On 16/10/2017 16:47, clipka wrote:
> Am 16.10.2017 um 16:56 schrieb jr:
>> On 16/10/2017 11:05, clipka wrote:
>>> jr <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>>> Windows 10 users might also be able to resort to the "Windows subsystem
>>>>> for Linux"; from what I've heard, as of the Fall Creators Update it's an
>>>>> official part of the system. (Prior to that it was an optional
>>>>> beta-stage component that required separate installation.)
>>>> given that you're a quote Windows Jockey with said subsystem in place +
>>>> working, it'd be nice if you could verify that 'nocomment' will indeed
>>>> build, since Stephen has already demonstrated that the cygwin route does
>>> May do, provided I find the time.
>> heh. here's what I read:
>>> ... provided I find the time.
>> I used to run a Xubuntu box for a while (back in the Pentium age) and
>> know /exactly/ what you mean. apt-getting flex, getting 'nocomment'
>> from the server, typing make would have taken me, uh, I don't know, two
>> and a half minutes? I mean, who in today's world has that much time on
>> their hands?
> You're probably right in that once I get around to it, it'll be a matter
> of minutes. (Presuming everything goes right.) Probably less time than
> it takes me to write this post.
> I'm not too good at task switching though. I need to find some moment to
> sit back, take a deep breath, do all the little but numerous steps to
> prepare for the deed (including getting a clear mental image of what
> this task actually involves), and then actually try the compilation.
sure, getting well prepared does make all the difference.
>>> May do, ...
>> 'may' to me means "hadn't given it any thought yet", understandable
>> since the utilities likely aren't of any interest to you.
>> however, I cannot fathom why you're so keen to tell about the wonderful
>> "Windows subsystem for Linux" -- twice -- with all the "might"s and
>> "should"s, when not even yourself is using it for the purpose you
>> suggest. is that a "Windows thing"?
> Just my personal habit of letting others know stuff I found out about
> the world, I guess.
> Here's an alternative to cygwin (which used to put me off whenever I
> looked at it) & co. to run stuff on Windows, it's quite new and hasn't
> been mentioned yet (in this thread about nocomment), I have /some/
> experience with it (using it occasionally to build and test POV-Ray for
> Linux) and find it darn easy to use --- so why shouldn't I let folks
> know that this route /exists/?
(I hope) I'm not saying that alternatives oughtn't get mentioned, my
point was/is that such information is relevant ("helpful") only if this
route exists *and* it is a viable route.
> It's like, say, overhearing a conversation among sightseeing tourists
> pondering how to cross the Rhine river, and discussing which bridge to
> take, while I happen to know that there's also a ferry nearby -- why
> shouldn't I mention it to them as an alternative? Not that I've ever
> taken it myself, but they may still enjoy it; nor do I know /exactly/
> where the landing is situated, but they may still be able to find it
> themselves once they're aware of its existence. And if they're not
> interested in taking a ferry, they're perfectly free to politely decline
> the suggestion.
yeah well, it seems our ideas of "helpfulness" do differ somewhat.
using that example, so we (you + I) stand by the river, two bridges
visible in the distance, and we're discussing how to cross.
now a person approaches and tells us that: (a) there's a ferry nearby
though I do not know where exactly, and (b) by the way I've never
actually used it, only similar ferries elsewhere, would, I suggest, not
have "illuminated" us in our "predicament", nor would that person have
inspired my confidence. but, as always, YMMV.
> (If on the other hand they start complaining how I even dare suggest
> such a thing without trying it out for them first and/or giving them
> fully detailed directions, I'd consider that a bit inappropriate.)
no no, I'm quite comfortable with free speech.
Post a reply to this message