 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:46:29 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/19/2011 2:45, Invisible wrote:
>> I don't personally know of anybody who actually sent a cheque
>
> AFAIK, I'm the only person in the entire world that ever paid for
> WinZip.
I know my employer has a corporate license.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:34:06 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>>>> Where the hell rents movies for a dollar?
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/3q2n7c9
>>>>
>>>> Tell me you didn't expect this answer.
>>>
>>> How bizare... This really exists?
>>
>> No, I had a free hour and decided to mock up a website just so I could
>> provide that answer to you. It's completely a fantasy made up just so
>> I could answer this question in this way.
>
> I love the way it says "why pay $4 or $5 to buy a movie when you can
> rent one?"
>
> You know, given that movies /actually/ cost about £15 or so, not $4
> [which is apparently about £2.50 at present].
Depends on where you shop. If you shop at used DVD stores (yes, those
exist as well) you can pick up many titles for dirt cheap.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:31:01 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> On 19/04/2011 00:35, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> I'm glad I put that into that site as well, just to make the illusion
>> complete. ;)
>>
>> Along with the dispenser locator. ;)
>
> http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1144
Now you're beginning to understand. ;)
You're actually the star in a real-life edition of "The Truman Show".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:37:00 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> On 18/04/2011 17:09, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:02:19 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> In reality, MS Word is /the only/ word processor that anybody ever
>>> uses. I tiny few people might use OpenOffice these days, but most
>>> people have never heard of it. To them, a word processor = MS Word.
>>
>> So, where did you pull the statistics for the number of people who use
>> OpenOffice? Did you just invent that statistic, or do you have a
>> citation?
>>
>> Most of the people I deal with use OpenOffice and prefer it to Word.
>> So if you're just going with anecdotal evidence based on your own
>> experiences, that's fine, but don't cite that as if it's fact.
>
> Admittedly I don't know hundreds of thousands of people. Still, the vast
> majority of people I know IRL don't know what Linux is, have never heard
> of Firefox, and think MS Office is the only "proper" office suite. You
> know, as if anything you can download for free off the Internet is
> either an illegal pirate copy or a shoddy imitation.
Many people do feel that way. I remember reading a story in the past
year about a teacher who told a student to get rid of that Linux stuff
because they must've pirated it - nobody gives stuff away for free.
> If you're going to tell me that among computer experts the picture is
> different, then sure. But how many people are computer experts?
Not everyone I work with at work is a computer expert.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:56:04 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> STOP messages you can usually look up. (Almost all of them mean
>>> "something happened which is never supposed to happen. Go check your
>>> hardware and device drivers." But then, I guess that's the nature of a
>>> kernel failure...)
>>
>> Um, yes, STOP messages are a type of ABEND (ie, Abnormal End) of the
>> kernel.
>
> Usually "unhandled kernel-mode exception" or "page fault in non-paged
> area". Fortunately, I haven't seen one of these for years now. I used to
> see them almost daily.
I did as well, but then I switched to Linux. I think in the 15 years or
so I've been using Linux now, I've seen the kernel panic maybe twice (and
the second time was trying to reproduce the first time so I could file a
bug report).
>> But those aren't the only error messages I ever had to look up, and I
>> never really had a problem finding *something* about the error I was
>> running into, that was my point.
>
> Perhaps you can tell me what event #3019 from MRxSmb means then, because
> the description merely says "the redirector failed to determine the
> connection type". (WHAT redirector? WHAT connection? WTF?)
First hit on Google:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/889000
That article links to another that says it's an informational message and
can be safely ignored.
Search terms: 3019 mrxsmb
Total time: About 30 seconds
>> I'm not really sure what that has to do with what I was saying....
>
> Once upon a time, a compiler or interpreter would have come with an
> extensive user manual. Today you get far less.
Depends on the compiler and the language. One example of an esoteric
compiler used by a small group of people doesn't make a 'trend'.
> Then again, GHC costs nothing. The Pascal compiler I used to use cost me
> £80. (!!)
Meh. I paid something like $250 for the Borland C compiler when I was in
college (or just before I went to college). I probably still have it
somewhere.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/19/2011 11:04, Jim Henderson wrote:
> If it isn't especially complicated, then why do you have problems
> understanding what some of the options do or are for?
Bazinga?
> Have you written a word processor? Do you know how much work and testing
> goes into creating something like MS Word or OpenOffice Writer?
Actually, I think there's probably more work than most OSS projects would
want to spend just getting the documentation right.
>> Of course, OpenOffice has no documentation either. But then you're just
>> grateful to be getting a reasonably good bit of software for free...
>
> I find the built-in help to be pretty useful myself.
Ever notice how the OSS projects that *really* take off are the ones that
have good documentation? And the ones that limp along on three paws are the
ones where you scour the internet to find half-ass tutorials on the version
five years old?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:28:38 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/19/2011 11:04, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> If it isn't especially complicated, then why do you have problems
>> understanding what some of the options do or are for?
>
> Bazinga?
:)
>> Have you written a word processor? Do you know how much work and
>> testing goes into creating something like MS Word or OpenOffice Writer?
>
> Actually, I think there's probably more work than most OSS projects
> would want to spend just getting the documentation right.
Yes, I think that's likely.
>>> Of course, OpenOffice has no documentation either. But then you're
>>> just grateful to be getting a reasonably good bit of software for
>>> free...
>>
>> I find the built-in help to be pretty useful myself.
>
> Ever notice how the OSS projects that *really* take off are the ones
> that have good documentation? And the ones that limp along on three
> paws are the ones where you scour the internet to find half-ass
> tutorials on the version five years old?
I would agree that documentation is important - but also usability and
stability are probably equal factors. Good documentation with crap
software doesn't really go far either.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1144
>
> Now you're beginning to understand. ;)
>
> You're actually the star in a real-life edition of "The Truman Show".
Man, I hope the ratings are *awesome*! :-D
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Admittedly I don't know hundreds of thousands of people. Still, the vast
>> majority of people I know IRL don't know what Linux is, have never heard
>> of Firefox, and think MS Office is the only "proper" office suite. You
>> know, as if anything you can download for free off the Internet is
>> either an illegal pirate copy or a shoddy imitation.
>
> Many people do feel that way. I remember reading a story in the past
> year about a teacher who told a student to get rid of that Linux stuff
> because they must've pirated it - nobody gives stuff away for free.
I remember reading about a memory of library stuff who saw somebody
using Telnet. She screamed "OH MY GOD, YOU'RE HACKING OUR COMPUTERS!!!"
and turned the computer off at the wall. The guy tried to explain what
he was actually doing, but she wouldn't have it.
Apparently there are a lot of stupid people...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/04/2011 07:28 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Ever notice how the OSS projects that *really* take off are the ones
> that have good documentation? And the ones that limp along on three paws
> are the ones where you scour the internet to find half-ass tutorials on
> the version five years old?
POV-Ray, anyone?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Usually "unhandled kernel-mode exception" or "page fault in non-paged
>> area". Fortunately, I haven't seen one of these for years now. I used to
>> see them almost daily.
>
> I did as well, but then I switched to Linux. I think in the 15 years or
> so I've been using Linux now, I've seen the kernel panic maybe twice (and
> the second time was trying to reproduce the first time so I could file a
> bug report).
I've seen plenty of Linux kernel panics. Usually just after you finished
installing Linux [or so you thought]. Assuming you get it to actually
work properly in the first place, it seems pretty rock solid, as far as
I can tell.
>> Perhaps you can tell me what event #3019 from MRxSmb means then, because
>> the description merely says "the redirector failed to determine the
>> connection type". (WHAT redirector? WHAT connection? WTF?)
>
> First hit on Google:
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/889000
>
> That article links to another that says it's an informational message and
> can be safely ignored.
I love the way it says this issue happens with SP2, and there's a
hotfix, but doesn't say whether that's included in SP3 or not.
>> Once upon a time, a compiler or interpreter would have come with an
>> extensive user manual. Today you get far less.
>
> Depends on the compiler and the language. One example of an esoteric
> compiler used by a small group of people doesn't make a 'trend'.
It's a data-point I happen to have to hand. I'm sure it's not hard to
find plenty of others.
>> Then again, GHC costs nothing. The Pascal compiler I used to use cost me
>> £80. (!!)
>
> Meh. I paid something like $250 for the Borland C compiler when I was in
> college (or just before I went to college). I probably still have it
> somewhere.
I still have an illegal copy of Borland Turbo Pascal 5.5 for MS-DOS on
3" floppies somewhere...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/04/2011 05:13 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/19/2011 8:55, Invisible wrote:
>> How did you know it's something to do with SMB?
>
> MRxSmb
Wow, that's some impressive guesswork.
> Plus, "redirector" and "connector" are terms that SMB uses to describe
> the different parts of the stack.
Great if you already happen to know about that somehow.
> The "redirector" is the part that
> takes the request to X:\... and turns it into a request to
> \\server\share\... by intercepting the request and redirecting it to the
> appropriate networking layers.
>
> The connector is, I think, the part that actually transports the SMB
> protocol over an underlying protocol.
I suppose I shouldn't complain too much. It's not like Linux documents
this stuff either...
Oh, wait. Windows costs hundreds of pounds, while Linux is given away
for free. Hmm, OK, maybe I should complain. :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 21:29:20 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1144
>>
>> Now you're beginning to understand. ;)
>>
>> You're actually the star in a real-life edition of "The Truman Show".
>
> Man, I hope the ratings are *awesome*! :-D
You bet, but you need to do better with the product placement. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/19/2011 11:40, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Good documentation with crap software doesn't really go far either.
True, but at least with half-decent documentation, people might be more
willing to help. If you can't even tell if what you're doing was *supposed*
to work, even those who could improve it will be at a loss.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 21:38:30 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Usually "unhandled kernel-mode exception" or "page fault in non-paged
>>> area". Fortunately, I haven't seen one of these for years now. I used
>>> to see them almost daily.
>>
>> I did as well, but then I switched to Linux. I think in the 15 years
>> or so I've been using Linux now, I've seen the kernel panic maybe twice
>> (and the second time was trying to reproduce the first time so I could
>> file a bug report).
>
> I've seen plenty of Linux kernel panics. Usually just after you finished
> installing Linux [or so you thought]. Assuming you get it to actually
> work properly in the first place, it seems pretty rock solid, as far as
> I can tell.
Well, I've only got about 15 years' experience working with it, and have
it running on - let's see....9 machines in the house (including my router
- a non-Intel platform at that). Oh, and two phones running Android.
Make that 3, my stepson's phone also runs Android.
A couple of the machines are identical laptops; a couple are off-the-
shelf desktops, and one is a custom-built system.
I'll reiterate: Only 2 kernel panics in 15 years.
How many times have you installed Linux and how recently?
>>> Perhaps you can tell me what event #3019 from MRxSmb means then,
>>> because the description merely says "the redirector failed to
>>> determine the connection type". (WHAT redirector? WHAT connection?
>>> WTF?)
>>
>> First hit on Google:
>>
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/889000
>>
>> That article links to another that says it's an informational message
>> and can be safely ignored.
>
> I love the way it says this issue happens with SP2, and there's a
> hotfix, but doesn't say whether that's included in SP3 or not.
I don't see that that matters - they document that it's informational and
nothing to worry about.
Oh, and guessing it had to do with SMB? MRx*Smb* (emphasis added). ;)
>>> Once upon a time, a compiler or interpreter would have come with an
>>> extensive user manual. Today you get far less.
>>
>> Depends on the compiler and the language. One example of an esoteric
>> compiler used by a small group of people doesn't make a 'trend'.
>
> It's a data-point I happen to have to hand. I'm sure it's not hard to
> find plenty of others.
Sure, but the plural of anecdote isn't data (as Darren has said). I can
provide counter-examples until the sun goes down and what would that
accomplish? We have different anecdotes that support different points of
view. Big deal.
>>> Then again, GHC costs nothing. The Pascal compiler I used to use cost
>>> me £80. (!!)
>>
>> Meh. I paid something like $250 for the Borland C compiler when I was
>> in college (or just before I went to college). I probably still have
>> it somewhere.
>
> I still have an illegal copy of Borland Turbo Pascal 5.5 for MS-DOS on
> 3" floppies somewhere...
I still have a legal copy somewhere in the basement, if it's not water-
damaged. Probably still the Turbo Prolog compiler as well.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/19/2011 13:33, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> POV-Ray, anyone?
POV-Ray is an excellent example of good documentation. Apache is good, PHP
isn't bad, gcc is pretty good (given it's implementing languages with
external specs, etc).
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/19/2011 13:40, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> On 19/04/2011 05:13 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> On 4/19/2011 8:55, Invisible wrote:
>>> How did you know it's something to do with SMB?
>>
>> MRxSmb
>
> Wow, that's some impressive guesswork.
Thank you. It comes with experience.
>> Plus, "redirector" and "connector" are terms that SMB uses to describe
>> the different parts of the stack.
>
> Great if you already happen to know about that somehow.
It's your job to learn this stuff. Now you know. Go read up how it works. :-)
> Oh, wait. Windows costs hundreds of pounds, while Linux is given away for
> free. Hmm, OK, maybe I should complain. :-P
But it *is* documented. Indeed, I gave you the microsoft links that document
it. A trivial search showed the answer to your question on microsoft's site.
Why do you keep complaining that Microsoft doesn't document this stuff,
especially in response to a thread that points you at the microsoft
documentation found with a trivial search of the obvious?
Hundreds of pounds doesn't pay for someone to come and telepathically inject
into your brain the answers.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 21:31:20 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I remember reading about a memory of library stuff who saw somebody
> using Telnet. She screamed "OH MY GOD, YOU'RE HACKING OUR COMPUTERS!!!"
> and turned the computer off at the wall. The guy tried to explain what
> he was actually doing, but she wouldn't have it.
>
> Apparently there are a lot of stupid people...
There are a lot of uneducated people, certainly.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/04/2011 10:11 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 21:31:20 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> I remember reading about a memory of library stuff who saw somebody
>> using Telnet. She screamed "OH MY GOD, YOU'RE HACKING OUR COMPUTERS!!!"
>> and turned the computer off at the wall. The guy tried to explain what
>> he was actually doing, but she wouldn't have it.
>>
>> Apparently there are a lot of stupid people...
>
> There are a lot of uneducated people, certainly.
Being uneducated is one thing. Assuming that you know what you're
talking about when you don't is another.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Man, I hope the ratings are *awesome*! :-D
>
> You bet, but you need to do better with the product placement. :)
OMG, you guys know where I place my products?! o_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:07:26 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/19/2011 11:40, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Good documentation with crap software doesn't really go far either.
>
> True, but at least with half-decent documentation, people might be more
> willing to help. If you can't even tell if what you're doing was
> *supposed* to work, even those who could improve it will be at a loss.
I kinda agree with you on this point - a lot of development is done in a
very collaborative way, so those who could/want to improve tend to not
work in isolation, but as part of a team that has ongoing communication.
In that respect, OSS isn't much different from closed-source development
(at least not in my experience). Closed-source software is developed
before documentation is completed - documentation tends to start being
written when the product is installable, because the screens (for
example) tend to change before release.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Plus, "redirector" and "connector" are terms that SMB uses to describe
>>> the different parts of the stack.
>>
>> Great if you already happen to know about that somehow.
>
> It's your job to learn this stuff. Now you know. Go read up how it
> works. :-)
Like, where?
>> Oh, wait. Windows costs hundreds of pounds, while Linux is given away for
>> free. Hmm, OK, maybe I should complain. :-P
>
> But it *is* documented. Indeed, I gave you the microsoft links that
> document it.
You have me a link that explains what event 3019 is. It doesn't explain
why the redirector exists or what it does or indeed anything further...
> Why do you keep complaining that Microsoft doesn't
> document this stuff, especially in response to a thread that points you
> at the microsoft documentation found with a trivial search of the obvious?
See above.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/19/2011 14:19, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I kinda agree with you on this point - a lot of development is done in a
> very collaborative way, so those who could/want to improve tend to not
> work in isolation, but as part of a team that has ongoing communication.
Bringing someone up to speed on the internals of a project that has no
internal documentation is extremely time consuming.
> In that respect, OSS isn't much different from closed-source development
> (at least not in my experience). Closed-source software is developed
> before documentation is completed - documentation tends to start being
> written when the product is installable, because the screens (for
> example) tend to change before release.
End-user documentation, yes. But most of the OSS projects are released
before there's any internal documentation either. Usually even worse.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/19/2011 14:21, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> You have me a link that explains what event 3019 is. It doesn't explain why
> the redirector exists or what it does or indeed anything further...
On the same page, I gave you a link to an explanation of SMB caches and, if
you looked, a whole bunch of other tables of contentses.
Or type in "smb tutorial". (I've found that "tutorial" is a good keyword.)
http://oreilly.com/catalog/samba/chapter/book/ch03_03.html
"What is an smb redirector"
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa939514%28v=winembedded.5%29.aspx
What do you want to learn about? People publish books and technical papers
for all this stuff. You just have to want to read it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/19/2011 14:07, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I don't see that that matters - they document that it's informational and
> nothing to worry about.
*And* they tell you what it means, so it's trivial to confirm that it's
nothing to worry about.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/04/19 16:31, Orchid XP v8 a écrit :
>>> Admittedly I don't know hundreds of thousands of people. Still, the vast
>>> majority of people I know IRL don't know what Linux is, have never heard
>>> of Firefox, and think MS Office is the only "proper" office suite. You
>>> know, as if anything you can download for free off the Internet is
>>> either an illegal pirate copy or a shoddy imitation.
>>
>> Many people do feel that way. I remember reading a story in the past
>> year about a teacher who told a student to get rid of that Linux stuff
>> because they must've pirated it - nobody gives stuff away for free.
>
> I remember reading about a memory of library stuff who saw somebody
> using Telnet. She screamed "OH MY GOD, YOU'RE HACKING OUR COMPUTERS!!!"
> and turned the computer off at the wall. The guy tried to explain what
> he was actually doing, but she wouldn't have it.
>
> Apparently there are a lot of stupid people...
>
Look at
http://www.rinkworks.com/stupid/
for many samples.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:24:20 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/19/2011 14:19, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I kinda agree with you on this point - a lot of development is done in
>> a very collaborative way, so those who could/want to improve tend to
>> not work in isolation, but as part of a team that has ongoing
>> communication.
>
> Bringing someone up to speed on the internals of a project that has no
> internal documentation is extremely time consuming.
Sure, but that's different than poor end-user documentation, that's what
I'm saying.
>> In that respect, OSS isn't much different from closed-source
>> development (at least not in my experience). Closed-source software is
>> developed before documentation is completed - documentation tends to
>> start being written when the product is installable, because the
>> screens (for example) tend to change before release.
>
> End-user documentation, yes. But most of the OSS projects are released
> before there's any internal documentation either. Usually even worse.
Most OSS projects rely on code as the internal documentation. Which I
don't necessarily think is a good thing since not everyone codes in the
same style (though it helps when a project has coding style guidelines, I
think).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:18:49 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> On 19/04/2011 10:11 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 21:31:20 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>>> I remember reading about a memory of library stuff who saw somebody
>>> using Telnet. She screamed "OH MY GOD, YOU'RE HACKING OUR
>>> COMPUTERS!!!" and turned the computer off at the wall. The guy tried
>>> to explain what he was actually doing, but she wouldn't have it.
>>>
>>> Apparently there are a lot of stupid people...
>>
>> There are a lot of uneducated people, certainly.
>
> Being uneducated is one thing. Assuming that you know what you're
> talking about when you don't is another.
That's a fair point - and something everyone should keep in mind when
making unsupportable declarations. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:19:16 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Man, I hope the ratings are *awesome*! :-D
>>
>> You bet, but you need to do better with the product placement. :)
>
> OMG, you guys know where I place my products?! o_O
LOL
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:31:42 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/19/2011 14:07, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I don't see that that matters - they document that it's informational
>> and nothing to worry about.
>
>
> *And* they tell you what it means, so it's trivial to confirm that it's
> nothing to worry about.
Yep.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/04/19 11:46, Darren New a écrit :
> On 4/19/2011 2:45, Invisible wrote:
>> I don't personally know of anybody who actually sent a cheque
>
> AFAIK, I'm the only person in the entire world that ever paid for WinZip.
>
I did pay for PK Zip, then found free alternatives that both zipped
beter (faster and beter compression), and supported many formats beside ZIP.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/19/2011 15:21, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Sure, but that's different than poor end-user documentation, that's what
> I'm saying.
Sure. It's two different problems, and they're both problems.
> Most OSS projects rely on code as the internal documentation.
Code is not documentation. Anyone who thinks that code *is* documentation on
any project you feel the need to split into multiple files is fooling
themselves.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:48:35 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> Most OSS projects rely on code as the internal documentation.
>
> Code is not documentation. Anyone who thinks that code *is*
> documentation on any project you feel the need to split into multiple
> files is fooling themselves.
Of course, that was pretty much what I said in the next sentence after
what you quoted.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/19/2011 17:06, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:48:35 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>>> Most OSS projects rely on code as the internal documentation.
>>
>> Code is not documentation. Anyone who thinks that code *is*
>> documentation on any project you feel the need to split into multiple
>> files is fooling themselves.
>
> Of course, that was pretty much what I said in the next sentence after
> what you quoted.
Even if everyone uses the same style, code isn't documentation. Even if only
one person works on the code ever, code isn't documentation. Code is no more
documentation than the steering wheel is your turn signals.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:10:44 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/19/2011 17:06, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:48:35 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>>> Most OSS projects rely on code as the internal documentation.
>>>
>>> Code is not documentation. Anyone who thinks that code *is*
>>> documentation on any project you feel the need to split into multiple
>>> files is fooling themselves.
>>
>> Of course, that was pretty much what I said in the next sentence after
>> what you quoted.
>
> Even if everyone uses the same style, code isn't documentation. Even if
> only one person works on the code ever, code isn't documentation. Code
> is no more documentation than the steering wheel is your turn signals.
Code in and of itself doesn't include why, but one could argue (though
I'd have to admit that it would be pointless to argue it with you or any
other professional coder <g>) that that's what comments are for. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/19/2011 19:01, Jim Henderson wrote:
> that that's what comments are for. ;)
Comments help with localized pieces of code. If I hand you something like
Apache or Outlook or the Linux kernel, in-line comments are not going to
tell you what order to read code in to learn how it works. Especially if
fixing some specific bug is your first task. Sure, someone can show you
*this* piece of code parses configuration files and *that* piece of code
handles authentication, but that's a person showing you that, or hours
wandering around looking for an anchor. And that's even assuming the code is
well structured to start with.
And once it grows, you're just screwed. I mean, really, something like the
Linux kernel is really a fairly small system compared to some of the big
systems out there. (There it is. Linux is 14 million lines of code. AT&T
TURKS is 100 million lines of *SQL*, let alone all the systems that use it.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:45:29 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/19/2011 19:01, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> that that's what comments are for. ;)
>
> Comments help with localized pieces of code. If I hand you something
> like Apache or Outlook or the Linux kernel, in-line comments are not
> going to tell you what order to read code in to learn how it works.
> Especially if fixing some specific bug is your first task. Sure, someone
> can show you *this* piece of code parses configuration files and *that*
> piece of code handles authentication, but that's a person showing you
> that, or hours wandering around looking for an anchor. And that's even
> assuming the code is well structured to start with.
Well, yes, I do know what you mean. Even with proper code analysis
tools, it can be difficult to read code.
It's far easier if, for instance, you're using a tool like Source
Navigator (which I really like for this type of thing) you are looking to
analyze a bug. Having an error code and a call stack makes it far easier
to use a tool like that than to say "I wonder how it does 'x'" and then
work through the logic. It's possible, but it can take quite a while.
Proper documentation includes design documents and the like - and that
certainly goes a lot further than code alone.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I remember reading about a memory of library stuff who saw somebody
>> using Telnet. She screamed "OH MY GOD, YOU'RE HACKING OUR COMPUTERS!!!"
>> and turned the computer off at the wall. The guy tried to explain what
>> he was actually doing, but she wouldn't have it.
>>
>> Apparently there are a lot of stupid people...
>
> Look at
> http://www.rinkworks.com/stupid/
> for many samples.
http://www.rinkworks.com/stupid/cs_paranoia.shtml
My story is about half way down. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/04/2011 16:46, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/19/2011 2:45, Invisible wrote:
>> I don't personally know of anybody who actually sent a cheque
>
> AFAIK, I'm the only person in the entire world that ever paid for WinZip.
That's not even shareware any more. You get a free 30-day trail, and
after that you're legally required to pay for it. It's just that nobody
does. (I have no idea if PKZIP was shareware...)
Personally, I just use 7zip.
>> without the net it would have been infeasible.
>
> Yep. And without Windows it would have been infeasible too, because
> there wouldn't be enough people with compatible hardware to have a hope
> in hell of getting it working on enough varieties of machines to make it
> worthwhile.
How did all the other Unicies work?
>> of a lot of money for a program that doesn't even *do* very much and
>> isn't especially complicated.
>
> This coming from the guy who can't find the documentation on how to make
> it do stuff? :-) Granted, most people don't use most of its
> sophisticated features, but saying Word doesn't do much is like saying
> LaTeX just translates one text file into another format, no biggie.
LaTeX *does* just translate a text file into another format. ;-) About
the only special thing about it is that it has a Turing-complete textual
substitution engine and a sophisticated layout constraint solver. It
surprises me that nobody has yet taken the sophisticated layout engine
and put it into a modern piece of software...
>> Silly me, I'm thinking that prices have something to do with what it
>> costs
>> to produce something. This is the 21st century. Prices are driven by how
>> much you can rip people off and get away with it...
>
> They always have been.
Apparently I'm getting old. It used to be that people expected to *get*
something for their money - and if they didn't, they took it elsewhere.
Or at least, I'm now old enough to delude myself that this is how it
used to work.
> Next time you have a problem, I'll show you how to find the answer. It's
> generally not difficult, altho sometimes it can be ugly.
Any idea why printing through Terminal Services keeps breaking for no
apparent reason?
[You used to have to install an identical print driver on the TS server
or it wouldn't work. Apparently they fixed that now, so that's not it.]
I can understand it never working in the first place. What I can't
understand is why it works perfectly, and then one day one particular
user can't print anymore.
> Especially if
> they've rearranged their site and you start getting 404's. Really,
> Microsoft? You run Bing but you haven't figured out how to not have
> internal links to broken pages?
How or to clearly document when a hotfix is included in some later
hotfix or service pack. Or clearly state what product version(s) the
information in a document applies to. Or...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/20/2011 1:25, Invisible wrote:
> That's not even shareware any more. You get a free 30-day trail, and after
> that you're legally required to pay for it.
I think that's how it has always been.
> How did all the other Unicies work?
They were all processor-specific. You bought it from the hardware vendor,
just like you bought Apple DOS from Apple, TRS-DOS from Tandy, etc.
>> Next time you have a problem, I'll show you how to find the answer. It's
>> generally not difficult, altho sometimes it can be ugly.
>
> Any idea why printing through Terminal Services keeps breaking for no
> apparent reason?
Wow. OK, step one, learn to file a bug report.
When you go to the mechanic, do you say "my car's wrong, fix it"? Or do you
actually describe the symptoms, what you tried to do to fix it, what search
terms you used, etc?
> How or to clearly document when a hotfix is included in some later hotfix or
> service pack.
I've seen few rollups that didn't list the hotfixes included, or how to tell
whether you need a hotfix or how to tell whether you already have it, if you
actually read the KB article about it.
> Or clearly state what product version(s) the information in a
> document applies to. Or...
Oh come on.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/19/2011 23:02, Jim Henderson wrote:
> It's far easier if, for instance, you're using a tool like Source
> Navigator (which I really like for this type of thing) you are looking to
> analyze a bug. Having an error code and a call stack makes it far easier
> to use a tool like that than to say "I wonder how it does 'x'" and then
> work through the logic. It's possible, but it can take quite a while.
Here's the thing about that...
There are three steps to debugging a piece of code:
1) Find the symptoms of an error and confirm it's erroneous.
2) Find the program state (i.e., variable values) that isn't as expected at
that point.
3) Trace back the infected state to the defect in the code that caused the
original infected state.
4) Determine how to modify the code to no longer have that defect, hopefully
without introducing infected state that triggers an error from a defect
existent elsewhere.
An error code and a call stack gives you #1. But if you don't know what the
program state is supposed to look like, all you have to go on is the actual
variables that show the error message. I.e., if you don't know even the
slightest amount of what the data in a structure is supposed to be, then
having an error message tell you that a particular pointer is null when it
shouldn't be doesn't help nearly as much as looking at the values and
determining every value in the entire structure is zero when it should all
be filled out with good data.
What's the good data? *That* is what needs to be documented. Otherwise,
you're reading the code, trying to figure out what the code *does*, and once
you do, you *still* haven't even *started* to find the bug. Then you have to
guess what the author *intended* to have happening there, and then guess
from that what the state should have been. *Now* you've finished step #1.
With documentation, all that is tremendously simplified or eliminated,
depending on how detailed the documentation is.
Saying "the code is the documentation" is like saying "the commercial
airliner doesn't need maintenance documentation. You can just look at it and
see what's wrong."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/04/20 10:52, Darren New a écrit :
> On 4/20/2011 1:25, Invisible wrote:
>> That's not even shareware any more. You get a free 30-day trail, and
>> after
>> that you're legally required to pay for it.
>
> I think that's how it has always been.
30 days, 60 days, 5 uses, 10 uses, 30 uses, 45 uses, 60 uses and 90 uses
are at least somewhat common.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/04/19 20:10, Darren New a écrit :
> On 4/19/2011 17:06, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:48:35 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>>> Most OSS projects rely on code as the internal documentation.
>>>
>>> Code is not documentation. Anyone who thinks that code *is*
>>> documentation on any project you feel the need to split into multiple
>>> files is fooling themselves.
>>
>> Of course, that was pretty much what I said in the next sentence after
>> what you quoted.
>
> Even if everyone uses the same style, code isn't documentation. Even if
> only one person works on the code ever, code isn't documentation. Code
> is no more documentation than the steering wheel is your turn signals.
>
Comments, comments, comments and more comments.
That's the only way that code can be used as documentation. That's when
the documentation is actualy writen in human readable form alongside of
the code itself.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/20/2011 10:37, Alain wrote:
> Comments, comments, comments and more comments.
> That's the only way that code can be used as documentation.
Yep. And that assumes you know the right place to look in the code to find
the documentation. Without an overview, you wind up guessing which source
files of which subdirectories you need to read for comments.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/04/20 14:23, Darren New a écrit :
> On 4/20/2011 10:37, Alain wrote:
>> Comments, comments, comments and more comments.
>> That's the only way that code can be used as documentation.
>
> Yep. And that assumes you know the right place to look in the code to
> find the documentation. Without an overview, you wind up guessing which
> source files of which subdirectories you need to read for comments.
>
You start the main with a big comment block that contains an exaustive
overview of the project. It's then followed by a table of content and an
index...
Then, each individual source files also contains a specific overview of
the function(s) of the following code, what kind of data it expect and
what kind of data it's expected to return. Don't forget the local table
of content and index.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 07:58:46 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/19/2011 23:02, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> It's far easier if, for instance, you're using a tool like Source
>> Navigator (which I really like for this type of thing) you are looking
>> to analyze a bug. Having an error code and a call stack makes it far
>> easier to use a tool like that than to say "I wonder how it does 'x'"
>> and then work through the logic. It's possible, but it can take quite
>> a while.
>
>
> Here's the thing about that...
>
> There are three steps to debugging a piece of code:
>
> 1) Find the symptoms of an error and confirm it's erroneous.
>
> 2) Find the program state (i.e., variable values) that isn't as expected
> at that point.
>
> 3) Trace back the infected state to the defect in the code that caused
> the original infected state.
>
> 4) Determine how to modify the code to no longer have that defect,
> hopefully without introducing infected state that triggers an error from
> a defect existent elsewhere.
My experience (recently, anyways) is somewhat limited, but I have done
diagnosis with code+change documentation+snavigator+error code+call
stack. Fairly complex software, too.
But the code in question is pretty clean and even though there's millions
of lines of code, tracing the problem back to the root cause was pretty
simple given the proper tools.
> An error code and a call stack gives you #1. But if you don't know what
> the program state is supposed to look like, all you have to go on is the
> actual variables that show the error message. I.e., if you don't know
> even the slightest amount of what the data in a structure is supposed to
> be, then having an error message tell you that a particular pointer is
> null when it shouldn't be doesn't help nearly as much as looking at the
> values and determining every value in the entire structure is zero when
> it should all be filled out with good data.
>
> What's the good data? *That* is what needs to be documented.
> Otherwise, you're reading the code, trying to figure out what the code
> *does*, and once you do, you *still* haven't even *started* to find the
> bug. Then you have to guess what the author *intended* to have happening
> there, and then guess from that what the state should have been. *Now*
> you've finished step #1. With documentation, all that is tremendously
> simplified or eliminated, depending on how detailed the documentation
> is.
>
> Saying "the code is the documentation" is like saying "the commercial
> airliner doesn't need maintenance documentation. You can just look at it
> and see what's wrong."
I have to admit I like that way of looking at it. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/20/2011 13:01, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I have to admit I like that way of looking at it. :)
Elegantly described in detail here, along with what to do about it:
http://www.whyprogramsfail.com/
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/20/2011 11:33, Alain wrote:
> Le 2011/04/20 14:23, Darren New a écrit :
>> On 4/20/2011 10:37, Alain wrote:
>>> Comments, comments, comments and more comments.
>>> That's the only way that code can be used as documentation.
>>
>> Yep. And that assumes you know the right place to look in the code to
>> find the documentation. Without an overview, you wind up guessing whic
h
>> source files of which subdirectories you need to read for comments.
>>
>
> You start the main with a big comment block that contains an exaustive
> overview of the project. It's then followed by a table of content and a
n
> index...
>
> Then, each individual source files also contains a specific overview of
the
> function(s) of the following code, what kind of data it expect and what
kind
> of data it's expected to return. Don't forget the local table of conten
t and
> index.
I'm at a loss as to why such would be in comments in source code, but OK.
:-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20-4-2011 23:53, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/20/2011 13:01, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I have to admit I like that way of looking at it. :)
>
> Elegantly described in detail here, along with what to do about it:
>
> http://www.whyprogramsfail.com/
Suspiciously absent from the blurb is 'how to prevent them'.
Suspiciously present is a foreword by a MS employee.
Coincidence? you'll be the judge.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/20/2011 15:07, andrel wrote:
> Suspiciously absent from the blurb is 'how to prevent them'.
Actually, the beginning of the book basically says "there's lots of books
about preventing bugs. This is a book about fixing them once they happen."
He's very clear about that.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
