|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> What I'm saying is that "Unix" isn't a single coherant design. It's
>> 50,000 random people all doing their own seperate thing, and expecting
>> the result to actually function. Which, almost unbelievably, it does.
>> But *damn* is it messy...
>
> I really fail to see how that is at all different from Windows. ;)
Well, Windoze certainly ended up being a pretty serious mess... But at
least it does a better job of presenting a coherant appearence if
nothing else.
The trouble with Linux is that everything is 50,000 utterly *tiny*
pieces, each of which does almost nothing useful by itself, and you have
to put thousands of these tiny pieces together to do anything useful.
The trouble with Windoze is that *everything* is one gigantic lump. (And
it's a very buggy, undocumented and unreliable lump at that.)
Why can't somebody build an OS with a *sane* level of granularity?? What
would be so hard about that?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> What I'm saying is that "Unix" isn't a single coherant design. It's
>> 50,000 random people all doing their own seperate thing, and expecting
>> the result to actually function. Which, almost unbelievably, it does.
>> But *damn* is it messy...
>
> When you're writing a single, simple tool, with well defined inputs and
> outputs, it's much easier to make it work *no matter what*. When each
> tool is maintained by a separate group of people, they may not share the
> same design ideology, but they're much more likely to operate correctly
> under unexpected circumstances.
>
> So the fact that it works as often as it does shouldn't really surprise
> anyone.
Hooooookay then... let me see...
http://unixhelp.ed.ac.uk/CGI/man-cgi?ls
So the program to "list the contents of a folder" has 59 seperate
command-line options?
And what do these options do? Well, some of them control which fields to
show or not show. Some control which way to sort the list. Some control
which files to show/hide. Some control various formatting options
(escape filenames, use colour, grid or column view).
I just love the way they interact:
-lct: Show ctime, sort by ctime.
-lc: Show ctime, sort by name.
-c: Hide ctime, Sort by ctime.
What the hell??
So, rather than having options to select individual fields to show or
hide, and another option specifying which field to sort by, we have this
ad-hoc *mess* of haphazardly interacting command switches that you have
to spend 20 minutes studying the manpage to decode the interactions for?
In what universe is this a "simple tool" with "well defined inputs and
outputs"?
Also: autoconf exists. Need I say more?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:06:57 -0000, Nicolas Alvarez
<nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> did spake, saying:
>> Heck, I use version 7...even 8 was too bloatware for my taste.
>
> http://stuff.povaddict.com.ar/psp5.png
>
> I tried 8 or 9 and I was impressed at the amount of bloat.
But wasn't it v7 that introduced the ability to layout and print multiple
images? Such a handy little thing.
--
Phil Cook
Using PSP7.04
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: Adventures with digital painting
Date: 10 Mar 2008 07:16:31
Message: <47d5269f@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Why can't somebody build an OS with a *sane* level of granularity?? What
> would be so hard about that?
GNU Hurd, if I understand it correctly, splits the kernel into pieces too :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> And lo on Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:06:57 -0000, Nicolas Alvarez
> <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> did spake, saying:
>> http://stuff.povaddict.com.ar/psp5.png
>>
>> I tried 8 or 9 and I was impressed at the amount of bloat.
>
> But wasn't it v7 that introduced the ability to layout and print
> multiple images? Such a handy little thing.
I don't have a working printer, so meh.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Why can't somebody build an OS with a *sane* level of granularity??
>> What would be so hard about that?
>
> GNU Hurd, if I understand it correctly, splits the kernel into pieces
> too :)
Ah yes, but in Unix land, a device driver is counted as part of the
kernel. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:15:34 -0000, Nicolas Alvarez
<nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> did spake, saying:
>> And lo on Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:06:57 -0000, Nicolas Alvarez
>> <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> did spake, saying:
>>> http://stuff.povaddict.com.ar/psp5.png
>>>
>>> I tried 8 or 9 and I was impressed at the amount of bloat.
>> But wasn't it v7 that introduced the ability to layout and print
>> multiple images? Such a handy little thing.
>
> I don't have a working printer, so meh.
In that case you're probably fine with v5, the only reason I'd be looking
to upgrade is that v7 doesn't retain EXIF data and I think v8 upwards does.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Ah yes, but in Unix land, a device driver is counted as part of the
> kernel. ;-)
There are many pros in monolithic kernels. Of course there are cons,
but many people believe that the pros outweight the cons in this case.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Also: autoconf exists. Need I say more?
Autoconf exists because not all systems have the same tools or libraries
installed, nor all systems have the same versions of those tools/libraries.
Autoconf also exists because computer architectures are different.
For instance, some architectures may be little-endian while others are
big-endian. Some architectures may be 32-bit while others are 64-bit.
Portability is a key feature of unix-like systems.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Also: autoconf exists. Need I say more?
When trying to compile POV-Ray for the iPod touch, I had trouble with
two libraries. JPEG, which used a very old version of autoconf, and
TIFF, which used a half-assed written-by-hand configure script.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |