On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 15:48:35 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 10/7/2011 2:38, Stephen wrote:
>> That is a good point. But I've reached a point where I feel that
>> computers and their software are no longer devices that need to be
>> studied, understood and mastered but used as tools. My life and
>> interests have changed over time.
> 
> Plus, Linux vs Windows isn't really that big a difference, if you really
> want to study something new. Learn how Lisp Machines worked, 

Ah, Lisp machines.  Been a long time since I saw one of those.  ATC 
trainer project that I worked on in college was built on one of those 
things; one of the geniuses (seriously) who worked on that code explained 
how on the system we were using he could change how the instruction 
pointer ran and break the machine.

Pretty incredible piece of hardware.  Can't remember who made it, 
timeframe was the early 90's.

> or how
> AmigaOS was organized, or how Singularity works, rather than studying
> two OSes that are at this point overall pretty similar.

Architecturally they're fairly different, though.  Depends on what 
aspects you want to study, and how much access you have to the underlying 
code (with Windows, there is an academic source license available IIRC).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 10/7/2011 20:50, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 15:42:39 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> On 10/7/2011 12:15, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Oh, right. I thought that refers only to when you run an X application
>>>> that emulates a terminal in a window.
>>>
>>> That's technically called a 'pseudoterminal' - pts.  "man pts" is
>>> interesting reading, if you like that sort of thing.
>>
>> No, that's an xterminal or a terminal window. A pts (actually, ptty) is
>> a device driver that isn't a terminal but exposes the same ioctls as a
>> terminal (and in particular can belong to a process group). Because UNIX
>> never figured out the concept of a "login".
>>
>> Unless a pts is different from a ptty?
>
> When not logged in on my console or terminals, typing 'who' gets the
> following result:
>
> jhenderson :0           2011-09-08 16:21 (console)
> jhenderson console      2011-09-08 16:21 (:0)
> jhenderson pts/1        2011-10-06 13:25

OK. "pts" is the new abbreviation for "ptty".

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/7/2011 20:54, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Architecturally they're fairly different, though.

Yeah. And architecturally, C++ and Java are different, but if you're bored 
of learning new programming languages, looking at Smalltalk or APL might be 
exciting again. :-)


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/7/2011 20:44, Jim Henderson wrote:
> The standard command interpreter in Windows (cmd.exe, not powershell)
> does pretty much suck.  bash/tcsh are *far* more powerful. :)

That wasn't the point, tho. :-) It doesn't really matter how much your CLI 
sucks if the goal is to avoid using it.  Anyway, wsh is probably a better 
comparison to bash than cmd.exe.

> But part of the suckage that is the Windows CLI is the registry.  Linux
> using text files for most configuration means that using the CLI to make
> changes actually makes a lot of sense.

Windows has no trouble dealing with the registry from the command line. 
Certainly less than trying to parse Apache config files with bash or 
something. For example:

http://216.101.58.3/MIS/Articles/RegistryEdit.htm

Sure, it's an extra install of the free developer tools, but hey.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/7/2011 20:43, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Sounds *so* familiar.  Another reason to use Linux. ;)

How the hell would that help? What, the file navigators and web browsers in 
Linux automatically tell you what part of the window is important?

What helped was getting him off dial-up so I could talk to him at the same 
time he's on the net, *and* connect into his computer remotely.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 21:34:13 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 10/7/2011 20:54, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Architecturally they're fairly different, though.
> 
> Yeah. And architecturally, C++ and Java are different, but if you're
> bored of learning new programming languages, looking at Smalltalk or APL
> might be exciting again. :-)

Well, sure.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 21:37:39 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 10/7/2011 20:44, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The standard command interpreter in Windows (cmd.exe, not powershell)
>> does pretty much suck.  bash/tcsh are *far* more powerful. :)
> 
> That wasn't the point, tho. :-) It doesn't really matter how much your
> CLI sucks if the goal is to avoid using it.  Anyway, wsh is probably a
> better comparison to bash than cmd.exe.

Well, no, it's more about advanced usage.  And CLI in Windows these days 
is also for advanced users.

>> But part of the suckage that is the Windows CLI is the registry.  Linux
>> using text files for most configuration means that using the CLI to
>> make changes actually makes a lot of sense.
> 
> Windows has no trouble dealing with the registry from the command line.
> Certainly less than trying to parse Apache config files with bash or
> something. For example:
> 
> http://216.101.58.3/MIS/Articles/RegistryEdit.htm
> 
> Sure, it's an extra install of the free developer tools, but hey.

Like you said, it's an extra install.  sed/grep/awk/perl/vim are standard 
tools in most Linux installs.

I can edit text files without installing tools that are non standard.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 10/7/2011 12:10 PM, Stephen wrote:
> I'll top post as I'm sure nobody wants to read all that again.
>
> What do you mean?
>
Sorry, much of that was a rant, attached to an initial joke. lol The 
joke being that you old fogies sometimes seem to think toolbars are 
silly, and memorizing 8,000 keyboard combination makes more sense. Some 
of us just don't think that way.

In the case of Blender pre-v2.59, it was like being handed a really odd, 
and complicated, looking tool, and having to spend most of your time 
learning how to hold it properly, which levers do what, etc., when all 
you bloody need to do is remove a screw.

I.e., for someone just trying to "do" something with it, it was a bit 
like the combination Swiss knife, bug zapper, tea stirrer and pez 
dispenser, which, if you hold it wrong, will shave your eye brows off, 
clip the end from your nose, and set the rest of your hair on fire. Or, 
just not do anything useful at all.

There seems to be a really bad habit for this sort of software to get 
written, and the book I just got from Amazon, which ironically is about 
using, the as yet non-existent, Blender 2.6, admits that the result was 
a total bloody mess. lol

Post a reply to this message

On 10/7/2011 3:53 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/7/2011 15:04, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> No - that's just poor program design. Everybody has that... ;-)
>
> Actually, I think it stems from programmers targeting in-house experts.
> Remember that Blender started as a custom program.
>
> Ever see a level-builder tool for a game that wasn't expecting to
> release the level-builder tools? They're nightmares too, because it was
> easier to teach the 10 people using it what the hotkeys were than it was
> to design something usable.
>
A quote from "Blender Fundamentals: The Essential Guide to Learning 
Blender 2.6":

pp13 'A Little Bit of History

Some programs don't have any thinking behind their interface. This is 
obvious. The programmers write the functionality, which is operated from 
a command line, and realize at some point that the general public has no 
way of using their wonder-program without a graphical interface. So, 
they learn to create a data entry form, slap it on top of their program, 
and away they go. And it stinks.

A lot of people think that Blender was created in the same fashion, and 
in the very recent past, this was true.'

;) lol

Post a reply to this message

This is why sarcasm needs a tag in printed text people. I missed your 
counter joke entirely. lol

Post a reply to this message