Discussion:
perfect example of MS stupidity...
(too old to reply)
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
2015-08-10 05:31:29 UTC
Permalink
Windows 7 Pro 64 bit on Lenovo laptops.

Been working on a serial (via USB) connected radio device for months.

Having problems with drivers failing to install.

Bought a new USB oscilloscope/spectrum analyzer. The damn driver
would not install.

Go into the directory tree on the install CD and find a host of
cryptically named directories.. Stepping through them.... none are
installing... all failing.

Last resort, try the USB 3.0 driver even though this laptop has no USB
3.0 ports on it. Driver installs flawlessly.

So in conclusion, I have decided this was likely to be a driver
signing issue.

Gonna try this driver on my other laptops to see if their driver issue
goes away with this USB to serial driver.

I am willing to bet that it will work on those as well.

Additional conclusion is that Windows is a goddamned pain in the ass.
Pushbutton "just does it" my ass. And the other drivers are likely to
be just fine except that Windows rejects them.

I should look at the disk and see if it has a Linux app on it, and
boot a linux disc on the laptop and then install it to that. The result
will likely be pushbutton, just works joy.
Vic RR Garcia
2015-08-10 23:05:56 UTC
Permalink
On 08/10/15 01:31, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
> Windows 7 Pro 64 bit on Lenovo laptops.
>
> Been working on a serial (via USB) connected radio device for months.
>
> Having problems with drivers failing to install.
>
> Bought a new USB oscilloscope/spectrum analyzer. The damn driver
> would not install.
>
> Go into the directory tree on the install CD and find a host of
> cryptically named directories.. Stepping through them.... none are
> installing... all failing.
>
> Last resort, try the USB 3.0 driver even though this laptop has no USB
> 3.0 ports on it. Driver installs flawlessly.
>
> So in conclusion, I have decided this was likely to be a driver
> signing issue.
>
> Gonna try this driver on my other laptops to see if their driver issue
> goes away with this USB to serial driver.
>
> I am willing to bet that it will work on those as well.
>
> Additional conclusion is that Windows is a goddamned pain in the ass.
> Pushbutton "just does it" my ass. And the other drivers are likely to
> be just fine except that Windows rejects them.
>
> I should look at the disk and see if it has a Linux app on it, and
> boot a linux disc on the laptop and then install it to that. The result
> will likely be pushbutton, just works joy.

That's easy to fix:

Open a CLI (cmd.exe) as root (Administrator)
type:
bcdedit /set nointegritychecks ON
press Enter
Restart the PC, yup that's Win vice ... restart ...

Now you can install any driver.
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
2015-08-10 23:47:05 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:05:56 -0400, Vic RR Garcia
<***@at-gmail.dot.com> Gave us:

>On 08/10/15 01:31, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
>> Windows 7 Pro 64 bit on Lenovo laptops.
>>
>> Been working on a serial (via USB) connected radio device for months.
>>
>> Having problems with drivers failing to install.
>>
>> Bought a new USB oscilloscope/spectrum analyzer. The damn driver
>> would not install.
>>
>> Go into the directory tree on the install CD and find a host of
>> cryptically named directories.. Stepping through them.... none are
>> installing... all failing.
>>
>> Last resort, try the USB 3.0 driver even though this laptop has no USB
>> 3.0 ports on it. Driver installs flawlessly.
>>
>> So in conclusion, I have decided this was likely to be a driver
>> signing issue.
>>
>> Gonna try this driver on my other laptops to see if their driver issue
>> goes away with this USB to serial driver.
>>
>> I am willing to bet that it will work on those as well.
>>
>> Additional conclusion is that Windows is a goddamned pain in the ass.
>> Pushbutton "just does it" my ass. And the other drivers are likely to
>> be just fine except that Windows rejects them.
>>
>> I should look at the disk and see if it has a Linux app on it, and
>> boot a linux disc on the laptop and then install it to that. The result
>> will likely be pushbutton, just works joy.
>
>That's easy to fix:
>
>Open a CLI (cmd.exe) as root (Administrator)
>type:
>bcdedit /set nointegritychecks ON
>press Enter
>Restart the PC, yup that's Win vice ... restart ...
>
>Now you can install any driver.

Nice to know, but should be accessible via other means. It likely is
under "management" / "services".

Thanks though. I will investigate as to whether or not that has been
my hold-up on the two laptops out of 6 identical units that have this
issue. Thanks.
Edmund
2015-08-11 07:15:40 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:05:56 -0400, Vic RR Garcia wrote:

> On 08/10/15 01:31, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
>> Windows 7 Pro 64 bit on Lenovo laptops.
>>
>> Been working on a serial (via USB) connected radio device for
>> months.
>>
>> Having problems with drivers failing to install.
>>
>> Bought a new USB oscilloscope/spectrum analyzer. The damn driver
>> would not install.
>>
>> Go into the directory tree on the install CD and find a host of
>> cryptically named directories.. Stepping through them.... none are
>> installing... all failing.
>>
>> Last resort, try the USB 3.0 driver even though this laptop has no
>> USB
>> 3.0 ports on it. Driver installs flawlessly.
>>
>> So in conclusion, I have decided this was likely to be a driver
>> signing issue.
>>
>> Gonna try this driver on my other laptops to see if their driver
>> issue
>> goes away with this USB to serial driver.
>>
>> I am willing to bet that it will work on those as well.
>>
>> Additional conclusion is that Windows is a goddamned pain in the
>> ass.
>> Pushbutton "just does it" my ass. And the other drivers are likely to
>> be just fine except that Windows rejects them.
>>
>> I should look at the disk and see if it has a Linux app on it, and
>> boot a linux disc on the laptop and then install it to that. The
>> result will likely be pushbutton, just works joy.
>
> That's easy to fix:
>
> Open a CLI (cmd.exe) as root (Administrator)
> type:
> bcdedit /set nointegritychecks ON press Enter Restart the PC, yup that's
> Win vice ... restart ...
>
> Now you can install any driver.

Going to the right newsgroup might help too.
This is linux so why on earth complaining here about windows?

Edmund
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
2015-08-11 07:28:27 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:15:40 +0000 (UTC), Edmund <***@hotmail.com>
Gave us:

>On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:05:56 -0400, Vic RR Garcia wrote:
>
>> On 08/10/15 01:31, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
>>> Windows 7 Pro 64 bit on Lenovo laptops.
>>>
>>> Been working on a serial (via USB) connected radio device for
>>> months.
>>>
>>> Having problems with drivers failing to install.
>>>
>>> Bought a new USB oscilloscope/spectrum analyzer. The damn driver
>>> would not install.
>>>
>>> Go into the directory tree on the install CD and find a host of
>>> cryptically named directories.. Stepping through them.... none are
>>> installing... all failing.
>>>
>>> Last resort, try the USB 3.0 driver even though this laptop has no
>>> USB
>>> 3.0 ports on it. Driver installs flawlessly.
>>>
>>> So in conclusion, I have decided this was likely to be a driver
>>> signing issue.
>>>
>>> Gonna try this driver on my other laptops to see if their driver
>>> issue
>>> goes away with this USB to serial driver.
>>>
>>> I am willing to bet that it will work on those as well.
>>>
>>> Additional conclusion is that Windows is a goddamned pain in the
>>> ass.
>>> Pushbutton "just does it" my ass. And the other drivers are likely to
>>> be just fine except that Windows rejects them.
>>>
>>> I should look at the disk and see if it has a Linux app on it, and
>>> boot a linux disc on the laptop and then install it to that. The
>>> result will likely be pushbutton, just works joy.
>>
>> That's easy to fix:
>>
>> Open a CLI (cmd.exe) as root (Administrator)
>> type:
>> bcdedit /set nointegritychecks ON press Enter Restart the PC, yup that's
>> Win vice ... restart ...
>>
>> Now you can install any driver.
>
>Going to the right newsgroup might help too.
>This is linux so why on earth complaining here about windows?
>
>Edmund

Read the header dipshit. It is an example of Windows suckage. It was
not a request for a solution, you illiterate twit.

And your qualifications to perform post assessments is fucking nil
since it is an open group. If you can't read between those lines here:

Fuck You, boy.
mike
2015-08-11 21:06:25 UTC
Permalink
On 8/11/2015 12:28 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:15:40 +0000 (UTC), Edmund <***@hotmail.com>
> Gave us:
>
>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:05:56 -0400, Vic RR Garcia wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/10/15 01:31, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
>>>> Windows 7 Pro 64 bit on Lenovo laptops.
>>>>
>>>> Been working on a serial (via USB) connected radio device for
>>>> months.
>>>>
>>>> Having problems with drivers failing to install.
>>>>
>>>> Bought a new USB oscilloscope/spectrum analyzer. The damn driver
>>>> would not install.
>>>>
>>>> Go into the directory tree on the install CD and find a host of
>>>> cryptically named directories.. Stepping through them.... none are
>>>> installing... all failing.
>>>>
>>>> Last resort, try the USB 3.0 driver even though this laptop has no
>>>> USB
>>>> 3.0 ports on it. Driver installs flawlessly.
>>>>
>>>> So in conclusion, I have decided this was likely to be a driver
>>>> signing issue.
>>>>
>>>> Gonna try this driver on my other laptops to see if their driver
>>>> issue
>>>> goes away with this USB to serial driver.
>>>>
>>>> I am willing to bet that it will work on those as well.
>>>>
>>>> Additional conclusion is that Windows is a goddamned pain in the
>>>> ass.
>>>> Pushbutton "just does it" my ass. And the other drivers are likely to
>>>> be just fine except that Windows rejects them.
>>>>
>>>> I should look at the disk and see if it has a Linux app on it, and
>>>> boot a linux disc on the laptop and then install it to that. The
>>>> result will likely be pushbutton, just works joy.
>>>
>>> That's easy to fix:
>>>
>>> Open a CLI (cmd.exe) as root (Administrator)
>>> type:
>>> bcdedit /set nointegritychecks ON press Enter Restart the PC, yup that's
>>> Win vice ... restart ...
>>>
>>> Now you can install any driver.
>>
>> Going to the right newsgroup might help too.
>> This is linux so why on earth complaining here about windows?
>>
>> Edmund
>
> Read the header dipshit. It is an example of Windows suckage. It was
> not a request for a solution, you illiterate twit.
>
> And your qualifications to perform post assessments is fucking nil
> since it is an open group. If you can't read between those lines here:
>
> Fuck You, boy.
>
Why are you bitching about windows?
Just run the device from linux.
Problem solved.
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
2015-08-12 04:13:16 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:06:25 -0700, mike <***@netzero.net> Gave us:


>Why are you bitching about windows?

Fuck you, mikeytard.

>Just run the device from linux.

The device will run fine from Linux, but that is not how government
contracted developments go.

>Problem solved.

Not quite, twerp.

The driver and the software runs from Windows, because MS entrenched
themselves into the military as well, and they are not going to use
multiple laptops in the field. The development has to follow current
convention.

Just like any tablet application they use can only be up to a certain
version of Android. One cannot simply go 'round popping whatever base
level OS they want onto it, just like the enlisted and officers using it
do not get to go out and update their gear to the latest release.

So you lack a grasp of what is going on... again. IOW, clueless.
mike
2015-08-12 08:35:08 UTC
Permalink
On 8/11/2015 9:13 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:06:25 -0700, mike <***@netzero.net> Gave us:
>
>
>> Why are you bitching about windows?
>
> Fuck you, mikeytard.
>
>> Just run the device from linux.
>
> The device will run fine from Linux, but that is not how government
> contracted developments go.
>
>> Problem solved.
>
> Not quite, twerp.
>
> The driver and the software runs from Windows,
Don't understand if the device runs fine from Linux, why are
drivers an issue?


What? Doesn't everything run in desktop linux?
What about Wine? Doesn't that do everything anyone would ever want?
Linux is open source...just write a driver...

because MS entrenched
> themselves into the military as well, and they are not going to use
> multiple laptops in the field. The development has to follow current
> convention.

What is this "current convention?" You mean that stuff has to just work
with windows? The military doesn't embrace the desktop linux paradigm
and run all the stuff on linux machines in the field?
Seems I remember one of your rants about how the military runs
on linux. Was the cornerstone representing linux superiority.

Sound the trumpets...you've finally admitted how the rest of the
world (just) works.
>
> Just like any tablet application they use can only be up to a certain
> version of Android. One cannot simply go 'round popping whatever base
> level OS they want onto it, just like the enlisted and officers using it
> do not get to go out and update their gear to the latest release.

Yep, that's the way the world works. Same thing happens in the civilian
world. You can't just pop on some Linux app and expect the rest of the
world to become compatible with you. You gotta do it the other way around.
>
> So you lack a grasp of what is going on... again. IOW, clueless.
Welcome to the way the world works.
Grasp on and enjoy the ride.
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
2015-08-12 11:00:37 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 01:35:08 -0700, mike <***@netzero.net> Gave us:

>On 8/11/2015 9:13 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:06:25 -0700, mike <***@netzero.net> Gave us:
>>
>>
>>> Why are you bitching about windows?
>>
>> Fuck you, mikeytard.
>>
>>> Just run the device from linux.
>>
>> The device will run fine from Linux, but that is not how government
>> contracted developments go.
>>
>>> Problem solved.
>>
>> Not quite, twerp.
>>
>> The driver and the software runs from Windows,
>Don't understand if the device runs fine from Linux, why are
>drivers an issue?

You obviously have no clue how a government contract, much less its
obligations work. You also apparently have no clue about MS signed
driver issues.
>
>What? Doesn't everything run in desktop linux?

Yes. It works fine under Linux. Learn to read, dumbfuck.

>What about Wine? Doesn't that do everything anyone would ever want?
>Linux is open source...just write a driver...

The government defines where it MUST operate, idiot. They are not
going to fit out their fleet with separate laptops. The hardware and
application has to run on what they currently have deployed in the
field, you pathetic twit. That is how contracts work.

>because MS entrenched
>> themselves into the military as well, and they are not going to use
>> multiple laptops in the field. The development has to follow current
>> convention.
>
>What is this "current convention?"

Whatever the contract defines. That is what gets developed or it does
not get bought. Real simple, idiot.

>You mean that stuff has to just work
>with windows? The military doesn't embrace the desktop linux paradigm
>and run all the stuff on linux machines in the field?

You ain't real bright.

>Seems I remember one of your rants about how the military runs
>on linux.

It seems you are full of shit.

> Was the cornerstone representing linux superiority.
>
Looks like the cornerstone of your trolldom is making itself clear
right now.

>Sound the trumpets...you've finally admitted how the rest of the
>world (just) works.

Not at all. They adopt as they go. A current contract for additional
gear to be introduced into their battlefield systems has to be on what
they are currently using in the theater. What they use at their CIC
centers varies. You simply prove how out of touch and how much of a
retarded troll fuck you really are.

>> Just like any tablet application they use can only be up to a certain
>> version of Android. One cannot simply go 'round popping whatever base
>> level OS they want onto it, just like the enlisted and officers using it
>> do not get to go out and update their gear to the latest release.
>
>Yep, that's the way the world works.

You have no clue as illustrated above, jackass.

> Same thing happens in the civilian
>world.

You have no clue. You are a scared little jackass, on par with T i m.

> You can't just pop on some Linux app and expect the rest of the
>world to become compatible with you.

You're a goddamned idiot, and are even clueless about just how apples
and oranges your pathetic attempt at a valid argument is.

> You gotta do it the other way around.

Grow up retarded troll fuck. YOU have it ass backwards. IF they did
not already have systems in place, they would take whatever we gave
them. Since we are coming aboard to add hardware to existing systems,
we have to ADD ours to theirs. You actually have no argument
whatsoever.
>>
>> So you lack a grasp of what is going on... again. IOW, clueless.
>Welcome to the way the world works.

You wouldn't know, dumbfuck.

>Grasp on and enjoy the ride.

If I grasped anything to do with you, it would be an oxygen canceling
grasp on your throat. You sully the human gene pool. I sure hope you
never procreated back when you was not impotent. Currently, you are
both physically and mentally impotent, and nothing you say carries any
validity or importance. Have a nice breakfast, waste of oxygen.
vallor
2015-08-12 20:16:26 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 07:00:37 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 01:35:08 -0700, mike <***@netzero.net> Gave us:

>>Sound the trumpets...you've finally admitted how the rest of the world
>>(just) works.
>
> Not at all. They adopt as they go. A current contract for additional
> gear to be introduced into their battlefield systems has to be on what
> they are currently using in the theater. What they use at their CIC
> centers varies[. . .]

[trying to avoid the flame war, had a question]

Have you ever considered using Cygwin or GoW in a military contract?

I ask because I once used perl (from Cygwin) to automate some repetitive
tasks at the office -- worked like a champ for as long as we used it. :)

--
-v

The only really decent thing to do behind a person's back is pat it.
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
2015-08-12 21:07:05 UTC
Permalink
On 12 Aug 2015 20:16:26 GMT, vallor <***@cultnix.org> Gave us:

>On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 07:00:37 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 01:35:08 -0700, mike <***@netzero.net> Gave us:
>
>>>Sound the trumpets...you've finally admitted how the rest of the world
>>>(just) works.
>>
>> Not at all. They adopt as they go. A current contract for additional
>> gear to be introduced into their battlefield systems has to be on what
>> they are currently using in the theater. What they use at their CIC
>> centers varies[. . .]
>
>[trying to avoid the flame war, had a question]
>
>Have you ever considered using Cygwin or GoW in a military contract?
>
>I ask because I once used perl (from Cygwin) to automate some repetitive
>tasks at the office -- worked like a champ for as long as we used it. :)

THEY want a Windows app. It is out of our hands. It works fine in
Linux. The windows driver fail is a USB to serial drive and works on
the units it installs on, just not these, despite all 6 being identical
(obviously not) Lenovo laptops.

I did not turn off the verifier and try the install again yet, but
will.

I will also try the USB 3 driver which worked for the signal analyzer
device as it is also a serial interface device.

Thanks.
Chris Ahlstrom
2015-08-13 10:13:10 UTC
Permalink
vallor wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Have you ever considered using Cygwin or GoW in a military contract?
>
> I ask because I once used perl (from Cygwin) to automate some repetitive
> tasks at the office -- worked like a champ for as long as we used it. :)

If all you need is command-line tools, I would recommend MSYS2.
It works using the Cygwin DLL. It runs bash in mintty instead of some
stupid console layered on top of Microsoft's slow-ass offering.
It supports copy-and-paste via middle-click. You can install software
packages using pacman.

Hell, it even provides tmux. Imagine that! Tmux on Windoze!

--
If little else, the brain is an educational toy.
-- Tom Robbins
crankypuss
2015-08-13 11:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> vallor wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Have you ever considered using Cygwin or GoW in a military contract?
>>
>> I ask because I once used perl (from Cygwin) to automate some
>> repetitive tasks at the office -- worked like a champ for as long as
>> we used it. :)
>
> If all you need is command-line tools, I would recommend MSYS2.
> It works using the Cygwin DLL. It runs bash in mintty instead of some
> stupid console layered on top of Microsoft's slow-ass offering.

Calling lame code what it is seems to be infectious. Personally I feel
that's a real good thing. Society has taught us "if you can't say
anything nice don't say anything at all", and in elevating that moronic
saying to the category of "wisdom" it has taught us to accept garbage
with a smile. I'm against garbage all the way. It's a shame the push
for "egoless programming" died from lack of interest and "structured
programming" didn't (I'll structure my own damn programs thank you very
much).

> It supports copy-and-paste via middle-click.

Now you've gone and mentioned a can of sloppy spaghetti that is one of
the... I guess "userspace" is probably the closest term to describe all
the layers of *stuff* between the kernel/core-commands and the GUI
interface the end-user sees... you've brought up the fact that there are
what, 3 clipboard managers last time I looked, or maybe more; any number
higher than 1 clipboard manager is merely a number indicating the
spaghetti-level of copy/paste under what "normal users" think is
"linux".

Why do I say such a radical thing? When you have two clipboard
managers, app-developers have to write a higher-level support routine so
their code can handle both clipboard managers without making their app
incomprehensible. Then their support routine goes into a library so it
doesn't have to be rewritten. Then somebody adds another clipboard
manager and the whole app community has to toady-up to that one too, and
in many cases that one gets supported by a new support routine that
supports it plus calling the earlier support kludge. This keeps on
going, not just with clipboard managers, but with pretty much everything
until somebody finally notices the massive level of code-bloat because
of the inverted tree of workaround routines, and everybody else claims
it's necessary to support legacy applications. That "support legacy
applications" thing is an OS-killer, it's what keeps Windows insecure
and it ain't doing linux any good either imo.

> You can install software
> packages using pacman.
>
> Hell, it even provides tmux. Imagine that! Tmux on Windoze!
>

I don't know if Windows is POSIX-compliant or not, but as of the Win32
API it has sufficient functionality to support an entire operating
system, rather than the bloat Microsoft calls an operating system, *and*
you can pretty much count on Microsoft keeping that API binary-
compatible for a very long time, they still support legacy code from the
Windows 3.1 level APIs, that stuff is where a lot of hackers get in, and
Microsoft doubtless knows that, but doesn't have the balls to do
anything about it because their customers are already pissy about the
garbage they're trying to use to do work.

The best thing about free open-source code is that customers aren't
paying for it so they (theoretically) should have no arm-twisting power
over developers. Managers are a whole nother breed.

--
http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com
Chris Ahlstrom
2015-08-13 12:05:59 UTC
Permalink
crankypuss wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> It supports copy-and-paste via middle-click.
>
> Now you've gone and mentioned a can of sloppy spaghetti that is one of
> the... I guess "userspace" is probably the closest term to describe all
> the layers of *stuff* between the kernel/core-commands and the GUI
> interface the end-user sees... you've brought up the fact that there are
> what, 3 clipboard managers last time I looked, or maybe more; any number
> higher than 1 clipboard manager is merely a number indicating the
> spaghetti-level of copy/paste under what "normal users" think is
> "linux".
>
> Why do I say such a radical thing? When you have two clipboard
> managers, app-developers have to write a higher-level support routine so
> their code can handle both clipboard managers without making their app
> incomprehensible.

Wrong. As far as I know, they all share the various X clipboards.

Even vim supports the X clipboards.

What gripes me more is the infection of Linux with the Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V
paradigm. It is so much clumsier than the X clipboard(s).

On the other hand, with this crappy FocalTech touchpad, with no way
to even emulate middle-click, it turns out that that infection is
useful to me at the moment.

>> You can install software
>> packages using pacman.
>>
>> Hell, it even provides tmux. Imagine that! Tmux on Windoze!
>
> I don't know if Windows is POSIX-compliant or not, ...

It has a (lame) POSIX subsystem available, as a sop to some corps.

> ...but as of the Win32 API it has sufficient functionality to support an
> entire operating system, rather than the bloat Microsoft calls an
> operating system...

The Win32 API is a Rube-Goldberg mechanism of complexity, riddled through
and through with functions with large number of parameters, some of them
being "handles" to internal structures with even more parameters that you
have to fill in (if you're lucky a set of functions is provided to lessen
the chance of fuckups) and extensions of those functions with "Ex" appended
to the function name.

It makes Xorg look simple.

Oh, and the compatibility isn't perfect. Going from XP to 7 broke some of
our window handling.

--
It's grad exam time...
MEDICINE
You have been provided with a razor blade, a piece of gauze, and a
bottle of Scotch. Remove your appendix. Do not suture until your work has
been inspected. (You have 15 minutes.)

HISTORY
Describe the history of the papacy from its origins to the present
day, concentrating especially, but not exclusively, on its social, political,
economic, religious and philisophical impact upon Europe, Asia, America, and
Africa. Be brief, concise, and specific.

BIOLOGY
Create life. Estimate the differences in subsequent human culture
if this form of life had been created 500 million years ago or earlier, with
special attention to its probable effect on the English parliamentary system.
Cybe R. Wizard
2015-08-13 13:26:05 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 08:05:59 -0400
Chris Ahlstrom <***@teleworm.us> wrote:

> What gripes me more is the infection of Linux with the Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V
> paradigm. It is so much clumsier than the X clipboard(s).

Agreed. It's just so much easier to highlight to copy,
middle-click to paste.

Cybe R. Wizard
--
Nice computers don't go down.
Larry Niven, Steven Barnes
"The Barsoom Project"
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
2015-08-13 13:36:25 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 08:26:05 -0500, "Cybe R. Wizard"
<***@WizardsTower.invalid> Gave us:

>On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 08:05:59 -0400
>Chris Ahlstrom <***@teleworm.us> wrote:
>
>> What gripes me more is the infection of Linux with the Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V
>> paradigm. It is so much clumsier than the X clipboard(s).
>
>Agreed. It's just so much easier to highlight to copy,
>middle-click to paste.
>
>Cybe R. Wizard

The real shame is that it did not cause all those single button mouse
AppleTards to go jump off a bridge.. Heheheh.... :-)
crankypuss
2015-08-14 04:18:21 UTC
Permalink
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> crankypuss wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> It supports copy-and-paste via middle-click.
>>
>> Now you've gone and mentioned a can of sloppy spaghetti that is one
>> of the... I guess "userspace" is probably the closest term to
>> describe all the layers of *stuff* between the kernel/core-commands
>> and the GUI interface the end-user sees... you've brought up the fact
>> that there are what, 3 clipboard managers last time I looked, or
>> maybe more; any number higher than 1 clipboard manager is merely a
>> number indicating the spaghetti-level of copy/paste under what
>> "normal users" think is "linux".
>>
>> Why do I say such a radical thing? When you have two clipboard
>> managers, app-developers have to write a higher-level support routine
>> so their code can handle both clipboard managers without making their
>> app incomprehensible.
>
> Wrong. As far as I know, they all share the various X clipboards.

Nedit often has trouble copying or pasting. And why is it they all
share the various X clipboards, and how many levels of inverted pyramid
are involved in a generalized clipboard routine? Use what you like.

btw, I reinstalled jessie from the netinst this morning. I'm not sure
but I think that selecting "lightdm" as the display-manager (I thought
it was a login-manager) hooked me up with LXDE, and under LXDE there's a
new clipboard-manager icon that I've not seen before. Haven't had time
to do more than verify that fstab is correct and I can log into an X
session.

> Even vim supports the X clipboards.

I looked at vi back in the '90s and it looked like something I once used
on a PDP-11 in 1972 when we were working with KSR-33's and paper tape;
no reason to look at vim really, imo.

> What gripes me more is the infection of Linux with the Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V
> paradigm. It is so much clumsier than the X clipboard(s).
>
> On the other hand, with this crappy FocalTech touchpad, with no way
> to even emulate middle-click, it turns out that that infection is
> useful to me at the moment.

I'm not going to start a rant about how every tom-dick-and-harry who
writes an application seems to think there should be default key
bindings, and half of them have different opinions on what those should
be but don't bother documenting them. Maybe the idea of
"discoverability" hasn't made its way arond yet, the "younger
generation" seems to like easter-egg hunts.

>>> You can install software
>>> packages using pacman.
>>>
>>> Hell, it even provides tmux. Imagine that! Tmux on Windoze!
>>
>> I don't know if Windows is POSIX-compliant or not, ...
>
> It has a (lame) POSIX subsystem available, as a sop to some corps.

Money talks, they tell me.

>> ...but as of the Win32 API it has sufficient functionality to support
>> an entire operating system, rather than the bloat Microsoft calls an
>> operating system...
>
> The Win32 API is a Rube-Goldberg mechanism of complexity, riddled
> through and through with functions with large number of parameters,
> some of them being "handles" to internal structures with even more
> parameters that you have to fill in (if you're lucky a set of
> functions is provided to lessen the chance of fuckups) and extensions
> of those functions with "Ex" appended to the function name.

I agree about the needless complexity, but you forgot to mention that
all those routines that require a zillion options tend to supply their
results in formats you have to convert repeatedly before they're useful
(at least that's how I remember it). The average developer seems to do
things the quick easy way (hey, everybody wants a raise).

> It makes Xorg look simple.
>
> Oh, and the compatibility isn't perfect. Going from XP to 7 broke
> some of our window handling.

Between the release that first supported MSVC, and Vista (when 7 came
out I jumped ship) it seems like every release broke something or other
and made me write another level of anti-kludge, which got harder and
harder because their UI kept turning inside-out with every release when
they learned how to make a talking paperclip or windows with funky
corners or whatever it was they wanted a pat on the head for, even
though it added no real value.

I got fed up with it and came to linux, now I'm fed up with it again,
but I see no greener pastures so writing code will be required; so it
goes.

--
http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com
Chris Ahlstrom
2015-08-14 10:29:21 UTC
Permalink
crankypuss wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

>

Jesus

--
Q: Why don't lawyers go to the beach?
A: The cats keep trying to bury them.
crankypuss
2015-08-14 10:59:49 UTC
Permalink
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> crankypuss wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>>
>
> Jesus
>

Apparently you read something you didn't care for and decided to show us
how articulate you are? Thanks, I already gave at the office.

--
http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com
Chris Ahlstrom
2015-08-14 14:39:18 UTC
Permalink
crankypuss wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> crankypuss wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>> Jesus
>
> Apparently you read something you didn't care for and decided to show us
> how articulate you are? Thanks, I already gave at the office.

No, how inarticulate YOU are. A real crank, much of the time.

--
Tempt me with a spoon!
crankypuss
2015-08-15 12:06:23 UTC
Permalink
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> crankypuss wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> crankypuss wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>> Jesus
>>
>> Apparently you read something you didn't care for and decided to show
>> us
>> how articulate you are? Thanks, I already gave at the office.
>
> No, how inarticulate YOU are. A real crank, much of the time.
>

Feel free to point to specifics, it's easier to fix code when somebody
tells you what's busted than when they just say it's broke. Believe me
when I say that I can be a lot more articulate than the general
readership can deal with.

--
http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com
DanS
2015-08-30 13:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Chris Ahlstrom <***@teleworm.us> wrote in
news:mqkuhq$o0a$***@dont-email.me:

> crankypuss wrote this copyrighted missive and expects
> royalties:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> crankypuss wrote this copyrighted missive and expects
>>> royalties:
>>>
>>> Jesus
>>
>> Apparently you read something you didn't care for and
>> decided to show us how articulate you are? Thanks, I
>> already gave at the office.
>
> No, how inarticulate YOU are. A real crank, much of the
> time.

Ah-ha....you know why?

I do, maybe...

This is my interpretation...

Crankypuss came here wanting to drop Windows because of all the promises of Linux
and how it's "yours" to do with what you "want" to do...and because it's much "better
code", with a myriad of programmers working on projects together, rather than a single
company, with profits in mind. It's "more secure", with "Open Source" source code,
being reviewed by thousands and thousands of people daily, blah, blah, blah.....
(replace blah, blah, blah with all of your standard claims of why GNULinux is superior to
everything else.)

However, after he started digging deeper into it, he found this wasn't the case.
Everything isn't all straight-forward "better", like all the Linux pushers want you to
believe. He found disarray, and inconsistency, across the board, between distros,
between versions of programs, and elsewhere.

Let me put this in perspective a little bit. I believe the issues he has with GNU Linux
isn't necessarily in the underlying core functionality, but more so with the full-blown
graphical desktop environments, many of which do things just a little differently from
each other. (Of course, he was just ranting about multiple clipboards...not sure of
that's 'lower level' or not.....maybe, maybe not.)

But, the point is, prior to his "diving in" to GNU/Linux, he had these pre-conceived
notions about it, I'm sure, provided by various pro-Linux websites, and people, and it
sounded very promising to him.

When he finally took the plunge, and started to tear it all apart, he found that everything
wasn't all rosy as you'd like everyone to believe. He's stated many, many of the
"problems" he finds using/with/developing for GNU/Linux....some problems that he
sees that are nearly as bad as what you people make out MS to be.

(End of interpretation)--------------------------------------------------------------------

Only he can attest to the accuracy of anything I have written above, in whole or in part.
But he may not.

I often wonder, are there any programmers here that work on/make GUI applications,
you know...3rd party apps that are supposed to work across different distros and DEs?
What are THEIR opinions about the GNU/Linux landscape...

The only programming I ever hear about here is scripting, which, in some ways, is
programming...I guess. I'll have to find those newsgroups to get a good handle on that
side of it.
Marek Novotny
2015-08-30 17:25:00 UTC
Permalink
On 2015-08-30, DanS <***@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:

> Ah-ha....you know why?
> I do, maybe...
> This is my interpretation...

> Crankypuss came here wanting to drop Windows because of all the
> promises of Linux and how it's "yours" to do with what you "want"
> to do...and because it's much "better code", with a myriad of
> programmers working on projects together, rather than a single
> company, with profits in mind. It's "more secure", with "Open
> Source" source code, being reviewed by thousands and thousands of
> people daily, blah, blah, blah..... (replace blah, blah, blah
> with all of your standard claims of why GNULinux is superior to
> everything else.)

This is why you are called a troll, DanS. So you recently return
and right off the bat you attack Linux yet again. And a few of
the things you say here are clearly meant to be inflammatory.

What I have seen over the last two years are issues of security
raised, which Linux is CLEARLY better than Windows. There is simply
no rational argument to be made against this fact.

Another issue raised is that free and open does indeed mean others
can see, fix and contribute back upstream their solutions to bugs.
This is how OpenSSL was discovered and fixed. Had that been a
Microsoft product, you'd have to wait for someone to discover it,
inform Microsoft, wait 60 days or more, and then get the patch on
Tuesday or perhaps an emergy patch sooner.

In the above example, Google found the problem as did others, and
resolved it themselves. They gave the info to others and an effort
began to both test, resolve and submit a clear picture of what had
happened. As a result, the BSD foundation started to develop a
simpler version dubbed, LibreSSL. And they are free to do so.

Look at pfSense. Oracle discovered a bug in this popular firewall
fixed it, then submitted the patch upstream. Before anyone knew
there was an issue at all, Oracle had already submitted the fix.
Oracle of all companies, fixing a firewall bug. Why? Because they
use it too and that's what being a good open source citizen does.

> However, after he started digging deeper into it, he found this
> wasn't the case. Everything isn't all straight-forward "better",
> like all the Linux pushers want you to believe. He found disarray,
> and inconsistency, across the board, between distros, between
> versions of programs, and elsewhere.

*everything* seriously, you're going to use that language as your
form of CYA. *all* the Linux pushers want you to believe. Okay DanS,
moment of truth again. Prove that statement. This is yet another
case of you making pulling rabbits out of your ass. Who are these
"linux pushers" who claim *everything* is straight forward?

If anything what we see here are Linux users going out of their
way to tell you that there are differences and that you have
choice. Good ideas float, bad ideas sink, that sort of thing.
This is you, yet again, making it all up as you do.

> Let me put this in perspective a little bit. I believe the issues
> he has with GNU Linux isn't necessarily in the underlying core
> functionality, but more so with the full-blown graphical desktop
> environments, many of which do things just a little differently
> from each other. (Of course, he was just ranting about multiple
> clipboards...not sure of that's 'lower level' or not.....maybe,
> maybe not.)

Typical. This is the same argument made my mike, mechanic and every
other troll and Windows users that acts ignorant. No shit Sherlock.
The whole point of KDE is to do the DE their own way. The whole point
of GNOME is to do it their own way. Each believes they have the right
idea. And for they are not wrong. Many love KDE, many love GNOME, and
so on. The user, remember that user? They get to decide. Unlike Windows
8.1 where you got what Microsoft wanted you to have, in Linux, you can
choose what you want and if nothing exists that you want, you can build
something you do want. You have that opportunity. And yes, DanS, that is
awesome.

> But, the point is, prior to his "diving in" to GNU/Linux, he
> had these pre-conceived notions about it, I'm sure, provided
> by various pro-Linux websites, and people, and it sounded very
> promising to him.

Awe DanS, this sounds like you. Did Linux disappoint you? Get
over it. If you like Windows so much, go use it; Just because
you're so disappointed doesn't mean the rest of the world will
agree DanS. Why isn't Amazon running on Windows DanS? Why isn't IBM
showing off the Windows One instead of the Linux One mainframe? Why
am I using Linux instead of Windows or a Mac? Because DanS, others,
hard as it is for you to believe, actually like Linux better. And if
their reasons don't compute with you, oh fucking well. Get over it.

> When he finally took the plunge, and started to tear it all apart,
> he found that everything wasn't all rosy as you'd like everyone
> to believe. He's stated many, many of the "problems" he finds
> using/with/developing for GNU/Linux....some problems that he sees
> that are nearly as bad as what you people make out MS to be.

So then he can move on. Cranky can decide what's best for him. What's
best for him isn't what's best for everyone. What he decides, one way
or the other, is his view.

> (End of interpretation)--------------------------------------------

Oh really? There's an end your interpretations? I've not yet seen
real evidence of that.

> Only he can attest to the accuracy of anything I have written above,
> in whole or in part. But he may not.

Only he can attest to the accuracy of what you wrote above? What you
wrote is horse shit. So what, he can attest to going to a fan site and
being told Linux is a bed of roses? Please. Cranky is a mature adult.
He's an experienced programmer, not a moron. He's evaluating DanS. Know
what that means? Try it some time.

> I often wonder, are there any programmers here that work on/make
> GUI applications, you know...3rd party apps that are supposed to
> work across different distros and DEs? What are THEIR opinions
> about the GNU/Linux landscape...

You're looking for developers of GUI applications for Linux in this
particular newsgroup because you wish to know their opinions about the
Linux landscape. Well, DanS, at some point in the not so distant
future, as a sample I do plan to write my first simple GUI game. Likely
just Lemonade Stand. And I'll likely want to see it run on KDE and
Gnome. When I've done so, I'll be sure and express my opinions for your
benefit.

> The only programming I ever hear about here is scripting, which,
> in some ways, is programming...I guess. I'll have to find those
> newsgroups to get a good handle on that side of it.

Yes, go find those newsgroups. After their done laughing themselves into
a coma over your ridiculousness, don't come back here all upset about
it.

--
Marek Novotny
https://github.com/marek-novotny
DanS
2015-09-12 17:53:26 UTC
Permalink
Marek Novotny <***@marspolar.com> wrote in
news:***@giganews.com:

> On 2015-08-30, DanS
> <***@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:
>
>> Ah-ha....you know why?
>> I do, maybe...
>> This is my interpretation...
>
>> Crankypuss came here wanting to drop Windows because of
>> all the promises of Linux and how it's "yours" to do with
>> what you "want" to do...and because it's much "better
>> code", with a myriad of programmers working on projects
>> together, rather than a single company, with profits in
>> mind. It's "more secure", with "Open Source" source code,
>> being reviewed by thousands and thousands of people daily,
>> blah, blah, blah..... (replace blah, blah, blah with all
>> of your standard claims of why GNULinux is superior to
>> everything else.)
>
> This is why you are called a troll, DanS. So you recently
> return and right off the bat you attack Linux yet again.
> And a few of the things you say here are clearly meant to
> be inflammatory.

All the shit you'd written below that I snipped is a figment of your imagination. You,
mistakenly imagining I am saying things I am not, and you telling me what I think. How
about read it in black and white, exaclty as I wrote, not what your deluded mind thinks
my real intentions were behind the statments I made.

(This is the short reply. I've entered a comprehensive response to many of your points
below, but thought it was far too long for you to actually be able to comprehend, even
though I'd stated the same points several times in many different ways, I'm sure you'd
still misunderstand. Points I've made here 100 times, stated in many different ways,
and you've misunderstood every one of them for years now.)

Also...

...THIS reply, that you are reading now, IS meant to be inflammatory. You take my
saying what it looked to me like his history was/is here, based on what I've read, and
how I wondered how people that developed 'real GUI' apps...'real' programs**, not just
"script kiddies", like yourself, how they handle trying to make sure their stuff works
across distros. ...and then you go on some long diatribe of I think this, and I think that,
and all your other BS.

Please, don't ever reply to me again....because I keep repeating the same things over
and over again, and you keep misunderstanding, misinterpreting, and injecting your
own beliefs of what you think I've said.

Like my initial post you replied to here....I wasn't "attacking" Linux....only it's
"salesmen"...which is my *actual* point, that went
VRRROOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM...right over your head...again, and again, and again,
and again, as it has for a couple years now.

...you can't blame the car becasue the salesman told you it can do 120 but can only do
80.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


**I'm not talking developers that write apps for KDE, or for GNOME, or whatever...I'm
talking about things like 'Google Earth'. There's ONE Linux d/l....not an RPM-based and
a DEB based, or a QT version, or GTK version etc. There isn't an Ubuntu version and
a Fedora version. There's ONE version.
Marek Novotny
2015-09-12 18:50:39 UTC
Permalink
On 2015-09-12, DanS <***@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:
> Marek Novotny <***@marspolar.com> wrote in
> news:***@giganews.com:
>
>> On 2015-08-30, DanS
>> <***@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:
>>
>>> Ah-ha....you know why?
>>> I do, maybe...
>>> This is my interpretation...
>>
>>> Crankypuss came here wanting to drop Windows because of
>>> all the promises of Linux and how it's "yours" to do with
>>> what you "want" to do...and because it's much "better
>>> code", with a myriad of programmers working on projects
>>> together, rather than a single company, with profits in
>>> mind. It's "more secure", with "Open Source" source code,
>>> being reviewed by thousands and thousands of people daily,
>>> blah, blah, blah..... (replace blah, blah, blah with all
>>> of your standard claims of why GNULinux is superior to
>>> everything else.)
>>
>> This is why you are called a troll, DanS. So you recently
>> return and right off the bat you attack Linux yet again.
>> And a few of the things you say here are clearly meant to
>> be inflammatory.

> All the shit you'd written below that I snipped is a figment of your
> imagination. You, mistakenly imagining I am saying things I am not,
> and you telling me what I think. How about read it in black and
> white, exaclty as I wrote, not what your deluded mind thinks my
> real intentions were behind the statments I made.
>
> (This is the short reply. I've entered a comprehensive response
> to many of your points below, but thought it was far too long for
> you to actually be able to comprehend, even though I'd stated the
> same points several times in many different ways, I'm sure you'd
> still misunderstand. Points I've made here 100 times, stated in
> many different ways, and you've misunderstood every one of them
> for years now.)
>
> Also...
>
> ...THIS reply, that you are reading now, IS meant to be
> inflammatory. You take my saying what it looked to me like his
> history was/is here, based on what I've read, and how I wondered how
> people that developed 'real GUI' apps...'real' programs**, not just
> "script kiddies", like yourself, how they handle trying to make sure
> their stuff works across distros. ...and then you go on some long
> diatribe of I think this, and I think that, and all your other BS.

Look up the term script kiddie. You keep insisting on using the term
incorrectly as shown again above. A script kiddie isn't the author of
the script. It's someone who simply uses the script someone else writes.

I'm no script kiddie. I'm the author.

> Please, don't ever reply to me again....because I keep repeating
> the same things over and over again, and you keep misunderstanding,
> misinterpreting, and injecting your own beliefs of what you think
> I've said.

You continue to be ass and I may or may not reply. You came in here
being an ass again and I called you out on it. So you cut everything you
said and what I said out of that in this response. One wonders why that
is.

I am not wrong as you yourself recanted in the past for completely
misrepresenting what I said. You had to retract every word of it right
here in this group. I wasn't wrong then and I am not wrong now.

> Like my initial post you replied to here....I wasn't "attacking"
> Linux....only it's "salesmen"...which is my *actual* point, that
> went VRRROOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM...right over your head...again, and again,
> and again, and again, as it has for a couple years now.

What salesman?

> ...you can't blame the car becasue the salesman told you it can do
> 120 but can only do 80.

Be specific. Who sold you what exactly?

> **I'm not talking developers that write apps for KDE, or for GNOME,
> or whatever...I'm talking about things like 'Google Earth'. There's
> ONE Linux d/l....not an RPM-based and a DEB based, or a QT version,
> or GTK version etc. There isn't an Ubuntu version and a Fedora
> version. There's ONE version.

Ah, so Google Earth isn't available for you and so what, Linux is broken
somehow? Linux is what it is. It is developed by those who want to use
it. You have a choice. You can use what it is or you can use something
else. Go use something else if this isn't your cup of tea. No one is
selling you, lying to you or forcing you or anyone else to use Linux. Go
use whatever you want.

Stop crying about what Linux isn't and move on.

--
Marek Novotny
https://github.com/marek-novotny
Chris Ahlstrom
2015-09-12 20:59:08 UTC
Permalink
Marek Novotny wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2015-09-12, DanS <***@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:
>
> <some weird stuff>
>
> Stop crying about what Linux isn't and move on.

Just killfile the kook.

--
You will visit the Dung Pits of Glive soon.
Harold Stevens
2015-09-12 22:04:56 UTC
Permalink
In <mt23ja$lst$***@dont-email.me> Chris Ahlstrom:

[Snip...]

> Just killfile the kook.

+1

Heartily agree. In my Bozobin years now. Highly recommended plonk.

--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
I toss GoogleGroup (http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/).
DanS
2015-09-18 22:54:14 UTC
Permalink
Marek Novotny <***@marspolar.com> wrote in
news:YYKdnV8NZ8di7mnInZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com:


>
> Look up the term script kiddie. You keep insisting on using
> the term incorrectly as shown again above. A script kiddie
> isn't the author of the script. It's someone who simply
> uses the script someone else writes.
>
> I'm no script kiddie. I'm the author.

You are right on one front, Marek Novotny, a script kiddie does appear to use other's
scripts...

...but, your wrong on another front, Marek Novotny,...I don't think I've ever used that
term in here before...if I did, maybe one time, Marek Novotny,...

...which is far from "You keep insisting on using the term incorrectly".

You want to correct that, Marek Novotny,?


>> Please, don't ever reply to me again....because I keep
>> repeating the same things over and over again, and you
>> keep misunderstanding, misinterpreting, and injecting your
>> own beliefs of what you think I've said.
>
> You continue to be ass and I may or may not reply. You came
> in here being an ass again and I called you out on it. So
> you cut everything you said and what I said out of that in
> this response. One wonders why that is.

It's because you miss the point again, and again, and again, and again, Marek
Novotny,....even when I've said 50 times....it's not Linux I have a problem with...it's the
Linux "salesman", Marek Novotny,.

And no, nobody sold me anything. It's a f*cking figure of speech, Marek Novotny.


>
> I am not wrong as you yourself recanted in the past for
> completely misrepresenting what I said. You had to retract
> every word of it right here in this group. I wasn't wrong
> then and I am not wrong now.

It was one time, Marek Novotny. About one item. One thing.


>> Like my initial post you replied to here....I wasn't
>> "attacking" Linux....only it's "salesmen"...which is my
>> *actual* point, that went VRRROOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM...right
>> over your head...again, and again, and again, and again,
>> as it has for a couple years now.
>
> What salesman?
>
>> ...you can't blame the car becasue the salesman told you
>> it can do 120 but can only do 80.
>
> Be specific. Who sold you what exactly?
>
>> **I'm not talking developers that write apps for KDE, or
>> for GNOME, or whatever...I'm talking about things like
>> 'Google Earth'. There's ONE Linux d/l....not an RPM-based
>> and a DEB based, or a QT version, or GTK version etc.
>> There isn't an Ubuntu version and a Fedora version.
>> There's ONE version.
>
> Ah, so Google Earth isn't available for you and so what,
> Linux is broken somehow? Linux is what it is. It is
> developed by those who want to use it. You have a choice.
> You can use what it is or you can use something else. Go
> use something else if this isn't your cup of tea. No one is
> selling you, lying to you or forcing you or anyone else to
> use Linux. Go use whatever you want.
>
> Stop crying about what Linux isn't and move on.

Oh. My. God. How the f*ck can you be so dense, Marek Novotny. You don't understand
nearly ANYTHING, Marek Novotny.

Google Earth IS available for me, Marek Novotny, and for Linux...but I don't care. I hate
Google Earth anyway, Marek Novotny.
crankypuss
2015-09-13 00:25:07 UTC
Permalink
DanS wrote:

> Marek Novotny <***@marspolar.com> wrote in
> news:***@giganews.com:
>
>> On 2015-08-30, DanS
>> <***@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:
>>
>>> Ah-ha....you know why?
>>> I do, maybe...
>>> This is my interpretation...
>>
>>> Crankypuss came here wanting to drop Windows because of
>>> all the promises of Linux and how it's "yours" to do with
>>> what you "want" to do...and because it's much "better
>>> code", with a myriad of programmers working on projects
>>> together, rather than a single company, with profits in
>>> mind. It's "more secure", with "Open Source" source code,
>>> being reviewed by thousands and thousands of people daily,
>>> blah, blah, blah..... (replace blah, blah, blah with all
>>> of your standard claims of why GNULinux is superior to
>>> everything else.)
>>
>> This is why you are called a troll, DanS. So you recently
>> return and right off the bat you attack Linux yet again.
>> And a few of the things you say here are clearly meant to
>> be inflammatory.
>
> All the shit you'd written below that I snipped is a figment of your
> imagination. You, mistakenly imagining I am saying things I am not,
> and you telling me what I think. How about read it in black and white,
> exaclty as I wrote, not what your deluded mind thinks my real
> intentions were behind the statments I made.
>
> (This is the short reply. I've entered a comprehensive response to
> many of your points below, but thought it was far too long for you to
> actually be able to comprehend, even though I'd stated the same points
> several times in many different ways, I'm sure you'd still
> misunderstand. Points I've made here 100 times, stated in many
> different ways, and you've misunderstood every one of them for years
> now.)
>
> Also...
>
> ...THIS reply, that you are reading now, IS meant to be inflammatory.
> You take my saying what it looked to me like his history was/is here,
> based on what I've read, and how I wondered how people that developed
> 'real GUI' apps...'real' programs**, not just "script kiddies", like
> yourself, how they handle trying to make sure their stuff works across
> distros. ...and then you go on some long diatribe of I think this, and
> I think that, and all your other BS.
>
> Please, don't ever reply to me again....because I keep repeating the
> same things over and over again, and you keep misunderstanding,
> misinterpreting, and injecting your own beliefs of what you think I've
> said.
>
> Like my initial post you replied to here....I wasn't "attacking"
> Linux....only it's "salesmen"...which is my *actual* point, that went
> VRRROOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM...right over your head...again, and again, and
> again, and again, as it has for a couple years now.
>
> ...you can't blame the car becasue the salesman told you it can do 120
> but can only do 80.
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> **I'm not talking developers that write apps for KDE, or for GNOME, or
> whatever...I'm talking about things like 'Google Earth'. There's ONE
> Linux d/l....not an RPM-based and a DEB based, or a QT version, or GTK
> version etc. There isn't an Ubuntu version and a Fedora version.
> There's ONE version.

What crock of shit is all this? Crankypuss uses linux because it's what
he uses, don't attempt to make no sense out of it, you don't have the
brainpower.

--
http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com
DanS
2015-09-18 23:48:24 UTC
Permalink
crankypuss <***@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:mt2fkp$34a$***@dont-email.me:

> DanS wrote:
>
>> Marek Novotny <***@marspolar.com> wrote in
>> news:***@giganews.com:
>>
>>> On 2015-08-30, DanS
>>> <***@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ah-ha....you know why?
>>>> I do, maybe...
>>>> This is my interpretation...
>>>
>>>> Crankypuss came here wanting to drop Windows because of
>>>> all the promises of Linux and how it's "yours" to do
>>>> with what you "want" to do...and because it's much
>>>> "better code", with a myriad of programmers working on
>>>> projects together, rather than a single company, with
>>>> profits in mind. It's "more secure", with "Open Source"
>>>> source code, being reviewed by thousands and thousands
>>>> of people daily, blah, blah, blah..... (replace blah,
>>>> blah, blah with all of your standard claims of why
>>>> GNULinux is superior to everything else.)
>>>
>>> This is why you are called a troll, DanS. So you recently
>>> return and right off the bat you attack Linux yet again.
>>> And a few of the things you say here are clearly meant to
>>> be inflammatory.
>>
>> All the shit you'd written below that I snipped is a
>> figment of your imagination. You, mistakenly imagining I
>> am saying things I am not, and you telling me what I
>> think. How about read it in black and white, exaclty as I
>> wrote, not what your deluded mind thinks my real
>> intentions were behind the statments I made.
>>
>> (This is the short reply. I've entered a comprehensive
>> response to many of your points below, but thought it was
>> far too long for you to actually be able to comprehend,
>> even though I'd stated the same points several times in
>> many different ways, I'm sure you'd still misunderstand.
>> Points I've made here 100 times, stated in many different
>> ways, and you've misunderstood every one of them for years
>> now.)
>>
>> Also...
>>
>> ...THIS reply, that you are reading now, IS meant to be
>> inflammatory. You take my saying what it looked to me like
>> his history was/is here, based on what I've read, and how
>> I wondered how people that developed 'real GUI'
>> apps...'real' programs**, not just "script kiddies", like
>> yourself, how they handle trying to make sure their stuff
>> works across distros. ...and then you go on some long
>> diatribe of I think this, and I think that, and all your
>> other BS.
>>
>> Please, don't ever reply to me again....because I keep
>> repeating the same things over and over again, and you
>> keep misunderstanding, misinterpreting, and injecting your
>> own beliefs of what you think I've said.
>>
>> Like my initial post you replied to here....I wasn't
>> "attacking" Linux....only it's "salesmen"...which is my
>> *actual* point, that went VRRROOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM...right
>> over your head...again, and again, and again, and again,
>> as it has for a couple years now.
>>
>> ...you can't blame the car becasue the salesman told you
>> it can do 120 but can only do 80.
>>
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
>>
>>
>> **I'm not talking developers that write apps for KDE, or
>> for GNOME, or whatever...I'm talking about things like
>> 'Google Earth'. There's ONE Linux d/l....not an RPM-based
>> and a DEB based, or a QT version, or GTK version etc.
>> There isn't an Ubuntu version and a Fedora version.
>> There's ONE version.
>
> What crock of shit is all this? Crankypuss uses linux
> because it's what he uses, don't attempt to make no sense
> out of it, you don't have the brainpower.
>

I am not trying to make sense out of anything....and you use Linux because you were
fed up with Windows, for whatever reasoning, and you heard about Ubuntu and
decided to try that, and then came here, or maybe that happened in reverse.

I was merely pointing out that as I remember when you came here, there was all the
common talk of how much Linux and FOSS is higher quality code, everything is much
better, works better, and you had an enthusiastic attitude about it.

...and then when you delved into it, you found this wasn't necessarily the case.

Are you going to deny that earlier in this thread you were talking about the multiple
clipboards and calling it a spaghettit mess?...

...or that you periodically pop in here and bitch about this process, or that architecture,
or the way this is done, or that is done?


That was basically the entire content of my initial post, what I recall reading in my
newsreader, summarized. I certainly don't remeber or recall many of the individual
details for each one.

Everything else posted as replies to that content was some pretty far-fetched,
mangled, oddball take on what I said, and any replies of mine were fueled from that
true nonsense.



By the way, I have quite a bit of brainpower, but it doesn't take a lot for me to recall you
are using Linux because you came here saying you were fed up with Windows, for
whatever you're reasoning was, and I believe you. What else is there to figure out?

If you want to see my brainpower, let's get into an engineering meeting hashing out the
details of a new embedded processor controlled wireless IO device and then go build it
from top to bottom, or lay out and deploy a 1000 node statewide cell-style wireless
network.
crankypuss
2015-09-19 11:33:23 UTC
Permalink
DanS wrote:

> crankypuss <***@invalid.invalid> wrote in
> news:mt2fkp$34a$***@dont-email.me:
>
>> DanS wrote:
>>
>>> Marek Novotny <***@marspolar.com> wrote in
>>> news:***@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-08-30, DanS
>>>> <***@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ah-ha....you know why?
>>>>> I do, maybe...
>>>>> This is my interpretation...
>>>>
>>>>> Crankypuss came here wanting to drop Windows because of
>>>>> all the promises of Linux and how it's "yours" to do
>>>>> with what you "want" to do...and because it's much
>>>>> "better code", with a myriad of programmers working on
>>>>> projects together, rather than a single company, with
>>>>> profits in mind. It's "more secure", with "Open Source"
>>>>> source code, being reviewed by thousands and thousands
>>>>> of people daily, blah, blah, blah..... (replace blah,
>>>>> blah, blah with all of your standard claims of why
>>>>> GNULinux is superior to everything else.)
>>>>
>>>> This is why you are called a troll, DanS. So you recently
>>>> return and right off the bat you attack Linux yet again.
>>>> And a few of the things you say here are clearly meant to
>>>> be inflammatory.
>>>
>>> All the shit you'd written below that I snipped is a
>>> figment of your imagination. You, mistakenly imagining I
>>> am saying things I am not, and you telling me what I
>>> think. How about read it in black and white, exaclty as I
>>> wrote, not what your deluded mind thinks my real
>>> intentions were behind the statments I made.
>>>
>>> (This is the short reply. I've entered a comprehensive
>>> response to many of your points below, but thought it was
>>> far too long for you to actually be able to comprehend,
>>> even though I'd stated the same points several times in
>>> many different ways, I'm sure you'd still misunderstand.
>>> Points I've made here 100 times, stated in many different
>>> ways, and you've misunderstood every one of them for years
>>> now.)
>>>
>>> Also...
>>>
>>> ...THIS reply, that you are reading now, IS meant to be
>>> inflammatory. You take my saying what it looked to me like
>>> his history was/is here, based on what I've read, and how
>>> I wondered how people that developed 'real GUI'
>>> apps...'real' programs**, not just "script kiddies", like
>>> yourself, how they handle trying to make sure their stuff
>>> works across distros. ...and then you go on some long
>>> diatribe of I think this, and I think that, and all your
>>> other BS.
>>>
>>> Please, don't ever reply to me again....because I keep
>>> repeating the same things over and over again, and you
>>> keep misunderstanding, misinterpreting, and injecting your
>>> own beliefs of what you think I've said.
>>>
>>> Like my initial post you replied to here....I wasn't
>>> "attacking" Linux....only it's "salesmen"...which is my
>>> *actual* point, that went VRRROOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM...right
>>> over your head...again, and again, and again, and again,
>>> as it has for a couple years now.
>>>
>>> ...you can't blame the car becasue the salesman told you
>>> it can do 120 but can only do 80.
>>>
>>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----------------
>>>
>>>
>>> **I'm not talking developers that write apps for KDE, or
>>> for GNOME, or whatever...I'm talking about things like
>>> 'Google Earth'. There's ONE Linux d/l....not an RPM-based
>>> and a DEB based, or a QT version, or GTK version etc.
>>> There isn't an Ubuntu version and a Fedora version.
>>> There's ONE version.
>>
>> What crock of shit is all this? Crankypuss uses linux
>> because it's what he uses, don't attempt to make no sense
>> out of it, you don't have the brainpower.
>>
>
> I am not trying to make sense out of anything....and you use Linux
> because you were fed up with Windows, for whatever reasoning, and you
> heard about Ubuntu and decided to try that, and then came here, or
> maybe that happened in reverse.

You have no clue; no insult, there are not many around to grab.

> I was merely pointing out that as I remember when you came here, there
> was all the common talk of how much Linux and FOSS is higher quality
> code, everything is much better, works better, and you had an
> enthusiastic attitude about it.

I'm still enthusiastic about it, you think I just plunked down $1600+
for a new ultrabook preloaded with linux just for grins? This netbook
I'm typing on is too old to have bluetooth, but as it turns out I don't
need bluetooth, and it's Excellent to have a slow system to run code on
when it's under development, the slower the better. On the other hand,
I'm not much for waiting around while compilers do their thing, and the
linux kernel most likely has a lot of source code that'll need to be
compiled, at least the first time.

I have *never* believed that FOSS code is higher quality overall than
the shit code I worked with in the industry, to expect that would be
somewhat naive. I *have* read small bits of linux source here and
there, and my supposition has not yet been disproven. One prefers to
believe that there are small cells of free coders extant within the
world, but presuming that to be the case is contra-productive, and good
coders are rare. Besides, all code is either trivial or shit, those are
the only possible cases... at least I'd believe that, reading my own
shitty code, even the morning after, and my own code tends toward
readability rather than impressive complexity.

> ...and then when you delved into it, you found this wasn't necessarily
> the case.

It's taken me what, three years in December, to come to something of an
understanding of linux. It could have been much easier but the
terminology and mindset are different... I never before worked on a Unix
system; I did have access to an AIX system in around 1990, but as far as
I could tell, all it was good for was use as a high-resolution 327x
terminal, and I had other more important things to do than sit around
learning about Unix.

Here's my definition of Unix: An ad-hoc operating system developed in
1969, to which ad-hoc extension were added for years, before they became
standardized ad-hoc extensions called POSIX. I'm not impressed with
Unix, I saw better first; but that's relatively unimportant imo, since
linux is a solid efficient portable kernel, and that's what I need.

> Are you going to deny that earlier in this thread you were talking
> about the multiple clipboards and calling it a spaghettit mess?...

"If it's not Scottish, it's crrrrap!" One of my favorite editors,
nedit, is plagued by clipboard hell. I'm thinking that might be one of
the first things I fix, just to get back into practice, and to learn
about Git and friends. It's not amazing that the linux clipboard
situation is a mess, there's no system-clipboard because there's no
system, there's just a kernel with a lot of stuff running on top of it
(which if I am not mistaken "they" call "userspace").

> ...or that you periodically pop in here and bitch about this process,
> or that architecture, or the way this is done, or that is done?

I don't periodically pop in. I read aolu daily. When I decide that a
thread is full of bullshitters, I mark the thread as read and move on.
At times I look again, at times not. In some senses it's pot luck.

> That was basically the entire content of my initial post, what I
> recall reading in my newsreader, summarized. I certainly don't remeber
> or recall many of the individual details for each one.
>
> Everything else posted as replies to that content was some pretty
> far-fetched, mangled, oddball take on what I said, and any replies of
> mine were fueled from that true nonsense.
>
>
>
> By the way, I have quite a bit of brainpower, but it doesn't take a
> lot for me to recall you are using Linux because you came here saying
> you were fed up with Windows, for whatever you're reasoning was, and I
> believe you. What else is there to figure out?

Yes, I was fed up with Windows, and was trying to decide between linux
and Mac. The linux alternative was less costly to explore. Since Apple
basically pirated, what was it, free-BSD as I recall, the difference
between their offering and linux probably amounts to a more consistent
and more formally supported user-interface, at the cost of losing the
ability to take care of oneself, a price I prefer to avoid.

> If you want to see my brainpower, let's get into an engineering
> meeting hashing out the details of a new embedded processor controlled
> wireless IO device and then go build it from top to bottom, or lay out
> and deploy a 1000 node statewide cell-style wireless network.

There are lots of different kinds of brainpower. If those are part of
your skillset maybe you can explain to me why, given that "every"
cellphone has the ability to reach and be reached by the local tower,
which is almost always farther away than some other user with a
cellphone, why we still have landline internet except for high-volume
usage and region-to-region connectivity. If you ask me, the reason is
called "FCC Regulations".

--
http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com
Dan Purgert
2015-09-19 12:19:07 UTC
Permalink
On 2015-09-19, crankypuss <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> There are lots of different kinds of brainpower. If those are part of
> your skillset maybe you can explain to me why, given that "every"
> cellphone has the ability to reach and be reached by the local tower,
> which is almost always farther away than some other user with a
> cellphone, why we still have landline internet except for high-volume
> usage and region-to-region connectivity. If you ask me, the reason is
> called "FCC Regulations".
>

Pretty much that -- the cell companies "own" (or put more properly
"leased for [0-9]\{2-3\} years from the public") the frequencies that
they operate on. Depending on the specific connection (e.g. 4g vs 3g,
etc.), and region in the world, you'll find cell phones operating
anywhere between about 450 and 3,500 MHz, skipping over the 2400 MHz ISM
band.

As for WISP links, they currently operate in the ISM bands, or have
licensed parts of other bands (e.g. parts of the 3 GHz band).

Note that I just work with some WISP guys, and am personally more
familiar with wired networking; so I've probably got things a bit off.
Big Bad Bob
2015-09-19 17:42:55 UTC
Permalink
On 09/19/15 04:33, crankypuss so wittily quipped:
> Here's my definition of Unix: An ad-hoc operating system developed in
> 1969, to which ad-hoc extension were added for years, before they became
> standardized ad-hoc extensions called POSIX. I'm not impressed with
> Unix, I saw better first; but that's relatively unimportant imo, since
> linux is a solid efficient portable kernel, and that's what I need.

linux isn't UNIX by the way. And consider that UNIX did things "back
then" that were extremely revolutionary, and other OSs have patterned
themselves after (including VMS, Solaris, and, well, Linux).

1. "everything" is a file
2. all file systems mount someplace off of the root '/'
3. hierarchical directory structures
4. access to devices via file names in '/dev/'
5. high level language for the majority of the OS ('C')
6. compile-in kernel support for new devices [later, dynamically loaded]
7. a 'shell' with simple commands, capable of running an application
and sending its output into another, or redirecting input/output to/from
disk files or character devices, and running scripts with logical flow
control.
8. a 'userland' application set, consisting of small applications that
perform specific functions, and can easily send their output or receive
their input to/from another one (piping), each one performing a somewhat
minimalistic function, but together giving the potential for powerful
utilities, even via shell scripting.


the whole point in 1969 was to look out towards the future and make the
OS able to adapt to it. Considering that the basic model has been more
or less the same [with new stuff added and updates and all that, yeah,
but BASICALLY the same] for the last *45 YEARS*, you'd think that maybe
in 1969 they were thinking PRETTY SMART?

And if you consider that 'B', later 'C', was invented *specifically* for
this, and both 'C' and C-like or C-derived languages are THE! MOST!
POPULAR! ONES! even *now*, 45 years later, they got THAT right, too!

Apple OS/X really *IS* UNIX - Mach specifically. And the *BSD's are
forked from UNIX, originally as 'BSD Unix'.

but Linux was created independently as a "UNIX-like" operating system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Unix

"the open source Linux operating system, a reimplementation of Unix from
scratch, using parts of the GNU project that had been underway since the
mid-1980s"

(not sure what this has to do with Cygwin except that Cygwin gives you
the POSIX shell stuff, basically RH's version of it, in windows, which I
find *incredibly* useful, and I like to install it on all my windows
boxen and VMs where I do actual work)
Big Bad Bob
2015-09-19 17:47:31 UTC
Permalink
On 09/19/15 10:42, Big Bad Bob so wittily quipped:
> On 09/19/15 04:33, crankypuss so wittily quipped:
>> Here's my definition of Unix: An ad-hoc operating system developed in
>> 1969, to which ad-hoc extension were added for years, before they became
>> standardized ad-hoc extensions called POSIX. I'm not impressed with
>> Unix, I saw better first; but that's relatively unimportant imo, since
>> linux is a solid efficient portable kernel, and that's what I need.
>
> linux isn't UNIX by the way. And consider that UNIX did things "back
> then" that were extremely revolutionary, and other OSs have patterned
> themselves after (including VMS, Solaris, and, well, Linux).
>
> 1. "everything" is a file
> 2. all file systems mount someplace off of the root '/'
> 3. hierarchical directory structures
> 4. access to devices via file names in '/dev/'
> 5. high level language for the majority of the OS ('C')
> 6. compile-in kernel support for new devices [later, dynamically loaded]
> 7. a 'shell' with simple commands, capable of running an application
> and sending its output into another, or redirecting input/output to/from
> disk files or character devices, and running scripts with logical flow
> control.
> 8. a 'userland' application set, consisting of small applications that
> perform specific functions, and can easily send their output or receive
> their input to/from another one (piping), each one performing a somewhat
> minimalistic function, but together giving the potential for powerful
> utilities, even via shell scripting.
>
>
> the whole point in 1969 was to look out towards the future and make the
> OS able to adapt to it. Considering that the basic model has been more
> or less the same [with new stuff added and updates and all that, yeah,
> but BASICALLY the same] for the last *45 YEARS*, you'd think that maybe
> in 1969 they were thinking PRETTY SMART?
>
> And if you consider that 'B', later 'C', was invented *specifically* for
> this, and both 'C' and C-like or C-derived languages are THE! MOST!
> POPULAR! ONES! even *now*, 45 years later, they got THAT right, too!
>
> Apple OS/X really *IS* UNIX - Mach specifically. And the *BSD's are
> forked from UNIX, originally as 'BSD Unix'.
>
> but Linux was created independently as a "UNIX-like" operating system.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Unix
>
> "the open source Linux operating system, a reimplementation of Unix from
> scratch, using parts of the GNU project that had been underway since the
> mid-1980s"
>
> (not sure what this has to do with Cygwin except that Cygwin gives you
> the POSIX shell stuff, basically RH's version of it, in windows, which I
> find *incredibly* useful, and I like to install it on all my windows
> boxen and VMs where I do actual work)
>
>

oh yeah to draw the point together a bit better, Linux was really there
to make UNIX (or a 'UNIX clone' in a way) an OPEN SOURCE operating
system, and STILL be as "UNIX-like" as possible, and that's the point.

Effectively, linux *is* "UNIX" from a functionality standpoint. The
actual code, however, is NOT.


as for kernel stability, I prefer BSD.

(it's too early and I need more coffee)
Aragorn
2015-09-19 19:17:10 UTC
Permalink
On Saturday 19 Sep 2015 19:47, Big Bad Bob conveyed the following to
alt.os.linux.ubuntu...

> oh yeah to draw the point together a bit better, Linux was really
> there to make UNIX (or a 'UNIX clone' in a way) an OPEN SOURCE
> operating system, and STILL be as "UNIX-like" as possible, and that's
> the point.

Um, no, that was the intent behind GNU. Linus Torvalds only started
writing what would later be called Linux ─ i.e. a kernel ─ and which was
initially called Freax, because he was using Minix at the time, and
Minix was all still 8086 code, i.e. 16-bit real mode.

Linus was using an HP Vectra PC with an 80386 processor, and he wanted
to adapt the Minix kernel to the underlying hardware, and thus, to make
it 32-bit and protected mode. However, the Minix license did not at the
time permit him to modify the code, so he started writing his own kernel
from scratch.

Today, Minix is a fully 32-bit operating system, and its license does
now effectively make it Free Software. Linus has however said that if
GNU had been complete at the time ─ meaning that if the GNU Hurd kernel
were production-ready at the time ─ then he would never have started
writing Linux.

As it is however, the Hurd has not by far received the attention and
care of all the other GNU components, and is still considered
experimental. It is however revolutionary in its own right, and not
just because it's a microkernel, but because of the high degree of
virtualization and abstraction.

> Effectively, linux *is* "UNIX" from a functionality standpoint. The
> actual code, however, is NOT.

True, but that goes for the all of the BSDs of today as well. They no
longer contain any AT&T code.

> as for kernel stability, I prefer BSD.

BSD still has a few legacy compatibilities which could be considered
security hazards, such as that case is ignored when the login is entered
in all uppercase. In other words, a password with mixed upper- and
lowercase would be easier to crack because the system will interpret the
password as uppercase-only when the login name is entered in all-
uppercase. This is a compatibility "feature" towards dumb terminals
which could not distinguish between upper- and lowercase ─ read: the old
teletype machines.

BSD supports the revolutionary ZFS filesystem by default, but its native
filesystem is still UFS, which doesn't even use any B-trees or hashed
trees. (GNU/Linux has btrfs as an alternative, and supports ZFS only
via the FUSE framework and a userspace driver. This is due to ZFS being
developed under the CDDL license, with which the GPL claims
incompatibility ─ albeit not the other way around.)

Lastly, BSD also seriously lags behind on the Linux kernel in terms of
hardware support. People who want to use the latest hardware are better
off with GNU/Linux than with BSD, and if you want video acceleration on
anything other than an Intel graphics adapter, then you can already
forget OpenBSD, because they insist on everything in the system being
FLOSS ─ that's why OpenBSD was created as a fork from NetBSD (or
FreeBSD?) in the first place.)

--
= Aragorn =

http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
Big Bad Bob
2015-09-20 18:12:04 UTC
Permalink
On 09/19/15 12:17, Aragorn so wittily quipped:
> On Saturday 19 Sep 2015 19:47, Big Bad Bob conveyed the following to
> alt.os.linux.ubuntu...
>
>> oh yeah to draw the point together a bit better, Linux was really
>> there to make UNIX (or a 'UNIX clone' in a way) an OPEN SOURCE
>> operating system, and STILL be as "UNIX-like" as possible, and that's
>> the point.
>
> Um, no, that was the intent behind GNU. Linus Torvalds only started
> writing what would later be called Linux ─ i.e. a kernel ─ and which was
> initially called Freax, because he was using Minix at the time, and
> Minix was all still 8086 code, i.e. 16-bit real mode.

well, not wrong either. I think our perspectives are different, but the
INTENT was a UNIX-clone, without all of the 'encumberance', for x86
32-bit platforms. so yeah.

> Linus was using an HP Vectra PC with an 80386 processor, and he wanted
> to adapt the Minix kernel to the underlying hardware, and thus, to make
> it 32-bit and protected mode. However, the Minix license did not at the
> time permit him to modify the code, so he started writing his own kernel
> from scratch.

yes. those are the details. It's the 'license' vs 'started writing his
own kernel' that I refer to. OK maybe he wasn't thinking "open source"
at the beginning, but that's what happen.

> Today, Minix is a fully 32-bit operating system, and its license does
> now effectively make it Free Software. Linus has however said that if
> GNU had been complete at the time ─ meaning that if the GNU Hurd kernel
> were production-ready at the time ─ then he would never have started
> writing Linux.

there wouldn't have been a need.

> As it is however, the Hurd has not by far received the attention and
> care of all the other GNU components, and is still considered
> experimental. It is however revolutionary in its own right, and not
> just because it's a microkernel, but because of the high degree of
> virtualization and abstraction.

so they actually "completed" it?

>> Effectively, linux *is* "UNIX" from a functionality standpoint. The
>> actual code, however, is NOT.
>
> True, but that goes for the all of the BSDs of today as well. They no
> longer contain any AT&T code.

_any_ at all? that would be a pretty difficult thing to do. Everything
forked from the publically released BSD 4.3 as I recall. [there must be
SOMETHING remaining...]


>> as for kernel stability, I prefer BSD.
>
> BSD still has a few legacy compatibilities which could be considered
> security hazards, such as that case is ignored when the login is entered
> in all uppercase. In other words, a password with mixed upper- and
> lowercase would be easier to crack because the system will interpret the
> password as uppercase-only when the login name is entered in all-
> uppercase. This is a compatibility "feature" towards dumb terminals
> which could not distinguish between upper- and lowercase ─ read: the old
> teletype machines.

really? I should try that. [note: doesn't work for ssh, nor in the
login console on a VM, on FBSD 9.x anyway - maybe the older ones still
did it... but not the more recent versions of FBSD]

> BSD supports the revolutionary ZFS filesystem by default, but its native
> filesystem is still UFS, which doesn't even use any B-trees or hashed
> trees.

UFS is pretty fast for a lot of stuff. I haven't seen any performance
bottlenecks (it outperformed windows on similar hardware by at least
30%, when I tested it a decade or so ago, and windows metrics have NOT
improved - in fact, windows has gotten a bit SLOWER over the last
decade). ZFS is slightly slower than UFS and has a rather huge memory
requirement. That's the cost of all of that reliability.

> Lastly, BSD also seriously lags behind on the Linux kernel in terms of
> hardware support.

not really. I haven't had any problems, anyway. there is *some* lag
because hardware vendors often make linux drivers but they don't put
time into BSD-specific ones. Then the source gets ported, sometimes
just a name change. However, X11 video (etc.) is well supported via the
Xorg implementation and Xorg drivers work cross-platform. [there's also
a BSD kernel driver for NVidia that seems to work well]

> People who want to use the latest hardware are better
> off with GNU/Linux than with BSD, and if you want video acceleration on
> anything other than an Intel graphics adapter, then you can already
> forget OpenBSD, because they insist on everything in the system being
> FLOSS ─ that's why OpenBSD was created as a fork from NetBSD (or
> FreeBSD?) in the first place.)

yeah I don't use OBSD. Debian Linux is that way, too (no 'BLOBS'). But
there are still "non-free" packages you can OPTIONALLY install. You
just have to edit sources.list to include them. It's like they're
saying "no" and "well, yes" at the same time.
Cybe R. Wizard
2015-09-21 08:01:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 11:12:04 -0700
Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-***@testing.local> wrote:

> > As it is however, the Hurd has not by far received the attention
> > and care of all the other GNU components, and is still considered
> > experimental. It is however revolutionary in its own right, and
> > not just because it's a microkernel, but because of the high degree
> > of virtualization and abstraction.
>
> so they actually "completed" it?

Sure. There's been a Debian/Hurd OS for a while now.

Cybe R. Wizard
--
Nice computers don't go down.
Larry Niven, Steven Barnes
"The Barsoom Project"
crankypuss
2015-09-21 09:54:08 UTC
Permalink
Cybe R. Wizard wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 11:12:04 -0700
> Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-***@testing.local> wrote:
>
>> > As it is however, the Hurd has not by far received the attention
>> > and care of all the other GNU components, and is still considered
>> > experimental. It is however revolutionary in its own right, and
>> > not just because it's a microkernel, but because of the high degree
>> > of virtualization and abstraction.
>>
>> so they actually "completed" it?
>
> Sure. There's been a Debian/Hurd OS for a while now.
>
> Cybe R. Wizard

No kidding, you ever tried it? I thought it was in perennial pre-beta
stage.

--
http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com
Cybe R. Wizard
2015-09-21 09:58:48 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 03:54:08 -0600
crankypuss <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 11:12:04 -0700
> > Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-***@testing.local> wrote:
> >
> >> > As it is however, the Hurd has not by far received the attention
> >> > and care of all the other GNU components, and is still considered
> >> > experimental. It is however revolutionary in its own right, and
> >> > not just because it's a microkernel, but because of the high
> >> > degree of virtualization and abstraction.
> >>
> >> so they actually "completed" it?
> >
> > Sure. There's been a Debian/Hurd OS for a while now.
> >
> > Cybe R. Wizard
>
> No kidding, you ever tried it? I thought it was in perennial
> pre-beta stage.
>
I have no interest in it, myself, but this page shows how:
<https://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/hurd-install>

Cybe R. Wizard
--
Nice computers don't go down.
Larry Niven, Steven Barnes
"The Barsoom Project"
crankypuss
2015-09-20 15:42:18 UTC
Permalink
Big Bad Bob wrote:

> On 09/19/15 10:42, Big Bad Bob so wittily quipped:
>> On 09/19/15 04:33, crankypuss so wittily quipped:
>>> Here's my definition of Unix: An ad-hoc operating system developed
>>> in 1969, to which ad-hoc extension were added for years, before they
>>> became
>>> standardized ad-hoc extensions called POSIX. I'm not impressed with
>>> Unix, I saw better first; but that's relatively unimportant imo,
>>> since linux is a solid efficient portable kernel, and that's what I
>>> need.
>>
>> linux isn't UNIX by the way. And consider that UNIX did things "back
>> then" that were extremely revolutionary, and other OSs have patterned
>> themselves after (including VMS, Solaris, and, well, Linux).
>>
>> 1. "everything" is a file
>> 2. all file systems mount someplace off of the root '/'
>> 3. hierarchical directory structures
>> 4. access to devices via file names in '/dev/'
>> 5. high level language for the majority of the OS ('C')
>> 6. compile-in kernel support for new devices [later, dynamically
>> loaded]
>> 7. a 'shell' with simple commands, capable of running an application
>> and sending its output into another, or redirecting input/output
>> to/from disk files or character devices, and running scripts with
>> logical flow control.
>> 8. a 'userland' application set, consisting of small applications
>> that perform specific functions, and can easily send their output or
>> receive their input to/from another one (piping), each one performing
>> a somewhat minimalistic function, but together giving the potential
>> for powerful utilities, even via shell scripting.
>>
>>
>> the whole point in 1969 was to look out towards the future and make
>> the
>> OS able to adapt to it. Considering that the basic model has been
>> more or less the same [with new stuff added and updates and all that,
>> yeah, but BASICALLY the same] for the last *45 YEARS*, you'd think
>> that maybe in 1969 they were thinking PRETTY SMART?
>>
>> And if you consider that 'B', later 'C', was invented *specifically*
>> for this, and both 'C' and C-like or C-derived languages are THE!
>> MOST! POPULAR! ONES! even *now*, 45 years later, they got THAT right,
>> too!
>>
>> Apple OS/X really *IS* UNIX - Mach specifically. And the *BSD's are
>> forked from UNIX, originally as 'BSD Unix'.
>>
>> but Linux was created independently as a "UNIX-like" operating
>> system.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Unix
>>
>> "the open source Linux operating system, a reimplementation of Unix
>> from scratch, using parts of the GNU project that had been underway
>> since the mid-1980s"
>>
>> (not sure what this has to do with Cygwin except that Cygwin gives
>> you the POSIX shell stuff, basically RH's version of it, in windows,
>> which I find *incredibly* useful, and I like to install it on all my
>> windows boxen and VMs where I do actual work)
>>
>>
>
> oh yeah to draw the point together a bit better, Linux was really
> there to make UNIX (or a 'UNIX clone' in a way) an OPEN SOURCE
> operating system, and STILL be as "UNIX-like" as possible, and that's
> the point.
>
> Effectively, linux *is* "UNIX" from a functionality standpoint. The
> actual code, however, is NOT.
>
>
> as for kernel stability, I prefer BSD.

I really don't care. I'm working from where I am. As I understand it
(which is vaguely so far) the BlackBerry OS is some mutated form of BSD.
Since I want my applications to run on my linux laptops, and identically
on my BlackBerry phone, and on an Apple tablet should I obtain one, the
implications are pretty obvious. On the other hand, it isn't clear to
me if the linux framebuffer is what I think it is, or whether BSD or
other POSIX-compliant systems provide an equivalent. Most likely I'll
have to start with X and move from there, but there are a lot of detains
to pick up; totally portable software is not a short-term project. For
that matter I've been working on aspects of it for decades, literally,
without realizing how it all tied together.

> (it's too early and I need more coffee)

I've been waiting for hours to get a data connection through the closest
cell tower, and drinking coffee between cursing bouts.

--
http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com
Marek Novotny
2015-09-19 18:09:26 UTC
Permalink
On 2015-09-19, Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-***@testing.local> wrote:
> Apple OS/X really *IS* UNIX - Mach specifically. And the *BSD's are
> forked from UNIX, originally as 'BSD Unix'.

OSX has been labeled as such, but I'll continue to disagree that it is
UNIX until it adopts something other than HFS+ as the base file system
and starts recognizing UPPER / lower case as the default. Get rid of the
resource fork, which is not in any standardized Unix.

Also, Quartz doesn't come to mind when think of UNIX, FreeBSD or Linux.
I tend to think of xorg or like technologies, not Quartz.

The filesystem and applications aren't exactly your typical UNIX method
either.

On a modern Mac, type bash --version. Now do the same on a modern
FreeBSD install. What's the difference? Try using the built-in rsync
with the built-in HFS+ filesystem exactly as Apple shipped it. what will
happen and why? Does this sound to you like Apple is truly UNIX? It sure
doesn't to me.

--
Marek Novotny
https://github.com/marek-novotny
Aragorn
2015-09-19 19:18:26 UTC
Permalink
On Saturday 19 Sep 2015 20:09, Marek Novotny conveyed the following to
alt.os.linux.ubuntu...

> On 2015-09-19, Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-***@testing.local>
> wrote:
>> Apple OS/X really *IS* UNIX - Mach specifically. And the *BSD's are
>> forked from UNIX, originally as 'BSD Unix'.
>
> OSX has been labeled as such, but I'll continue to disagree that it is
> UNIX until it adopts something other than HFS+ as the base file system
> and starts recognizing UPPER / lower case as the default. Get rid of
> the resource fork, which is not in any standardized Unix.
>
> Also, Quartz doesn't come to mind when think of UNIX, FreeBSD or
> Linux. I tend to think of xorg or like technologies, not Quartz.
>
> The filesystem and applications aren't exactly your typical UNIX
> method either.
>
> On a modern Mac, type bash --version. Now do the same on a modern
> FreeBSD install. What's the difference? Try using the built-in rsync
> with the built-in HFS+ filesystem exactly as Apple shipped it. what
> will happen and why? Does this sound to you like Apple is truly UNIX?
> It sure doesn't to me.

Just goes to show that it's all about corporate politics. The essence
has already long been lost. ;)

--
= Aragorn =

http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
Marek Novotny
2015-09-19 19:32:20 UTC
Permalink
On 2015-09-19, Aragorn <***@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> On Saturday 19 Sep 2015 20:09, Marek Novotny conveyed the following to
> alt.os.linux.ubuntu...
>
>> On 2015-09-19, Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-***@testing.local>
>> wrote:
>>> Apple OS/X really *IS* UNIX - Mach specifically. And the *BSD's are
>>> forked from UNIX, originally as 'BSD Unix'.
>>
>> OSX has been labeled as such, but I'll continue to disagree that it is
>> UNIX until it adopts something other than HFS+ as the base file system
>> and starts recognizing UPPER / lower case as the default. Get rid of
>> the resource fork, which is not in any standardized Unix.
>>
>> Also, Quartz doesn't come to mind when think of UNIX, FreeBSD or
>> Linux. I tend to think of xorg or like technologies, not Quartz.
>>
>> The filesystem and applications aren't exactly your typical UNIX
>> method either.
>>
>> On a modern Mac, type bash --version. Now do the same on a modern
>> FreeBSD install. What's the difference? Try using the built-in rsync
>> with the built-in HFS+ filesystem exactly as Apple shipped it. what
>> will happen and why? Does this sound to you like Apple is truly UNIX?
>> It sure doesn't to me.
>
> Just goes to show that it's all about corporate politics. The essence
> has already long been lost. ;)

Honestly, I have no idea why Apple still goes for UNIX certification in
the first place. They used to do it, I assume, because they were trying
to broaden then MacOSX market by supporting XWindows and showing that
you could run native X apps on it if you installed the X environment on
top of OSX. If anyone wants to see what the heck I'm talking about, try
to use Wireshark on OSX. It's not a quartz app. You'll become familiar
with this very quickly.

Just try using rsync, as Apple ships it to sync whole directories, even
to other HFS+ volumes if you like, and watch in horror as to the
results.

Look no further than the version of BASH they ship, even on the latest
possible version of OSX.

They are clearly not paying any attention to UNIX on their system other
than getting that certification. How it actually works is ridiculous.

--
Marek Novotny
https://github.com/marek-novotny
Big Bad Bob
2015-09-20 18:21:03 UTC
Permalink
On 09/19/15 12:32, Marek Novotny so wittily quipped:
> Honestly, I have no idea why Apple still goes for UNIX certification in
> the first place. They used to do it, I assume, because they were trying
> to broaden then MacOSX market by supporting XWindows and showing that
> you could run native X apps on it if you installed the X environment on
> top of OSX. If anyone wants to see what the heck I'm talking about, try
> to use Wireshark on OSX. It's not a quartz app. You'll become familiar
> with this very quickly.

the intent was (apparently) to make it possible to take *ALL* of those
open source POSIX tools and build+run them without porting. Someone
(probably Steve Jobs) really like FreeBSD (and others), and their
'ports' system, and the ability to build from source. That's why FBSD
5.x's userland became the starting point for OSX's at some point in the
mid noughties, and then it forked into an 'apple version' but so what.
Point is that you can type in the same commands you do on Linux or BSD
in an OSX command shell, and chances are it will do what you expect it
to do.

> Just try using rsync, as Apple ships it to sync whole directories, even
> to other HFS+ volumes if you like, and watch in horror as to the
> results.

haven't tried it, but ok. I don't use OSX very often. 'rsync' *IS* one
of my favorite backup tools. I install Cygwin on windows boxen in order
to get it. Makes backing up all that much easier. business documents,
tax stuff, accounting data [the things I use windows for], get rsync'd
to 2 different FreeBSD boxen [one using a >1TB ZFS volume to store stuff
like a NAS]. OK that 1TB volume has been running for a few YEARS, and
so I haven't upgraded it in a while. no problems observed.

> Look no further than the version of BASH they ship, even on the latest
> possible version of OSX.

well, as long as shell scripts still run, who really cares? but
problems with rsync is something to be concerned about.


> They are clearly not paying any attention to UNIX on their system other
> than getting that certification. How it actually works is ridiculous.

they forked a "use it and distribute however you like as you want as
long as you acknowledge our copyright" source tree (BSD license), and
then "did what they wanted" with it. Isn't the source 'closed' for the
Apple versions? I would expect it would be. But there's no reason you
couldn't re-compile the gnu versions to run on OSX [and do it YOUR way]...
Chris Ahlstrom
2015-09-20 11:43:55 UTC
Permalink
Marek Novotny wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2015-09-19, Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-***@testing.local> wrote:
>> Apple OS/X really *IS* UNIX - Mach specifically. And the *BSD's are
>> forked from UNIX, originally as 'BSD Unix'.
>
> OSX has been labeled as such, but I'll continue to disagree that it is
> UNIX until it adopts something other than HFS+ as the base file system
> and starts recognizing UPPER / lower case as the default. Get rid of the
> resource fork, which is not in any standardized Unix.
>
> Also, Quartz doesn't come to mind when think of UNIX, FreeBSD or Linux.
> I tend to think of xorg or like technologies, not Quartz.
>
> The filesystem and applications aren't exactly your typical UNIX method
> either.
>
> On a modern Mac, type bash --version. Now do the same on a modern
> FreeBSD install. What's the difference? Try using the built-in rsync
> with the built-in HFS+ filesystem exactly as Apple shipped it. what will
> happen and why? Does this sound to you like Apple is truly UNIX? It sure
> doesn't to me.

You pay enough money, they'll let you call it "UNIX".

--
When I was younger, I could remember anything, whether it had happened
or not; but my faculties are decaying now and soon I shall be so I
cannot remember any but the things that never happened. It is sad to
go to pieces like this but we all have to do it.
-- Mark Twain
crankypuss
2015-09-20 16:03:46 UTC
Permalink
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Marek Novotny wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2015-09-19, Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-***@testing.local>
>> wrote:
>>> Apple OS/X really *IS* UNIX - Mach specifically. And the *BSD's are
>>> forked from UNIX, originally as 'BSD Unix'.
>>
>> OSX has been labeled as such, but I'll continue to disagree that it
>> is UNIX until it adopts something other than HFS+ as the base file
>> system and starts recognizing UPPER / lower case as the default. Get
>> rid of the resource fork, which is not in any standardized Unix.
>>
>> Also, Quartz doesn't come to mind when think of UNIX, FreeBSD or
>> Linux. I tend to think of xorg or like technologies, not Quartz.
>>
>> The filesystem and applications aren't exactly your typical UNIX
>> method either.
>>
>> On a modern Mac, type bash --version. Now do the same on a modern
>> FreeBSD install. What's the difference? Try using the built-in rsync
>> with the built-in HFS+ filesystem exactly as Apple shipped it. what
>> will happen and why? Does this sound to you like Apple is truly UNIX?
>> It sure doesn't to me.
>
> You pay enough money, they'll let you call it "UNIX".

Get up on the cynical side of the bed this morning?

--
http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com
Aragorn
2015-09-19 18:49:12 UTC
Permalink
On Saturday 19 Sep 2015 19:42, Big Bad Bob conveyed the following to
alt.os.linux.ubuntu...

> On 09/19/15 04:33, crankypuss so wittily quipped:
>
>> Here's my definition of Unix: An ad-hoc operating system developed
>> in 1969, to which ad-hoc extension were added for years, before they
>> became standardized ad-hoc extensions called POSIX. I'm not
>> impressed with Unix, I saw better first; but that's relatively
>> unimportant imo, since linux is a solid efficient portable kernel,
>> and that's what I need.

Your [crankypuss] impression of what UNIX is, is completely wrong. It
was inspired by Multics, but made more portable and manageable.

> linux isn't UNIX by the way. And consider that UNIX did things "back
> then" that were extremely revolutionary, and other OSs have patterned
> themselves after (including VMS, Solaris, and, well, Linux).

Not VMS. It has /some/ things in common with UNIX, but not a whole lot.
In fact, Dave Cutler, who co-wrote the VMS kernel and would later on
create a somewhat obscured carbon copy of it called NT, was known for
his passionate hatred against UNIX.

> 1. "everything" is a file

That already rules out VMS.

> 2. all file systems mount someplace off of the root '/'

That rules out VMS as well. VMS was volume-oriented, like many other
operating systems at the time, and like CP/M, MP/M, MS-/PC-DOS, DR DOS,
OS/2, Windows and pre-OS X Apple Mac OS would later come to be.

UNIX' principle of using a unified root directory with everything
mounted underneath was a very novel and innovative idea. One that the
Apple-inspired buffoons of RedHat's freedesktop.org are unfortunately
trying to undo again with their volume-oriented recommendations for file
managers.

The Places menu in a freedesktop.org-compliant file manager may make
sense to people who install everything in a single partition and use
removable storage media all the time. For someone like myself, who
installs his operating system across a whole plethora of partitions with
individual filesystems (and ditto mount options), that Places menu is a
nightmare.

I don't want to be looking for files in a collection of partitions, but
in what would (and should) be its logical place in the directory
hierarchy. Which means that my own files will be under /home and shared
files between user accounts will be under /srv.

> 3. hierarchical directory structures
> 4. access to devices via file names in '/dev/'

Plan 9 extended this principle even further. And Plan 9 was created by
(almost) the same guys as the original AT&T Unix was ─ Dennis Ritchie
being one of them.

> [...]
>
> the whole point in 1969 was to look out towards the future and make
> the OS able to adapt to it. Considering that the basic model has been
> more or less the same [with new stuff added and updates and all that,
> yeah, but BASICALLY the same] for the last *45 YEARS*, you'd think
> that maybe in 1969 they were thinking PRETTY SMART?

Exactly. The reason why UNIX has survived so long and why so many newer
operating system designs were all inspired by UNIX was because it was
robust, flexible, reliable, secure, scalable, versatile, easy to
maintain, and innovative all around.

Compared to Windows, OS X and anything produced by Apple before OS X
came along, UNIX was designed to do the job, whereas the others were
designed to entice customers and bring in money. Apple has always been
good at enticing customers.

Microsoft on the other hand needed a little help from a whole library
full of books on foul play. If it hadn't been for Microsoft's corrupt
tactics, then DOS and Windows would never have survived as long as they
did. The reason why people use Windows today is that it comes pre-
installed on the machine in 95% of the cases.

If people today were still required ─ like in the old days of DOS 3.x
and earlier ─ to install an operating system by themselves whenever they
buy a new computer, then more people would probably have opted for
something other than Windows, and then that something other would most
likely have been GNU/Linux or one of the BSDs. And people would still
be smart enough to think for themselves.

Alas, consumeritis has already long taken over society, and it's not
getting any better.

> And if you consider that 'B', later 'C', was invented *specifically*
> for this, and both 'C' and C-like or C-derived languages are THE!
> MOST! POPULAR! ONES! even *now*, 45 years later, they got THAT right,
> too!

Well, B was an interpreted language, so it wasn't really useful in terms
of performance for writing the operating system itself or the system's
driver code. B was written by Ken Thompson ─ as the legend goes, the
letter B was the initial of his wife's first name.

Dennis Ritchie was the one who wrote C, as a compiled successor to B.
And when Dennis died, everyone was lauding Steve Jobs, who died on the
same day and who stood on Dennis Ritchie's shoulders, while none of the
philistines in the mainstream media had apparently ever heard of Dennis
Ritchie and what he really signified on account of today's information
technology.

But then again, like I said: consumeritis. "Oooh, it's from *Apple!*
Oooh, shiny! Oooh, trendy! Must have one, because everyone else has one
too!"

> Apple OS/X really *IS* UNIX - Mach specifically.

The kernel of OS X isn't Mach anymore. It's Mach with a set of
proprietary extensions which all also run in the kernel's address space.
The rest of the Darwin system was derived from FreeBSD.

The reason why OS X is UNIX is because Apple has applied for the
(expensive) SUS validation test, and OS X passed that test, so it is now
legally certified to carry the UNIX trademark.

(UNIX is a trademark, while *Unix* is the proprietary operating system
developed at AT&T, and all operating systems based upon that code base,
with or without the BSD-specific modifications, i.e. AIX, HP/UX, Tru64,
Solaris (formerly, SunOS), IRIX, SCO Unix and Unixware.

SCO ─ i.e. the _real_ Santa Cruz Operations, not the rebranded Caldera
Systems ─ used to be the owner of the UNIX trademark, but they donated
that to The Open Group (also known as X/Open). The owner of the AT&T
Unix patents and copyrights however was Novell. This confusion was part
of the fear-mongering and hot air used in the SCO vs. IBM and SCO vs.
Novell litigations ─ the SCO in this case was not the Santa Cruz
Operations, but Caldera Systems, which had purchased the real SCO and
then rebranded itself to The SCO Group.)

> And the *BSD's are forked from UNIX, originally as 'BSD Unix'.

The original BSD Unix wasn't all too different from AT&T's Unix. The
init system was different and there were a few other small differences,
but it was still sufficiently similar to call it Unix, and it still used
significant chunks of the original AT&T code.

However, AT&T Bell Labs was a US-sponsored corporation and was as such
exempt from the right to commercialize their software ─ this is why Bell
Labs was later on split off from AT&T. The Berkeley University on the
other hand did not have this legal obstruction.

Today's BSDs have nothing in common with that anymore, as the code was
all rewritten from scratch without reusing a single line of proprietary
code.

> but Linux was created independently as a "UNIX-like" operating system.

Um, no, Linux was created as a UNIX-like kernel only. Linus Torvalds
did not write any other system software than the kernel, and ─ in spite
of the claims from the Win-trolls in this group ─ never had any real
plans for what anyone would do with his kernel. He simply didn't care,
as he was only seeking to scratch his own itch.

The rest of the base operating system ─ libraries, toolchain and
utilities ─ was all ported from GNU, and GNU had the aspiration of being
a completely free UNIX-compatible operating system, similar to the
rewritten BSDs, but of course, licensed under the Free Software
Foundation's ideas of a free license, i.e. the GPL.

(Not that I have any objections against the GPL ─ I actually favor it
over the more permissive licenses, because the latter inevitably lead to
what I personally consider unethical abuse. That's how Steve Jobs was
able to proprietarize (and pervert) FreeBSD into OS X.)

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Unix
>
> "the open source Linux operating system, a reimplementation of Unix
> from scratch, using parts of the GNU project that had been underway
> since the mid-1980s"
>
> (not sure what this has to do with Cygwin except that Cygwin gives you
> the POSIX shell stuff, basically RH's version of it, in windows, which
> I find *incredibly* useful, and I like to install it on all my windows
> boxen and VMs where I do actual work)

Cygwin is basically GNU stuff, but it isn't (what people call) "Linux",
because it doesn't run on a Linux kernel. It runs on top of the NT
kernel, so perhaps a better description would be GNU/NT, although that
doesn't really cover it, given that the NT kernel was designed to run
multiple different "personality" subsystems side by side ─ the initial
idea was a Windows personality, an OS/2 personality and a POSIX-
compatible personality.

There is also no binary compatibility with the same tools and utilities
(or other application software) in GNU/Linux due to the different nature
of the underlying kernel and as such, the different binary format.
Linux prefers the ELF binary format, while Microsoft uses something
quite different.

I haven't really read through all of this thread, though, because I
believe it's an old and revived thread which was revived by a.o.l.u's
Microsoft fanboy number one /DanS./ He's in my killfile, but that
doesn't stop me from seeing it when people quote him, and as far as I
can see, he's all over this thread.

--
= Aragorn =

http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
blind Pete
2015-09-20 05:57:08 UTC
Permalink
Aragorn wrote:

> On Saturday 19 Sep 2015 19:42, Big Bad Bob conveyed the following to
> alt.os.linux.ubuntu...
>
>> On 09/19/15 04:33, crankypuss so wittily quipped:
>>
>>> Here's my definition of Unix: An ad-hoc operating system developed
>>> in 1969, to which ad-hoc extension were added for years, before they
>>> became standardized ad-hoc extensions called POSIX. I'm not
>>> impressed with Unix, I saw better first; but that's relatively
>>> unimportant imo, since linux is a solid efficient portable kernel,
>>> and that's what I need.
>
> Your [crankypuss] impression of what UNIX is, is completely wrong. It
> was inspired by Multics, but made more portable and manageable.
[snip]

There is a joke, that I took many years to tumble to:
Unix is a "cut down" version of Multics. Consider "uni" versus
"multi" and consider what "eunuchs" are.

>> And if you consider that 'B', later 'C', was invented *specifically*
>> for this, and both 'C' and C-like or C-derived languages are THE!
>> MOST! POPULAR! ONES! even *now*, 45 years later, they got THAT right,
>> too!
>
> Well, B was an interpreted language, so it wasn't really useful in terms
> of performance for writing the operating system itself or the system's
> driver code. B was written by Ken Thompson ─ as the legend goes, the
> letter B was the initial of his wife's first name.

Interpreted languages fly IFF you can get the whole of the interpreter
to fit into the CPUs cache.

> Dennis Ritchie was the one who wrote C, as a compiled successor to B.
> And when Dennis died, everyone was lauding Steve Jobs, who died on the
> same day and who stood on Dennis Ritchie's shoulders, while none of the
> philistines in the mainstream media had apparently ever heard of Dennis
> Ritchie and what he really signified on account of today's information
> technology.

I did not realize. R.I.P.

BCPL was there between "B" and "C". Imagine "C" without any type
checking whatsoever. The programmer is expected to know what he
is doing.

> But then again, like I said: consumeritis. "Oooh, it's from *Apple!*
> Oooh, shiny! Oooh, trendy! Must have one, because everyone else has one
> too!"
[snip]

Apple things are beautiful. That is something that they are good at.

--
blind Pete
Sig goes here...
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
2015-09-20 08:24:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 15:57:08 +1000, blind Pete <***@gmail.com>
Gave us:

>There is a joke, that I took many years to tumble to:
>Unix is a "cut down" version of Multics. Consider "uni" versus
>"multi" and consider what "eunuchs" are.

Bunch of fucking Morlocks!

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=morlocks

But of course you can't see them anyway.

Blind from so much masturbation and all...
Big Bad Bob
2015-09-20 18:35:49 UTC
Permalink
On 09/19/15 22:57, blind Pete so wittily quipped:
> Aragorn wrote:

>> But then again, like I said: consumeritis. "Oooh, it's from *Apple!*
>> Oooh, shiny! Oooh, trendy! Must have one, because everyone else has one
>> too!"
> [snip]
>
> Apple things are beautiful. That is something that they are good at.
>

I'm currently doing work for some Apple fans. I agree. There are ALSO
some down-sides, though, to the way Apple does things. Running into
that at the moment... can't really say what, but it impacts hardware
that's supposed to work with an iPhone as well as an Android phone.

but yeah, 'apple ooh shiny' is important to certain kinds of products
that work WITH Apple, AND 'droid (and maybe PCs as well). You just have
to jump through Apple's hoops to get it to work with Apple.
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
2015-09-20 21:27:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 11:35:49 -0700, Big Bad Bob
<BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-***@testing.local> Gave us:

> AND 'droid

Funny.
crankypuss
2015-09-20 16:57:17 UTC
Permalink
Aragorn wrote:

> On Saturday 19 Sep 2015 19:42, Big Bad Bob conveyed the following to
> alt.os.linux.ubuntu...
>
>> On 09/19/15 04:33, crankypuss so wittily quipped:
>>
>>> Here's my definition of Unix: An ad-hoc operating system developed
>>> in 1969, to which ad-hoc extension were added for years, before they
>>> became standardized ad-hoc extensions called POSIX. I'm not
>>> impressed with Unix, I saw better first; but that's relatively
>>> unimportant imo, since linux is a solid efficient portable kernel,
>>> and that's what I need.
>
> Your [crankypuss] impression of what UNIX is, is completely wrong. It
> was inspired by Multics, but made more portable and manageable.

I don't care to debate ancient history, UNIX is what it is, period. It
has this characteristic, and that characteristic. They're all what they
are. Collectively they are easier to use for some purposes than for
others.

For my purposes most of them need to be worked around; others have
different purposes.

In any case, my definition stands, you might re-read it with that in
mind, or just go on continuing to attend the same church as always
believing you are In The Right, that UNIX is The Only Way.

>> linux isn't UNIX by the way. And consider that UNIX did things "back
>> then" that were extremely revolutionary, and other OSs have patterned
>> themselves after (including VMS, Solaris, and, well, Linux).
>
> Not VMS. It has /some/ things in common with UNIX, but not a whole
> lot. In fact, Dave Cutler, who co-wrote the VMS kernel and would later
> on create a somewhat obscured carbon copy of it called NT, was known
> for his passionate hatred against UNIX.
>
>> 1. "everything" is a file
>
> That already rules out VMS.
>
>> 2. all file systems mount someplace off of the root '/'
>
> That rules out VMS as well. VMS was volume-oriented, like many other
> operating systems at the time, and like CP/M, MP/M, MS-/PC-DOS, DR
> DOS, OS/2, Windows and pre-OS X Apple Mac OS would later come to be.
>
> UNIX' principle of using a unified root directory with everything
> mounted underneath was a very novel and innovative idea.

Novel and innovative was easy in those days, there wasn't much else you
could be during the Wild West days when everybody knew what he wanted to
do and nobody offered one off-the-shelf.

And being novel and innovative is not always an indication that
something is as one finds out later it should have been; it is when you
find out that your schema is flawed that the rubber meets the road, it
is then that you find out about your system's "flexibility".

> One that the
> Apple-inspired buffoons of RedHat's freedesktop.org are unfortunately
> trying to undo again with their volume-oriented recommendations for
> file managers.
>
> The Places menu in a freedesktop.org-compliant file manager may make
> sense to people who install everything in a single partition and use
> removable storage media all the time. For someone like myself, who
> installs his operating system across a whole plethora of partitions
> with individual filesystems (and ditto mount options), that Places
> menu is a nightmare.
>
> I don't want to be looking for files in a collection of partitions,
> but in what would (and should) be its logical place in the directory
> hierarchy.

Likewise, which is one of the main reasons I'm looking at building my
own filesystem, one tailored to the things it needs to do, which
includes maintaining the logical order I've placed directory items in,
rather than just allowing for sort by name or date. It includes other
things too, but that one alone is enough to make it worthwhile.

> Which means that my own files will be under /home and

It's a shame that all the distros I've seen take the user's home
directory and turn it into a trashpile of configuration settings, the
whole layout is messed up imo. On phone systems like Android or
BlackBerry it's as bad or worse, they decide your overall directory
structure for you and restrict it so their crapplications can figure out
where their data is.

> shared files between user accounts will be under /srv.

How many of those user accounts can be running at once on a given
system?

>> 3. hierarchical directory structures
>> 4. access to devices via file names in '/dev/'
>
> Plan 9 extended this principle even further. And Plan 9 was created
> by (almost) the same guys as the original AT&T Unix was ─ Dennis
> Ritchie being one of them.
>
>> [...]
>>
>> the whole point in 1969 was to look out towards the future and make
>> the OS able to adapt to it. Considering that the basic model has
>> been more or less the same [with new stuff added and updates and all
>> that, yeah, but BASICALLY the same] for the last *45 YEARS*, you'd
>> think that maybe in 1969 they were thinking PRETTY SMART?
>
> Exactly. The reason why UNIX has survived so long and why so many
> newer operating system designs were all inspired by UNIX was because
> it was robust, flexible, reliable, secure, scalable, versatile, easy
> to maintain, and innovative all around.

And you could always add yet-another option that is semi-documented and
often conflicts with the UNIX principle of simplicity, for example some
of the options of 'find' have nothing whatsoever to do with finding a
file; if they'd kept to UNIX principles they'd have done it otherwise.

> Compared to Windows, OS X and anything produced by Apple before OS X
> came along, UNIX was designed to do the job, whereas the others were
> designed to entice customers and bring in money. Apple has always
> been good at enticing customers.
>
> Microsoft on the other hand needed a little help from a whole library
> full of books on foul play. If it hadn't been for Microsoft's corrupt
> tactics, then DOS and Windows would never have survived as long as
> they
> did. The reason why people use Windows today is that it comes pre-
> installed on the machine in 95% of the cases.

And nowadays it is not only preinstalled, it can be difficult to install
anything else in its place.

> If people today were still required ─ like in the old days of DOS 3.x
> and earlier ─ to install an operating system by themselves whenever
> they buy a new computer, then more people would probably have opted
> for something other than Windows, and then that something other would
> most
> likely have been GNU/Linux or one of the BSDs. And people would still
> be smart enough to think for themselves.
>
> Alas, consumeritis has already long taken over society, and it's not
> getting any better.
>
>> And if you consider that 'B', later 'C', was invented *specifically*
>> for this, and both 'C' and C-like or C-derived languages are THE!
>> MOST! POPULAR! ONES! even *now*, 45 years later, they got THAT right,
>> too!
>
> Well, B was an interpreted language, so it wasn't really useful in
> terms of performance for writing the operating system itself or the
> system's
> driver code. B was written by Ken Thompson ─ as the legend goes, the
> letter B was the initial of his wife's first name.

The viability of interpreted languages has been increasing with
processor power since the days when the IBM 360-40 was microcoded (the
mid-60s). In those days interpreted languages were a performance joke,
performance meant assembler or equivalent. Nowadays? There's plenty of
processor power, it's just mostly being wasted. And interpreted
languages lose a lot of horsepower to the underlying system because of
all the workarounds needed to perform basic functions in a generalized
way.

--
http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com
Cybe R. Wizard
2015-09-20 17:32:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 10:57:17 -0600
crankypuss <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> How many of those user accounts can be running at once on a given
> system?

This is from self-proclaimed obsolete documentation (but it probably
hasn't changed that much)

From:
<https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/system-administrator/ch-sysadmin-users.html>
----------
UIDs 1000-29999 are normal user accounts.
----------

One would assume that all these users can be logged in simultaneously
on a network. (but this one doesn't know)

It probably has a lot to do with system resources more than anything
else.

<man useradd> shows:
----------
UID_MAX (number), UID_MIN (number)
Range of user IDs used for the creation of regular users by
useradd or newusers.

The default value for UID_MIN (resp. UID_MAX) is 1000 (resp.
60000).
----------

28,000? 59,000? Does it really matter anymore? I (for one) will
never need that number of users.

Cybe R. Wizard
--
Nice computers don't go down.
Larry Niven, Steven Barnes
"The Barsoom Project"
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
2015-09-20 18:00:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 12:32:37 -0500, "Cybe R. Wizard"
<***@WizardsTower.invalid> Gave us:

>One would assume that all these users can be logged in simultaneously
>on a network. (but this one doesn't know)

This, that, or the other one... is the loneliest number...

That you'll ever know...
Wildman
2015-09-21 04:26:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 14:00:56 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 12:32:37 -0500, "Cybe R. Wizard"
> <***@WizardsTower.invalid> Gave us:
>
>>One would assume that all these users can be logged in simultaneously
>>on a network. (but this one doesn't know)
>
> This, that, or the other one... is the loneliest number...
>
> That you'll ever know...

Do I hear three dogs in the night? Well, I think it's
two now.

--
<Wildman> GNU/Linux user #557453
I am Fudd of Borg! Wesistance is usewess!
crankypuss
2015-09-20 20:09:31 UTC
Permalink
Cybe R. Wizard wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 10:57:17 -0600
> crankypuss <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> How many of those user accounts can be running at once on a given
>> system?
>
> This is from self-proclaimed obsolete documentation (but it probably
> hasn't changed that much)
>
> From:
> <https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/system-administrator/ch-sysadmin-
users.html>
> ----------
> UIDs 1000-29999 are normal user accounts.
> ----------
>
> One would assume that all these users can be logged in simultaneously
> on a network. (but this one doesn't know)
>
> It probably has a lot to do with system resources more than anything
> else.
>
> <man useradd> shows:
> ----------
> UID_MAX (number), UID_MIN (number)
> Range of user IDs used for the creation of regular users by
> useradd or newusers.
>
> The default value for UID_MIN (resp. UID_MAX) is 1000
> (resp. 60000).
> ----------
>
> 28,000? 59,000? Does it really matter anymore? I (for one) will
> never need that number of users.
>
> Cybe R. Wizard

I think we're on different topics here. I was asking Aragorn a question
about his specific environment, not a question in general about how many
users can be logged on to a linux system at once. But thanks for the
"education", in terms of some things I think like one of Pratchett's
trolls, "1, 2, 3, a bunch".

--
http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com
Cybe R. Wizard
2015-09-21 08:11:40 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 14:09:31 -0600
crankypuss <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> > On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 10:57:17 -0600
> > crankypuss <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> How many of those user accounts can be running at once on a given
> >> system?

><snip 'education'>
>
> I think we're on different topics here. I was asking Aragorn a
> question about his specific environment, not a question in general
> about how many users can be logged on to a linux system at once.

Really? Quoting you:
----------
How many of those user accounts can be running at once on a given
system?
----------

If you were asking about Aragorn's system wouldn't you have asked, "How
many of those user accounts can be running at once on /YOUR/ system?

Still, the answer seems to be F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 and F12, or six (6).
I know that, as an experiment, I've had all 6 of those logged in on my
own system simultaneously. (Ctrl-Alt-F<number> to switch between them)

Cybe R. Wizard
--
Nice computers don't go down.
Larry Niven, Steven Barnes
"The Barsoom Project"
Big Bad Bob
2015-09-21 20:00:06 UTC
Permalink
On 09/21/15 01:11, Cybe R. Wizard so wittily quipped:
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 14:09:31 -0600
> crankypuss <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 10:57:17 -0600
>>> crankypuss <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How many of those user accounts can be running at once on a given
>>>> system?
>
>> <snip 'education'>
>>
>> I think we're on different topics here. I was asking Aragorn a
>> question about his specific environment, not a question in general
>> about how many users can be logged on to a linux system at once.
>
> Really? Quoting you:
> ----------
> How many of those user accounts can be running at once on a given
> system?
> ----------
>
> If you were asking about Aragorn's system wouldn't you have asked, "How
> many of those user accounts can be running at once on /YOUR/ system?
>
> Still, the answer seems to be F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 and F12, or six (6).
> I know that, as an experiment, I've had all 6 of those logged in on my
> own system simultaneously. (Ctrl-Alt-F<number> to switch between them)
>
> Cybe R. Wizard
>

there are other console combinations (and aliases) with ctrl and shift
that give you more than 7 or 8 virtual consoles, at least in FBSD. You
have to alter /etc/ttys to support them. I did some fun things a while
back, set up certain virtual consoles to use a JAIL for the login. Then
I could take my laptop through airport security and they'd be like "what
is your root password" and I'd press the appropriate key combo and say
"shit" or "tsa-sucks" or something. That's because FBSD jails have a
DIFFERENT security context. So 'being root' is only meaningful within
the jail. and then from the jail you can ssh into the main box if you
want. It's almost an *IDEAL* way to lock down a laptop, as long as you
force the use of a password in single-user mode.
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
2015-09-21 21:33:17 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:00:06 -0700, Big Sad Slob
<BigSadSlob-at-mrp3-dot-***@testing.local> Gave us:

>I could take my laptop through airport security and they'd be like "what
>is your root password"

When and in what commie fucktard nation does this happen?
Aragorn
2015-09-21 22:20:25 UTC
Permalink
On Monday 21 Sep 2015 23:33, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno conveyed the
following to alt.os.linux.ubuntu...

> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:00:06 -0700, Big Sad Slob
> <BigSadSlob-at-mrp3-dot-***@testing.local> Gave us:
>
>> I could take my laptop through airport security and they'd be like
>> "what is your root password"
>
> When and in what commie fucktard nation does this happen?

Doesn't have anything to do with communism, but all the more with
authoritarianism. And it's probably happening in all the countries
affiliated with the NSA in one way or another.

Freedom? Wazzat?

--
= Aragorn =

http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
2015-09-21 23:06:10 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 00:20:25 +0200, Aragorn
<***@telenet.be.invalid> Gave us:

>On Monday 21 Sep 2015 23:33, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno conveyed the
>following to alt.os.linux.ubuntu...
>
>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:00:06 -0700, Big Sad Slob
>> <BigSadSlob-at-mrp3-dot-***@testing.local> Gave us:
>>
>>> I could take my laptop through airport security and they'd be like
>>> "what is your root password"
>>
>> When and in what commie fucktard nation does this happen?
>
>Doesn't have anything to do with communism, but all the more with
>authoritarianism. And it's probably happening in all the countries
>affiliated with the NSA in one way or another.
>
>Freedom? Wazzat?

They check to see the thing works. They do not snoop around as to
what is on it unless one is traveling internationally, and even rarely
then.

Now, go onto a base and try to demo a circuit board, and you have to
have your wifi turned completely off, etc.

There are labs where no phone, no memory sticks... hell not even
paper and pencil are allowed, and you have to sign in and out of the
lab, and your escort is the guy with the combination to open the door,
and it ain't one of those cheap "press 4 numbers in the right sequence
door locks either. And they have white noise devices to make noise
outside and inside the room so that recording devices cannot pick up on
the conversations one is not allowed to even have until safely inside
the room.
Bruce Sinclair
2015-09-21 23:02:24 UTC
Permalink
In article <mtpvnl$s65$***@dont-email.me>, Aragorn <***@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>On Monday 21 Sep 2015 23:33, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno conveyed the
>following to alt.os.linux.ubuntu...
>
>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:00:06 -0700, Big Sad Slob
>> <BigSadSlob-at-mrp3-dot-***@testing.local> Gave us:
>>
>>> I could take my laptop through airport security and they'd be like
>>> "what is your root password"
>>
>> When and in what commie fucktard nation does this happen?
>
>Doesn't have anything to do with communism, but all the more with
>authoritarianism. And it's probably happening in all the countries
>affiliated with the NSA in one way or another.

.. and the correct answer is always ... "hell no!" (polite version). :)


>Freedom? Wazzat?

Quite. When people are afraid (as so many seem to be these days), "they" will
let "governments" do amazingly stupid and intrusive things. For details,
observe the USA, UK, and most "western" "democracies". :)
Big Bad Bob
2015-09-22 16:52:20 UTC
Permalink
On 09/21/15 14:33, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno so wittily quipped:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:00:06 -0700, Big Sad Slob
> <BigSadSlob-at-mrp3-dot-***@testing.local> Gave us:
>
>> I could take my laptop through airport security and they'd be like "what
>> is your root password"
>
> When and in what commie fucktard nation does this happen?
>

in one case, Canada [I think]. Some wise-guy inspecting agent allegedly
did this to someone who had FreeBSD on his computer, a few years ago.

they were forcing people to energize computers to make sure they weren't
bombs, I guess. Thing is, it would've been easy to turn the computer
into a bomb ANYWAY by taking advantage of the open spaces that are all
over the place in a typical laptop [or the 'extra hard drive' slot, if
you have space for 2 HD's, which one of mine does].

in any case, it was just one of *those* TSA/etc. horror story examples,
like the "don't touch my junk" guy a few years ago.
Big Bad Bob
2015-09-20 18:46:32 UTC
Permalink
On 09/20/15 09:57, crankypuss so wittily quipped:
>> That rules out VMS as well. VMS was volume-oriented, like many other
>> operating systems at the time, and like CP/M, MP/M, MS-/PC-DOS, DR
>> DOS, OS/2, Windows and pre-OS X Apple Mac OS would later come to be.
>>
>> UNIX' principle of using a unified root directory with everything
>> mounted underneath was a very novel and innovative idea.

<snip>

>> One that the
>> Apple-inspired buffoons of RedHat's freedesktop.org are unfortunately
>> trying to undo again with their volume-oriented recommendations for
>> file managers.

really? *ew*

>> The Places menu in a freedesktop.org-compliant file manager may make
>> sense to people who install everything in a single partition and use
>> removable storage media all the time. For someone like myself, who
>> installs his operating system across a whole plethora of partitions
>> with individual filesystems (and ditto mount options), that Places
>> menu is a nightmare.

ah, I never really use it. on an older gnome 2 desktop, it just echos
what I have manually added to the 'file open' box.

>> I don't want to be looking for files in a collection of partitions,
>> but in what would (and should) be its logical place in the directory
>> hierarchy.
>
> Likewise, which is one of the main reasons I'm looking at building my
> own filesystem, one tailored to the things it needs to do, which
> includes maintaining the logical order I've placed directory items in,
> rather than just allowing for sort by name or date. It includes other
> things too, but that one alone is enough to make it worthwhile.

building your own filesystem, huh? Well, good luck with it. Please add
'strong encryption' and compression support, and the ability to store
data across multiple files/volumes.

FYI 'sort by name or date' is an arbitrary function of 'ls'.

try 'ls -f'. you're welcome
crankypuss
2015-09-20 20:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Big Bad Bob wrote:

> On 09/20/15 09:57, crankypuss so wittily quipped:
>>> That rules out VMS as well. VMS was volume-oriented, like many
>>> other operating systems at the time, and like CP/M, MP/M,
>>> MS-/PC-DOS, DR DOS, OS/2, Windows and pre-OS X Apple Mac OS would
>>> later come to be.
>>>
>>> UNIX' principle of using a unified root directory with everything
>>> mounted underneath was a very novel and innovative idea.
>
> <snip>
>
>>> One that the
>>> Apple-inspired buffoons of RedHat's freedesktop.org are
>>> unfortunately trying to undo again with their volume-oriented
>>> recommendations for file managers.
>
> really? *ew*
>
>>> The Places menu in a freedesktop.org-compliant file manager may make
>>> sense to people who install everything in a single partition and use
>>> removable storage media all the time. For someone like myself, who
>>> installs his operating system across a whole plethora of partitions
>>> with individual filesystems (and ditto mount options), that Places
>>> menu is a nightmare.
>
> ah, I never really use it. on an older gnome 2 desktop, it just echos
> what I have manually added to the 'file open' box.
>
>>> I don't want to be looking for files in a collection of partitions,
>>> but in what would (and should) be its logical place in the directory
>>> hierarchy.
>>
>> Likewise, which is one of the main reasons I'm looking at building my
>> own filesystem, one tailored to the things it needs to do, which
>> includes maintaining the logical order I've placed directory items
>> in,
>> rather than just allowing for sort by name or date. It includes
>> other things too, but that one alone is enough to make it worthwhile.
>
> building your own filesystem, huh? Well, good luck with it.

It should be fun remembering old times, the last time I wrote a
filesystem was 1973, though there was a logging system around 1998 that
used most of the same concepts.

> Please
> add 'strong encryption' and compression support, and the ability to
> store data across multiple files/volumes.

Pretty much have to in order to keep the host system out of my playpen,
not waste a lot of space, and be useful after a system crash.

> FYI 'sort by name or date' is an arbitrary function of 'ls'.
>
> try 'ls -f'. you're welcome

You're telling me nothing I don't already know there, sort by date and
sort by name are obvious functions that can be derived from basic data
about the inode-equivalent. User-specified order is a whole different
index. Most-recently-changed is another whole different index. Unless
one wants to just store the data and index them otf.

--
http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com
Big Bad Bob
2015-09-20 22:24:43 UTC
Permalink
On 09/20/15 13:24, crankypuss so wittily quipped:
> Big Bad Bob wrote:
>
>> On 09/20/15 09:57, crankypuss so wittily quipped:
>>>> That rules out VMS as well. VMS was volume-oriented, like many
>>>> other operating systems at the time, and like CP/M, MP/M,
>>>> MS-/PC-DOS, DR DOS, OS/2, Windows and pre-OS X Apple Mac OS would
>>>> later come to be.
>>>>
>>>> UNIX' principle of using a unified root directory with everything
>>>> mounted underneath was a very novel and innovative idea.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> One that the
>>>> Apple-inspired buffoons of RedHat's freedesktop.org are
>>>> unfortunately trying to undo again with their volume-oriented
>>>> recommendations for file managers.
>>
>> really? *ew*
>>
>>>> The Places menu in a freedesktop.org-compliant file manager may make
>>>> sense to people who install everything in a single partition and use
>>>> removable storage media all the time. For someone like myself, who
>>>> installs his operating system across a whole plethora of partitions
>>>> with individual filesystems (and ditto mount options), that Places
>>>> menu is a nightmare.
>>
>> ah, I never really use it. on an older gnome 2 desktop, it just echos
>> what I have manually added to the 'file open' box.
>>
>>>> I don't want to be looking for files in a collection of partitions,
>>>> but in what would (and should) be its logical place in the directory
>>>> hierarchy.
>>>
>>> Likewise, which is one of the main reasons I'm looking at building my
>>> own filesystem, one tailored to the things it needs to do, which
>>> includes maintaining the logical order I've placed directory items
>>> in,
>>> rather than just allowing for sort by name or date. It includes
>>> other things too, but that one alone is enough to make it worthwhile.
>>
>> building your own filesystem, huh? Well, good luck with it.
>
> It should be fun remembering old times, the last time I wrote a
> filesystem was 1973, though there was a logging system around 1998 that
> used most of the same concepts.
>
>> Please
>> add 'strong encryption' and compression support, and the ability to
>> store data across multiple files/volumes.
>
> Pretty much have to in order to keep the host system out of my playpen,
> not waste a lot of space, and be useful after a system crash.
>
>> FYI 'sort by name or date' is an arbitrary function of 'ls'.
>>
>> try 'ls -f'. you're welcome
>
> You're telling me nothing I don't already know there, sort by date and
> sort by name are obvious functions that can be derived from basic data
> about the inode-equivalent. User-specified order is a whole different
> index. Most-recently-changed is another whole different index. Unless
> one wants to just store the data and index them otf.
>

just pointing out the obvious. because I'm captain obvious. Obviously.

on my BSD system, ls -f gives me arbitrary file order, whatever order
they are in the directory. If a linux file system has some kind of
alphabetic indexing built in, I don't remember noticing. but who knows,
maybe it does. or doesn't. whatever. point is, 'ls -f' doesn't let ls
sort the output, and I was sort of pointing out that you don't need some
extra thingy to get that functionality.
Aragorn
2015-09-20 21:58:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday 20 Sep 2015 18:57, crankypuss conveyed the following to
alt.os.linux.ubuntu...

> Aragorn wrote:
>
> In any case, my definition stands, you might re-read it with that in
> mind, or just go on continuing to attend the same church as always
> believing you are In The Right, that UNIX is The Only Way.

I'm not saying it's the only way, but it's a damn good way, and it works
for me. And apparently for a lot of other people too, given that it's
been around ─ albeit in an evolved state ─ for over 40 years already.

>> I don't want to be looking for files in a collection of partitions,
>> but in what would (and should) be its logical place in the directory
>> hierarchy.
>
> Likewise, which is one of the main reasons I'm looking at building my
> own filesystem, one tailored to the things it needs to do, which
> includes maintaining the logical order I've placed directory items in,
> rather than just allowing for sort by name or date.

All index-sequential filesystems do that, so if you want that, then just
use good old ext2 (or ext3 with the hash tables disabled). It just
doesn't look that way because the GNU file tools such as /bin/ls list
files in a hashed order. So that has nothing to do with the filesystem
itself.

On the other hand, I don't really see why you would want to have files
in the order you decide. It doesn't matter one iota to the system in
what order they are, and in fact, a hashed table or a B-tree may be
magnitudes faster on file lookups.

We're not talking of floppy disks anymore here, but of hard disks and
SSDs.

>> shared files between user accounts will be under /srv.
>
> How many of those user accounts can be running at once on a given
> system?

Depends on the configuration and the hardware specs. But by keeping my
shared files under (a subdirectory of) /srv, I can have all my MP3s and
videos available to every user account ─ and I do reserve 2 user
accounts for myself: one main account and one as a fallback.

>>> the whole point in 1969 was to look out towards the future and make
>>> the OS able to adapt to it. Considering that the basic model has
>>> been more or less the same [with new stuff added and updates and all
>>> that, yeah, but BASICALLY the same] for the last *45 YEARS*, you'd
>>> think that maybe in 1969 they were thinking PRETTY SMART?
>>
>> Exactly. The reason why UNIX has survived so long and why so many
>> newer operating system designs were all inspired by UNIX was because
>> it was robust, flexible, reliable, secure, scalable, versatile, easy
>> to maintain, and innovative all around.
>
> And you could always add yet-another option that is semi-documented
> and often conflicts with the UNIX principle of simplicity, for example
> some of the options of 'find' have nothing whatsoever to do with
> finding a file; if they'd kept to UNIX principles they'd have done it
> otherwise.

Simplicity and minimalism are not the same thing. The UNIX utilities
were developed and have evolved with user-friendliness in mind ─ albeit
that it is not the same kind of user-friendliness as the typical
(ex-)Windows user in this newsgroup has in mind.

>> Compared to Windows, OS X and anything produced by Apple before OS X
>> came along, UNIX was designed to do the job, whereas the others were
>> designed to entice customers and bring in money. Apple has always
>> been good at enticing customers.
>>
>> Microsoft on the other hand needed a little help from a whole library
>> full of books on foul play. If it hadn't been for Microsoft's
>> corrupt tactics, then DOS and Windows would never have survived as
>> long as they did. The reason why people use Windows today is that it
>> comes pre-installed on the machine in 95% of the cases.
>
> And nowadays it is not only preinstalled, it can be difficult to
> install anything else in its place.

Yeah, unlike Apple, Microsoft never really made any hardware of its own,
so they're trying to grab hold of every hardware platform they can get
their hands on these days, and claim it their own.

--
= Aragorn =

http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
Godzilla
2015-09-20 23:40:10 UTC
Permalink
On 2015-09-20, Aragorn, published this proof of the Infinite Monkey Theorem:
> On Sunday 20 Sep 2015 18:57, crankypuss conveyed the following to
> alt.os.linux.ubuntu...
>
>> Aragorn wrote:
>>
Some psycho-babble that none wish to read.
Fucking loon.
Go flap your arms somewhere else.

--
♖ ♘ ♗ ♕ ♔ ♗ ♘ ♖
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
2015-09-21 03:18:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 23:40:10 +0000 (UTC), Turdzilla
<***@turdboss.invalid> Gave us:

>On 2015-09-20, Aragorn, published this proof of the Infinite Monkey Theorem:
>> On Sunday 20 Sep 2015 18:57, crankypuss conveyed the following to
>> alt.os.linux.ubuntu...
>>
>>> Aragorn wrote:
>>>
>Some psycho-babble that none wish to read.
>Fucking loon.
>Go flap your arms somewhere else.

FOAD, immature turdzilla troll.
crankypuss
2015-09-21 10:45:08 UTC
Permalink
Aragorn wrote:

> On Sunday 20 Sep 2015 18:57, crankypuss conveyed the following to
> alt.os.linux.ubuntu...
>
>> Aragorn wrote:
>>
>> In any case, my definition stands, you might re-read it with that in
>> mind, or just go on continuing to attend the same church as always
>> believing you are In The Right, that UNIX is The Only Way.
>
> I'm not saying it's the only way, but it's a damn good way, and it
> works
> for me. And apparently for a lot of other people too, given that it's
> been around ─ albeit in an evolved state ─ for over 40 years already.

Age does not confer quality to software, any more than it confers wisdom
to individuals. What age does do is tend toward the accumulation of
imperfections. That *nix still works, and is still usable, after
collecting slightly ragged bits for 40 years, is creditable, but perhaps
not quite sufficient to justify veneration.

>>> I don't want to be looking for files in a collection of partitions,
>>> but in what would (and should) be its logical place in the directory
>>> hierarchy.
>>
>> Likewise, which is one of the main reasons I'm looking at building my
>> own filesystem, one tailored to the things it needs to do, which
>> includes maintaining the logical order I've placed directory items
>> in, rather than just allowing for sort by name or date.
>
> All index-sequential filesystems do that, so if you want that, then
> just
> use good old ext2 (or ext3 with the hash tables disabled). It just
> doesn't look that way because the GNU file tools such as /bin/ls list
> files in a hashed order. So that has nothing to do with the
> filesystem itself.

Natural order is not guaranteed by any of the existing filesystems so
far as I am aware, it's pot-luck.

> On the other hand, I don't really see why you would want to have files
> in the order you decide. It doesn't matter one iota to the system in
> what order they are, and in fact, a hashed table or a B-tree may be
> magnitudes faster on file lookups.
>
> We're not talking of floppy disks anymore here, but of hard disks and
> SSDs.

Of course it doesn't matter to the system, which is why the system
doesn't support user-rearrangement of items within the directory
structure. It does however matter to users who want to do various
things with their file-tree.

I would think that you are probably aware of how what amounts to
individual variables are stored in separate files accessible via sysfs.
The same can be done with other kinds of data, particularly semantic
data.

The simplest example I can come up with at the moment is a book. Books
have chapters. Chapters can be stored as subdirectories containing
paragraphs. One might wish to reorder the chapters, or the paragraphs,
or the words in them. One might wish to work with the *order* of many
different forms of data.

There are many things that can be done with an ordered tree when it is
processed in order. Currently available filesystems do not provide a
rearrangeable ordered tree.

I also want to mention the concept of storage. It has changed over the
decades. Nowadays a "system drive" may be a soldered-in sdcard. It may
have its own directory structure. Soon it may come about that "ram" or
"main storage" is nothing more than one top-level tree of addresses
within a soldered-in sdcard.

>>> shared files between user accounts will be under /srv.
>>
>> How many of those user accounts can be running at once on a given
>> system?
>
> Depends on the configuration and the hardware specs. But by keeping
> my shared files under (a subdirectory of) /srv, I can have all my MP3s
> and videos available to every user account ─ and I do reserve 2 user
> accounts for myself: one main account and one as a fallback.

I do it somewhat differently, but all of my user-data is kept in one
partition, independent of the root partition and which version of what
distro is running at the time. Data is the key to the way I have things
set up; I can back up my user-data on one system then take it to another
system and it's all there where it needs to be, to be worked on by
whatever distro was booted.

[Recently while installing Debian jessie I was reminded that rsync is
not part of the core-command set and has to be separately installed, as
does gparted; go figure. And btw gparted does not seem to have quite
mastered support for GPT partition tables, or I don't understand things
sufficiently, or both; I do not for example recall seeing any way to run
gparted and determine what kind of partition table exists on the drive.]

>>>> the whole point in 1969 was to look out towards the future and make
>>>> the OS able to adapt to it. Considering that the basic model has
>>>> been more or less the same [with new stuff added and updates and
>>>> all that, yeah, but BASICALLY the same] for the last *45 YEARS*,
>>>> you'd think that maybe in 1969 they were thinking PRETTY SMART?
>>>
>>> Exactly. The reason why UNIX has survived so long and why so many
>>> newer operating system designs were all inspired by UNIX was because
>>> it was robust, flexible, reliable, secure, scalable, versatile, easy
>>> to maintain, and innovative all around.
>>
>> And you could always add yet-another option that is semi-documented
>> and often conflicts with the UNIX principle of simplicity, for
>> example some of the options of 'find' have nothing whatsoever to do
>> with finding a file; if they'd kept to UNIX principles they'd have
>> done it otherwise.
>
> Simplicity and minimalism are not the same thing.

Did someone say that they were? On the other hand, when you have
maximized code reuse, you will find that both simplicity and minimalism
have been obtained.

> The UNIX utilities
> were developed and have evolved with user-friendliness in mind ─
> albeit that it is not the same kind of user-friendliness as the
> typical (ex-)Windows user in this newsgroup has in mind.

Here I can only say that user-friendliness is defined by the user.

>>> Compared to Windows, OS X and anything produced by Apple before OS X
>>> came along, UNIX was designed to do the job, whereas the others were
>>> designed to entice customers and bring in money. Apple has always
>>> been good at enticing customers.
>>>
>>> Microsoft on the other hand needed a little help from a whole
>>> library
>>> full of books on foul play. If it hadn't been for Microsoft's
>>> corrupt tactics, then DOS and Windows would never have survived as
>>> long as they did. The reason why people use Windows today is that
>>> it comes pre-installed on the machine in 95% of the cases.
>>
>> And nowadays it is not only preinstalled, it can be difficult to
>> install anything else in its place.
>
> Yeah, unlike Apple, Microsoft never really made any hardware of its
> own, so they're trying to grab hold of every hardware platform they
> can get their hands on these days, and claim it their own.

It's unfortunate that Microsoft's essential model is that of a greedy
merchant holding valuable goods behind an iron grating.

--
http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com
Big Bad Bob
2015-09-20 18:29:50 UTC
Permalink
On 09/19/15 11:49, Aragorn so wittily quipped:
> On Saturday 19 Sep 2015 19:42, Big Bad Bob conveyed the following to
> alt.os.linux.ubuntu...

>> linux isn't UNIX by the way. And consider that UNIX did things "back
>> then" that were extremely revolutionary, and other OSs have patterned
>> themselves after (including VMS, Solaris, and, well, Linux).
>
> Not VMS. It has /some/ things in common with UNIX, but not a whole lot.
> In fact, Dave Cutler, who co-wrote the VMS kernel and would later on
> create a somewhat obscured carbon copy of it called NT, was known for
> his passionate hatred against UNIX.

Well, I haven't used VMS in a while, but as I recall the command line
tools are similarly named and the '/' is used for directories [and so
on], as opposed to the way MS does it [and with drive letters, ew].

Also a lot of OpenVMS advocates like to talk about how "unix-like" it is.

last time I used VMS (remotely, on a VAX, for a customer project) was in
the early 90's, and I was moderately amused to find that it had 'teco'
on it. I edited the program locally and used a file transfer program
with 'Reflection' to transfer it, though, rather than poking around in
teco. It was faster+easier. Lots tech revolution happening at that
time, lots of old and new working together. local editors were WAY
better, running on PCs. Then you transfer to the 'big iron' (or 'medium
iron', in this case), compile, test. [the main program was in FORTRAN,
FYI, and there might have been a few Cognos 'QUIZ' reports to go with it]


but the 'passionate hatred against UNIX' part is an interesting point.
It might explain a LOT.
vallor
2015-08-14 01:28:43 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 06:13:10 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> vallor wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Have you ever considered using Cygwin or GoW in a military contract?
>>
>> I ask because I once used perl (from Cygwin) to automate some
>> repetitive tasks at the office -- worked like a champ for as long as we
>> used it. :)
>
> If all you need is command-line tools, I would recommend MSYS2.
> It works using the Cygwin DLL. It runs bash in mintty instead of some
> stupid console layered on top of Microsoft's slow-ass offering.
> It supports copy-and-paste via middle-click.

Same goes for Cygwin, it uses mintty and can select/copy in an X-like
fashion. :)

> You can install software
> packages using pacman.

I've just been using the cygwin setup, might look into MSYS if it gives
me the same software I'm using now, +pacman. :)

> Hell, it even provides tmux. Imagine that! Tmux on Windoze!

That sounds very trick.

--
-v
DanS
2015-08-28 21:29:42 UTC
Permalink
vallor <***@cultnix.org> wrote in
news:55cba99a$0$32413$c3e8da3$***@news.astraweb.com:


> [trying to avoid the flame war, had a question]
>
> Have you ever considered using Cygwin or GoW in a military
> contract?
>
> I ask because I once used perl (from Cygwin) to automate
> some repetitive tasks at the office -- worked like a champ
> for as long as we used it. :)

Just wondering, why wouldn't you have used the Windows version of PERL?
vallor
2015-08-30 02:31:57 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:29:42 -0500, DanS wrote:

> vallor <***@cultnix.org> wrote in
> news:55cba99a$0$32413$c3e8da3$***@news.astraweb.com:
>
>
>> [trying to avoid the flame war, had a question]
>>
>> Have you ever considered using Cygwin or GoW in a military contract?
>>
>> I ask because I once used perl (from Cygwin) to automate some
>> repetitive tasks at the office -- worked like a champ for as long as we
>> used it. :)
>
> Just wondering, why wouldn't you have used the Windows version of PERL?

I guess because I'm not at all familiar with how well the Windows port
works.

Also, the script called two other Cygwin applications -- a command-line
email program, as well as gnupg -- to retrieve a file off of a CD,
encrypt it, and email it to a specific address. So it probably worked
better that everything was Cygwin, unless I'm mistaken.

(The same task could probably have been done in PowerShell, but for
various reasons I haven't taken the time to learn it yet.)

--
-v
DanS
2015-08-30 12:25:17 UTC
Permalink
vallor <***@cultnix.org> wrote in
news:55e26b1d$0$19608$c3e8da3$***@news.astraweb.com:

> On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:29:42 -0500, DanS wrote:
>
>> vallor <***@cultnix.org> wrote in
>> news:55cba99a$0$32413$c3e8da3$***@news.astraweb.com:
>>
>>
>>> [trying to avoid the flame war, had a question]
>>>
>>> Have you ever considered using Cygwin or GoW in a
>>> military contract?
>>>
>>> I ask because I once used perl (from Cygwin) to automate
>>> some repetitive tasks at the office -- worked like a
>>> champ for as long as we used it. :)
>>
>> Just wondering, why wouldn't you have used the Windows
>> version of PERL?
>
> I guess because I'm not at all familiar with how well the
> Windows port works.
>
> Also, the script called two other Cygwin applications -- a
> command-line email program, as well as gnupg -- to retrieve
> a file off of a CD, encrypt it, and email it to a specific
> address. So it probably worked better that everything was
> Cygwin, unless I'm mistaken.

Fair enough.


> (The same task could probably have been done in PowerShell,
> but for various reasons I haven't taken the time to learn
> it yet.)

Probably. I'm not familiar w/PS at all.

There's also Win32 GNU utils for when you are forced to use Windows but need/want
to use some of the typical command line utilities of GNU ...

http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/summary.html
DanS
2015-08-28 21:25:19 UTC
Permalink
Edmund <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:mqc7es$61b$***@dont-email.me:


>>
>> Open a CLI (cmd.exe) as root (Administrator)
>> type:
>> bcdedit /set nointegritychecks ON press Enter Restart the
>> PC, yup that's Win vice ... restart ...
>>
>> Now you can install any driver.
>
> Going to the right newsgroup might help too.
> This is linux so why on earth complaining here about
> windows?

Because he's trying to impress those he thinks are his "friends".
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...