Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Somehow, I always find it amusing how many FOSS programs assume Windows is 
>> basically how it was in Win98 and completely fail to do the right thing.
> 
>   Well, you can always demand your money back.

Sometimes you're extremely predictable.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Somehow, I always find it amusing how many FOSS programs assume Windows
> is basically how it was in Win98 and completely fail to do the right thing.
> 

I wouldn't limit this strictly to FOSS. Granted, it's been a while since
I've tried Windows -based freeware and shareware utilities, but on
Windows NT-series this has always been a problem with small utilities.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> My guess is that that won't change while the portable C stdlibs they use don't
> get updated to more modern times to cope with extra features... when in doubt,
> use the lowest common denominator.

Yeah, I think that's the basic problem. Even so, you'd think the portable 
libraries would at least try to support the same semantics where they can. I 
hear the "Windows can't delete an open file" so often it's silly. Why 
wouldn't you make your C compiler's "open" function set the flag that says 
"let me delete open files" if that's how it works in POSIX?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Somehow, I always find it amusing how many FOSS programs assume Windows
>> is basically how it was in Win98 and completely fail to do the right thing.
>>
> 
> I wouldn't limit this strictly to FOSS. 

True. It mostly annoys me in big programs, tho, like language interpreters 
for example.

As "nemesis" pointed out, it's more a problem in the use of C portability 
layers than anything, which is excusable for small one-off programs. But if 
you're going to port an X-windows based graphics system to Windows, you'd 
think it would be easy to fix some of the other stuff too.

Of course it's FOSS, and if you don't need that, you're not going to 
implement it. I understand that, which is why I find it amusing. Personally, 
I'd be embarrassed to do something like porting Ruby or Python to Windows 
without fixing such a thing.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Somehow, I always find it amusing how many FOSS programs assume Windows is 
> >> basically how it was in Win98 and completely fail to do the right thing.
> > 
> >   Well, you can always demand your money back.

> Sometimes you're extremely predictable.

  Well, if the argument is valid, why change it?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Well, if it is open source, why don't you fix it?

(Ducking and taking cover ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> Somehow, I always find it amusing how many FOSS programs assume Windows is 
>>>> basically how it was in Win98 and completely fail to do the right thing.
>>>   Well, you can always demand your money back.
> 
>> Sometimes you're extremely predictable.
> 
>   Well, if the argument is valid, why change it?

You're predictable in that you make that argument even when nobody else is 
arguing. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

TC wrote:
> Well, if it is open source, why don't you fix it?

I have, in other situations. It's difficult to get involved enough to fix 
all of them. And in part for the same reasons the original authors didnt: 
it's not enough of a pain to me to do that. But it's much more of a pain for 
me to fix it than it is for the original authors to do it right in the first 
place. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Warp wrote:
> >>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >>>> Somehow, I always find it amusing how many FOSS programs assume Windows is 
> >>>> basically how it was in Win98 and completely fail to do the right thing.
> >>>   Well, you can always demand your money back.
> > 
> >> Sometimes you're extremely predictable.
> > 
> >   Well, if the argument is valid, why change it?

> You're predictable in that you make that argument even when nobody else is 
> arguing. :-)

  I don't think that presenting an argument is the same thing as "arguing"
(ie. to contend in oral disagreement).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> Warp wrote:
>>>>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>>>> Somehow, I always find it amusing how many FOSS programs assume Windows is 
>>>>>> basically how it was in Win98 and completely fail to do the right thing.
>>>>>   Well, you can always demand your money back.
>>>> Sometimes you're extremely predictable.
>>>   Well, if the argument is valid, why change it?
> 
>> You're predictable in that you make that argument even when nobody else is 
>> arguing. :-)
> 
>   I don't think that presenting an argument is the same thing as "arguing"
> (ie. to contend in oral disagreement).

You're very predictable in that you present that argument every time someone 
says something about FOSS.

In any case, wouldn't you think it rather lame if (for example) Mono only 
read text files that had lines terminated in CRLF? Or if you frequently ran 
across large complex Linux programs that assumed "~fred/x" should expand to 
"/home/fred/x" regardless of what was in /etc/passwd?

They should at least stop putting misinformation in the documentation like 
"you can't delete open files in Windows" or "Windows doesn't have links". 
That's just plain wrong. The minimum would be to phrase it as "we don't open 
files in a mode that allows them to be deleted while open" and "we don't 
support links in Windows".

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message