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.

For example, languages in which the call to "open" doesn't let you specify 
how to lock the file, calls to get the owner of the file fail on Windows as 
if there isn't any such concept, the ubiquitous assumption that Windows 
doesn't have hard or soft links, and stuff like
"""
On Windows, HOME and USERPROFILE will be used if set, otherwise a 
combination of HOMEPATH and HOMEDRIVE will be used. An initial ~user is 
handled by stripping the last directory component from the created user path 
derived above.
"""
which in other words means "we haven't bothered to find the API call that 
tells you where a particular user's home directory is in Windows, so we'll 
assume they're all subdirectories of the same parent directory, even tho 
this isn't true in UNIX either."

And some people wonder why FOSS feels klunky on 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

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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> which in other words means "we haven't bothered to find the API call that
> tells you where a particular user's home directory is in Windows, so we'll
> assume they're all subdirectories of the same parent directory, even tho
> this isn't true in UNIX either."

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.

> And some people wonder why FOSS feels klunky on Windows.

I merrily don't.  Windows always felt klunky to me.

Post a reply to this message

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