 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> fairness, as far as I can tell Windoze can't do this *at all*.
Nonsense. Windows has had Internet Connection Sharing since Win98. You just
have to know what it's called. :-)
I'm pretty sure that's not part of Yast, tho. I don't think connection
binding is, but maybe I didn't have the right packages installed to do NAT
on SuSE.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Yet Windows fails to provide such a simple and essential thing as a
> competent file search utility in Windows Explorer (the one at least in
> XP just doesn't work).
Agreed. But you're 2 generations back with that complaint. Vista fixed it so
it works well, and Vista is already obsolete.
Plus, it's a harder problem if you actually want it to be usable by
non-nerds. If I'm looking for "Richard" in my files, I don't want it pulling
up strings out of executables or inside "<Richard>" tags, even if I want it
pulling it out of "<author name='Richard'>". I want to find "Clang" in my
ID3 tags, but not if it shows up as a random string inside the compressed
music stream.
> Apparently Microsoft's idea of "easy to use" is to make it as hard to use
> as possible if you want to do anything even slightly more complicated.
More like "works well even for people who don't know how it works."
Combine that with "don't want to re-write code that's already available as a
free download", and you're set to understand what's going on.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> ...so how do you actually do this then?
That's what the whole COM thing is all about, along with things like
"Windows Scripting Host" and "Power Shell".
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nekar Xenos wrote:
> I love tabbed browsing. Then I have more space on the taskbar for all my
> other windows.
I put the task bar on the side. I can probably put 40 tabs on there before
it gets close to full.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> > Ever heard of the magical word "grep"? Do you know what it's used for in
> > unix systems? If yes, and you understand why this utility has existed for,
> > like, forever, then why are you asking "why would you evern want to do such
> > a thing"?
> I throught that grep is an overly-complicated way of searching for the
> location of a string within one particular file? (I usually just use my
> text editor's "search" function.)
You use your text editor to tell you which files in a directory structure
contain a specified string? Talk about being overly complicated. grep is a
way, way simpler way to do that.
> > Maybe you don't need to search files containing a certain string, but many
> > other people do.
> I guess I don't very often edit large files...
What does file size have to do with anything?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Microsoft's idea of "easy to use" seems to be "figure out what 90% of
> the population wants to do, and then make *that* so easy that a drooling
> retard could do it".
And then they fail even at that.
"Windows is easy for a beginner to use" is a surprisingly widespread
misconception. I don't understand where it comes from. Probably Microsoft
propaganda.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Windows has better tools than UNIX for manipulating structured files.
>
> It does a pretty good job at hiding them. And pretty much everything else
> that could be even remotely useful (such as soft links).
Yes, you don't like Windows, we get it. Plus, you use a version that's old
enough that it lacks the straightforward tools you're complaining about.
And yes, complex tools for manipulating structured files are hidden from the
people who would screw things up by using them wrong, then complain because
they don't understand the system well enough to know they did something
wrong. However, they're not that hard to find and they're mostly very well
documented. For popular files, the interfaces are very well documented.
You complaining you can't find the Windows stuff is like Andrew complaining
he can't work grep. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > Apparently Microsoft's idea of "easy to use" is to make it as hard to use
> > as possible if you want to do anything even slightly more complicated.
> More like "works well even for people who don't know how it works."
> Combine that with "don't want to re-write code that's already available as a
> free download", and you're set to understand what's going on.
I don't really.
What would be the problem of, for example, supporting soft links natively
in Windows Explorer? If they are so scared of newbies getting confused, make
it an option somewhere.
What would be the problem of adding an option to Windows Explorer to show
exact byte sizes of files? I really can't think of any drawback. If someone
wants to use the current mode, go ahead, but why not offer exact byte counts
for people who want them? What would be the problem?
(That's actually something I really hate in MacOS X Finder. There's no way
to make it list the actual size in bytes of files. Instead, it shows a rounded
size like Windows... but of the disk space the file is taking rather than the
actual size of the file. This means that if you have eg. 50 small png files
in one directory, it might report them taking 300 kilobytes of space... Which
is true, because that's the amount of *disk space* they are using. However,
that's not the summed size of the files, which might be eg. 30 kilobytes.
You can get this info from a context menu the hard way, but it's very
inconvenient.)
Why is it so hard to show exact byte counts in graphical file browsers?
Even Konqueror (the default file browser in OpenSUSE) is able to show them
easily.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > ...so how do you actually do this then?
> That's what the whole COM thing is all about, along with things like
> "Windows Scripting Host" and "Power Shell".
I find it telling that if the question would have been something like
"how do you find files in the current directory containing a certain string"
the answer could have been given in one line, but when the question is how
to do those complex searches in Windows you mentioned... there's no simple
answer, only obscure references to something else.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Windows has better tools than UNIX for manipulating structured files.
> >
> > It does a pretty good job at hiding them. And pretty much everything else
> > that could be even remotely useful (such as soft links).
> Yes, you don't like Windows, we get it. Plus, you use a version that's old
> enough that it lacks the straightforward tools you're complaining about.
I'm just not very eager to spend something like 200 euros on a Windows
which does things that my *current* Windows should do already (if nothing
else, as a free upgrade).
Maybe I'll buy it some day in the future, when games stop supporting XP.
(Although by that time I'll probably have to buy a new PC altogether because
games will stop supporting 32-bit CPUs in the near future.)
> You complaining you can't find the Windows stuff is like Andrew complaining
> he can't work grep. :-)
I have used Windows (98 and newer) for over 10 years, and I still can't
figure out how to do such things. I have been using Unix-likes for about
the same amount of time, and it didn't take me long to figure out, and it
just feels comfortable. (I'm not saying that you can do every possible
operation in existence easily, but common tasks just are much easier there
than in Windows, where often I don't know even where to start, even though
I'm not exactly a newbie. Windows is just that good at hiding all the stuff.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
