/$Reparse.
If you didn't know much about the NT filesystem intestines, now you do!


Borsuc wrote:
but wtf, does the "culture" there also include an 8.3 DOS naming convetion, because that's what I see, truncated name (man=manual, lib=library), lowercase, sometimes a dot in front, no spaces, etc.

1. Unix filesystems have been supporting relatively long (e.g. 255) filenames for decades, even before the creation of DOS by IBM or the incorporation of Microsoft.
2. There is *no* filename.extension convention. "Extensions" are part of the filename and are mostly aesthetic and informative appendices. They're required by only a few applications.
3. Names are not truncated because of a limitation of the filesystem (e.g. FAT), but by design because since the invention of writing it has always been easier to type a short word (right?). Under a graphical interface the matter is not even relevant.
4. You can name your files using AnY caSe YoU wanT aNd uNIx filEsySTeMs arE CASE SENSITIVE.
5. Dot files are hidden, i.e. they are not visible to normal file listing.
6. There are no spaces in filenames by convention because then, the shell would mistake the first part as the filename and the second as an option. But you can include anything in your filenames, including spaces, you just have to escape them with a backspace. Shells can usually auto-complete filenames and will automatically include escape characters.

You can have any kind of filename you find in Windows.


Borsuc wrote:
gives it an ugly "old" perspective

It's not ugly. It's outright horrible and depressing. I always keep some Xanax nearby for panic attacks, just in case.
Post 09 Jan 2010, 02:21
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
booter



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 67
booter
ManOfSteel wrote:
Borsuc wrote:
Also why do some open-source programs that are ported to Windows from Linux come with shit folders called "share" or "lib" or "man" and such -- I mean I only get lib and man

Because for ease-of-porting reasons, they keep the same hierarchy in every system to which the software is ported.

What is wrong with you? Why do you always have to qualify something as "shit" when it's alien to your beliefs and habits?
...

Linux-style in organizing software is unnatural to user.
Let's suppose, we have some software named ABC.
It's natural to find it in folder ABC, correct? We open this folder and what we see? Nothing! No "ReadMe", just several subdirectories. What should user do? Frustrated user goes through all directories and finally finds ABC.exe.
He tries to run it and it's complaining about configuration that is buried somewhere else! This is unfriendly to user = very bad!
Every Linux user knows that executables are in "bin" directory, but that's the problem with Linux - user needs to remember a lot of "unnatural and illogical" conventions. With poor documentation and unfriendly GUI it's just a nightmare. Linux guys may say "it's not a big deal if you aint a complete idiot", but they don't understand that user has his own business and is not willing to learn all this tricky crap from the very beginning. Of course, Windows is also full of "tricky crap", but it's mostly hidden from regular user and that's why Linux is inferior.
Post 09 Jan 2010, 09:37
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
ManOfSteel wrote:
1. Unix filesystems have been supporting relatively long (e.g. 255) filenames for decades, even before the creation of DOS by IBM or the incorporation of Microsoft.
2. There is *no* filename.extension convention. "Extensions" are part of the filename and are mostly aesthetic and informative appendices. They're required by only a few applications.
3. Names are not truncated because of a limitation of the filesystem (e.g. FAT), but by design because since the invention of writing it has always been easier to type a short word (right?). Under a graphical interface the matter is not even relevant.
4. You can name your files using AnY caSe YoU wanT aNd uNIx filEsySTeMs arE CASE SENSITIVE.
5. Dot files are hidden, i.e. they are not visible to normal file listing.
6. There are no spaces in filenames by convention because then, the shell would mistake the first part as the filename and the second as an option. But you can include anything in your filenames, including spaces, you just have to escape them with a backspace. Shells can usually auto-complete filenames and will automatically include escape characters.

1. <3
2. IMHO it's a mistake not to have consitent file extensions for everything; it makes it easier to color-code and otherwise identify/group-by files without having to study their contents. That it makes it easier to bind to GUI tools is only an added bonus. Fortunately most stuff does have extensions, but text files and shell scripts often don't.
3. for the common paths like /lib, /bin, /usr this is nice (/etc is a silly name though, /conf would've been better?) - but it's band when projects stick with very short source file names. By itself, "cfgmgr.c" isn't bad, but when you have a large project those truncated all-lowercase filenames tend to "drown" compared to "ConfigManager.c".
4. I've yet to see a case where filename case sensitivity was useful rather than potentially confusing Smile - .c/.C for selection vs. C/C++ files? makefile vs. MAKEFILE vs. Makefile, which one do I expect my system to select? et cetera. While I definitely like my system to preserve file case when displaying, I certainly also prefer case insentivity when dealing with the files.
5. works well enough; personally I prefer file attributes for stuff like this, since you can test multiple things with one logical operation... but dotfiles work, too.
6. I don't see a reason for spaces in standard system paths/filenames, either. Leave that to user-created content Smile

PS: DustWolf, could you please resize that picture to, say, 800 pixels width? It's messing up the display of forum posts Smile

_________________
Image - carpe noctem
Post 09 Jan 2010, 09:56
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
booter



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 67
booter
[quote="ManOfSteel"]
Borsuc wrote:

You can name your files using AnY caSe YoU wanT

The question is "Should you have this dangerous feature or be protected by the OS from human mistakes (Human Mistakes)?"
Humans are unreliable components of the system and should be treated accordingly Smile
Post 09 Jan 2010, 10:29
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
booter wrote:
Linux-style in organizing software is unnatural to user.

Subjective and biased opinion. *nix hierarchy is "unnatural" to the Windows user. Windows hierarchy is "unnatural" to the *nix user.
Instead of being organized by name, it's organized by type. I did my job as noob with both systems and I've never encountered any problem finding my way in either systems.


booter wrote:

Let's suppose, we have some software named ABC.
It's natural to find it in folder ABC, correct? We open this folder and what we see? Nothing! No "ReadMe", just several subdirectories. What should user do? Frustrated user goes through all directories and finally finds ABC.exe.

Total BS. A user who has been using *nix systems for years would say exactly the same when using Windows.
*nix users don't have to locate anything since everything usable is in the $PATH, which means executing ABC.exe (<-- you're kidding right?) is as simple as typing ABC<return> and reading the "ReadMe" is as simple as typing man ABC<return>.
And contrary to most Windows setups (from Microsoft or elsewhere), all packages/archives can be read, and the user can locate a standardized file listing the location of all files that should be installed.


booter wrote:
He tries to run it and it's complaining about configuration that is buried somewhere else!

BS bis repetita. Every application has a *default* configuration in the share directory and what it's complaining about is that there is no *user* configuration and it will use the default one instead.
Most applications even create the user configuration when started for the first time. And if they don't, they'll say the user can copy the default one from <insert location> to their home directory. Users know where the configuration *file* is, unlike Windows where they have to search any hidden/visible file/directory in the application's directory, or in any system directory (yes it often happens), or in Documents and Settings (or whatever they rename it to at every version change), or in the registry hivekeys of the CurrentUser or LocalMachine. Yeah, Windows is much easier because everything is "hidden from regular user" as you said, and that's why it's superior to anything else. Right! This is starting to sound as logical as fundamentalist religious dogma.


booter wrote:
user needs to remember a lot of "unnatural and illogical" conventions.

"unnatural"? "illogical"? Says who? Says you? Says Microsoft?
"conventions"? Who sets conventions? Microsoft?
Chinese people utter completely unintelligible words that don't sound anything like English. Why the flying f*** is that? It's unnatural and illogical. Ergo Chinese people suck.


booter wrote:
they don't understand that user has his own business and is not willing to learn all this tricky crap from the very beginning

Refer to my explanation here.


booter wrote:
The question is "Should you have this dangerous feature or be protected by the OS from human mistakes (Human Mistakes)?"
Humans are unreliable components of the system and should be treated accordingly Smile

In the end both case sensitivity and insensitivity (and using any kind of technology that involves thinking and focusing, for that matter) can cause problems when the user is an idiot.
Now, Alice, have you ever had such a problem? I mean practically not in wonderland. Personally I've never had. I must be a genius. Or part of the Great Overmind.
Post 09 Jan 2010, 14:23
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
f0dder wrote:
IMHO it's a mistake not to have consitent file extensions for everything

I don't think it's such a huge issue. I've never encountered any *practical* obstacles caused by that lack of extensions.
If I ever want to identify an unknown file, I just do file <filename>. Not only does this wonderful system tool recognize any file I throw at it, it can even parse data when it finds a specific pattern (e.g. an MBR).


f0dder wrote:
That it makes it easier to bind to GUI tools is only an added bonus

File managers examine file headers and either use their internal database or a centralized MIME database for file recognition. This is far superior to Windows' extension recognition IMO because you can't play with the user's stupidity. Even if you name a binary file sexy_chick.png, it'll still be detected as a binary and the "application icon" will be displayed. Now some file managers give priority to extension recognition so they're not much different from Windows Explorer.


f0dder wrote:
Fortunately most stuff does have extensions, but text files and shell scripts often don't.

Not a problem whatsoever. In the shell you get used to it very quickly. Doing a cat or head (just like sending to under Windows) never hurts.
Shell scripts must be executed in a very specific way and must be made executable so they're easily recognizable.
Under X, they'll either be executed or considered as plain text and opened in your default text editor depending on the file manager you're using.


f0dder wrote:
By itself, "cfgmgr.c" isn't bad, but when you have a large project those truncated all-lowercase filenames tend to "drown" compared to "ConfigManager.c".

I don't see any reason you can't have ConfigManager.c. As I said in point 4., you can name your files using any case you want. Right under /usr/src/ I have ObsoleteFiles.inc, Makefile, MAINTAINERS, etc. But in general, underscores are used to separate words, e.g. reloc_elf64.c.


f0dder wrote:
I've yet to see a case where filename case sensitivity was useful rather than potentially confusing Smile - .c/.C for selection vs. C/C++ files? makefile vs. MAKEFILE vs. Makefile, which one do I expect my system to select? et cetera.

make will look for makefile then Makefile. But I don't understand the logic behind having two makefiles in the same directory.

When it's *useful*, programs will have options for case, e.g. grep will preserve case by default and -i will ignore it.

When "browsing" the filesystem from the shell, you get the directory file listing, type as many unique characters as your filename starts with and auto-complete the rest (including escape characters). The shell will beep on errors and until it gets the first unique character, and can display the different available alternatives so you can correct what you're typing.


f0dder wrote:
I prefer file attributes for stuff like this, since you can test multiple things with one logical operation

Things like what?
The invisibility of files is meaningless in itself. It's not a "state" like user/group/world permissions and ownerships, or being executable, appendable-only, immutable, etc. It's *only* an aesthetic attribute used in user directories to avoid unnecessary clutter.
Post 09 Jan 2010, 16:55
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
ManOfSteel wrote:
File managers examine file headers and either use their internal database or a centralized MIME database for file recognition.
Opening a file to examine it's type == slower than looking at file extension... and doesn't MIME only map extension->contenttype?

ManOfSteel wrote:
This is far superior to Windows' extension recognition IMO because you can't play with the user's stupidity. Even if you name a binary file sexy_chick.png, it'll still be detected as a binary and the "application icon" will be displayed. Now some file managers give priority to extension recognition so they're not much different from Windows Explorer.
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 Razz

Probably not much of an issue in real-life situations, especially not when the majority of linux users are GeekBoyPowerHeads, but still... I simple think file extensions are more efficient and more convenient - code as well as "human factor" wise.

ManOfSteel wrote:
Not a problem whatsoever. In the shell you get used to it very quickly. Doing a cat or head (just like sending to under Windows) never hurts. Shell scripts must be executed in a very specific way and must be made executable so they're easily recognizable.
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...

ManOfSteel wrote:
Under X, they'll either be executed or considered as plain text and opened in your default text editor depending on the file manager you're using.
Yeah, sure - but picture this: you unpack a .tar.gz file, and there's a crapton of files before your eyes. Obviously you're used to scan for README, Changes (and such), but if file extensions were used it'd be faster to simply look for *.txt, ignoring the various configure scripts and whatever weird files might be present. 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 Smile

ManOfSteel wrote:
f0dder wrote:
By itself, "cfgmgr.c" isn't bad, but when you have a large project those truncated all-lowercase filenames tend to "drown" compared to "ConfigManager.c".

I don't see any reason you can't have ConfigManager.c. As I said in point 4., you can name your files using any case you want. Right under /usr/src/ I have ObsoleteFiles.inc, Makefile, MAINTAINERS, etc. But in general, underscores are used to separate words, e.g. reloc_elf64.c.
No, there's no reason you can't do it, but a lot of the opensource stuff I've looked at use those truncated filenames, just like they use truncated function and variable names as well... it's a mindset thing, not a technical limit. Fortunately, some projects dare use "proper" filenames and (gasp!) C++ code Smile

ManOfSteel wrote:
f0dder wrote:
I've yet to see a case where filename case sensitivity was useful rather than potentially confusing Smile - .c/.C for selection vs. C/C++ files? makefile vs. MAKEFILE vs. Makefile, which one do I expect my system to select? et cetera.

make will look for makefile then Makefile. But I don't understand the logic behind having two makefiles in the same directory.
Yes, doing so is silly (btw, isn't it Makefile before makefile?) - the reasoning for the behaviour is to be able to have gnu-make and whatever-other-make in the same folder... but imho it's just a possible source of confusion, file extension would've been clearer. I haven't seen a single case where case sensitivity gave me any benefits, but a lot of potential for mistakes and slowdowns (having to do correct case when using auto-complete). I wonder if case sensitivity was originally planned as a feature, or more as a "we're not gonna waste 'em dang CPU cycles doing insensitive case comparison!" Smile

ManOfSteel wrote:
When it's *useful*, programs will have options for case, e.g. grep will preserve case by default and -i will ignore it.
That's for content rather than filenames, though.

ManOfSteel wrote:
When "browsing" the filesystem from the shell, you get the directory file listing, type as many unique characters as your filename starts with and auto-complete the rest (including escape characters). The shell will beep on errors and until it gets the first unique character, and can display the different available alternatives so you can correct what you're typing.
Yeah, I know - and you have to get the case right. 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.

ManOfSteel wrote:
f0dder wrote:
I prefer file attributes for stuff like this, since you can test multiple things with one logical operation

Things like what?
The invisibility of files is meaningless in itself. It's not a "state" like user/group/world permissions and ownerships, or being executable, appendable-only, immutable, etc. It's *only* an aesthetic attribute used in user directories to avoid unnecessary clutter.
[/quote]That depends on how you see things - I see "hidden" as much as a state as "modified since last archival". It's a minor issue, but it's slightly more efficient to test for a filemask to list all hidden folders, rather than test filemask for folder and then check if filename begins with ".". Yeah, it means so little code- and runtime-wise that it doesn't matter, but considering what some of the members on this board obsess over... *rolleyes*.

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... and definitely more flexible and granular. Those do require more complex programming than simple logical operations though, but find it's an acceptable tradeoff for the gained flexibility.

All in all, for workstation use and programming, I find Windows more comfortable to work with than the linux distros I've tried, and it feels faster and smoother. Yes, I know about non-free video drivers and Compiz, but those don't help when the reason for lagging window resize isn't the display driver but the widget toolkit logic and/or the X11 protocol Smile

I do run linux (gentoo) on my server, and I've messed with linux and BSD since 1998 (RedHat 5.1 which I purchased, manual and all), and both have come extremely far since then... and (especially because the free-as-beer) suit my server needs pretty well. But for desktop use, neither satisfy my needs, a lot of applications feel half-assed compared to their Windows counterparts, 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).

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 (no, not every Windows program uses the registry, and for some there are reasons not to) - and if you should commit the sin of compiling something from source, you better remember the right configure flags otherwise there's no telling which folder-prefixes are used and where configuration files are stored. The big mess of the top-level /etc folder? A subfolder of /etc? Somewhere in /var? With or without /usr prefix? etc.

_________________
Image - carpe noctem
Post 09 Jan 2010, 20:01
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 wrote:
Because for ease-of-porting reasons, they keep the same hierarchy in every system to which the software is ported.

What is wrong with you? Why do you always have to qualify something as "shit" when it's alien to your beliefs and habits?
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.

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.

ManOfSteel wrote:
If you didn't know much about the NT filesystem intestines, now you do!
like I said, Windows is pretty archaic in many ways (mainly due to "backwards compatibility" or at least claimed so by Microsoft, I suspect just laziness), BUT Windows doesn't confuse a freaking filesystem with a directory.

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.

ManOfSteel wrote:
1. Unix filesystems have been supporting relatively long (e.g. 255) filenames for decades, even before the creation of DOS by IBM or the incorporation of Microsoft.
2. There is *no* filename.extension convention. "Extensions" are part of the filename and are mostly aesthetic and informative appendices. They're required by only a few applications.
3. Names are not truncated because of a limitation of the filesystem (e.g. FAT), but by design because since the invention of writing it has always been easier to type a short word (right?). Under a graphical interface the matter is not even relevant.
4. You can name your files using AnY caSe YoU wanT aNd uNIx filEsySTeMs arE CASE SENSITIVE.
5. Dot files are hidden, i.e. they are not visible to normal file listing.
6. There are no spaces in filenames by convention because then, the shell would mistake the first part as the filename and the second as an option. But you can include anything in your filenames, including spaces, you just have to escape them with a backspace. Shells can usually auto-complete filenames and will automatically include escape characters.

You can have any kind of filename you find in Windows.
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 ':').

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.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 09 Jan 2010, 23:59
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.

Powered by rwasa.