Roger Oberholtzer wrote:
On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 19:20 -0500, Allen wrote:
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 09:40:21AM +0200, Janne Karhunen wrote:
On Saturday 05 November 2005 09:23, Bryan Tyson wrote:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1882118,00.asp This article contains a very disappointing piece of news:
"Novell is making one large strategic change. The GNOME interface is going to become the default interface on both the SLES (SuSE Linux Enterprise Server) and Novell Linux Desktop line. KDE libraries will be supplied on both, but the bulk of Novell's interface moving forward will be on GNOME." Incredible. They are stupid enough to screw their own customers. This will probably have a drastic influence on their current popularity.
Yea I mean wow those mean mean guys, now you have to click on KDE before hitting enter after typing your password. And then YOU HAVE TO CLICK ON SET AS DEFAULT for GDM.... Wow, rough times..... *Sigh*.
I was going to stay out of this one, but...
Do you really think SUSE will invest as much time in honorable desktop #2 as they will in desktop #1? I bet things for KDE will lag. This has already started with beagle, which is much more integrated into gnome than kde. It is a simple matter of resources. If SUSE had equal resources for both gnome and kde, there would have been no need for any announcement. The announcement pretty much indicates one desktop will get the emphasis. Anyone who does software development knows what that means.
KDE-4.0 pre-release reviews indicate major improvements including beagle, so the show is not over yet. Regards Sid.
Throwing my $.02 in - I have never been really happy with the whole KDE / Gnome thing. Gnome has always been - imo - ugly and not user-friendly, while at the same time being almost as resource-hungry as KDE. If I want to loose the eye-candy, I'll IceWM or Flux or... The whole reason, IIRC, that Miguel decided to abandon KDE and write his own desktop was becasue of licencing - which is long since resolved. I remember firing up Gnome on my Mandrake 6.1 system and immediately going back to KDE. That said, I just wish each distro would simply settle on one - or at least build wrappers - so that we could have a consistent look/feel. I absoltely hate using the dialog boxes in any GTK+ app - most horrible is that awful file open in GIMP. Okay.... </rant> -- kai ponte www.perfectreign.com linux - genuine windows replacement part
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 08:26 -0800, Kai Ponte wrote:
Roger Oberholtzer wrote:
On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 19:20 -0500, Allen wrote:
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 09:40:21AM +0200, Janne Karhunen wrote:
On Saturday 05 November 2005 09:23, Bryan Tyson wrote:
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1882118,00.asp This article contains a very disappointing piece of news:
"Novell is making one large strategic change. The GNOME interface is going to become the default interface on both the SLES (SuSE Linux Enterprise Server) and Novell Linux Desktop line. KDE libraries will be supplied on both, but the bulk of Novell's interface moving forward will be on GNOME." Incredible. They are stupid enough to screw their own customers. This will probably have a drastic influence on their current popularity.
Yea I mean wow those mean mean guys, now you have to click on KDE before hitting enter after typing your password. And then YOU HAVE TO CLICK ON SET AS DEFAULT for GDM.... Wow, rough times..... *Sigh*.
I was going to stay out of this one, but...
Do you really think SUSE will invest as much time in honorable desktop #2 as they will in desktop #1? I bet things for KDE will lag. This has already started with beagle, which is much more integrated into gnome than kde. It is a simple matter of resources. If SUSE had equal resources for both gnome and kde, there would have been no need for any announcement. The announcement pretty much indicates one desktop will get the emphasis. Anyone who does software development knows what that means.
KDE-4.0 pre-release reviews indicate major improvements including beagle, so the show is not over yet. Regards Sid.
Throwing my $.02 in - I have never been really happy with the whole KDE / Gnome thing. Gnome has always been - imo - ugly and not user-friendly, while at the same time being almost as resource-hungry as KDE. If I want to loose the eye-candy, I'll IceWM or Flux or...
The whole reason, IIRC, that Miguel decided to abandon KDE and write his own desktop was becasue of licencing - which is long since resolved. I remember firing up Gnome on my Mandrake 6.1 system and immediately going back to KDE.
That said, I just wish each distro would simply settle on one - or at least build wrappers - so that we could have a consistent look/feel. I absoltely hate using the dialog boxes in any GTK+ app - most horrible is that awful file open in GIMP.
Start of vent: Which is also in Evolution. The previous one was much better. I think the new file dialog shows a lack of any testing on real humans. If that is the file dialog of the future, well, I for one am not impressed. Unless the look 'n feel was mean to be some retro doodad that was the hallmark of the bad old days in Unix GUI land. Perhaps, if SUSE stayed with KDE and still did not make headway into the desktop, they would have to fine something to blame. I think the move to GNOME is a preemptive action. Now they have a bonafide reason the desktop will fail. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming. -- Roger
On Monday 07 Nov 2005 18:01, Roger Oberholtzer wrote:
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 08:26 -0800, Kai Ponte wrote:
Roger Oberholtzer wrote:
Roger snip/
Well Gnome or should that be Gone is ok ish untill you dare to want to install another app then bingo T**S up all over the place with dependancys galore and little or no hope of getting it working again hench one of these days i will have to pull fingers out and port Gspeaker to sane safe KDE i might be able to use it then in stead of doing all the math by hand (well actually persuading the younger brother to do it for me he likes math Yuk it takes all sorts .) :-) Pete . -- If Bill Gates had gotten LAID at High School do YOU think there would be a Microsoft ? Of course NOT ! You gotta spend a lot of time at your school Locker stuffing underware up your ass to think , I am going to take on the worlds Computer Industry -------:heard on Cyber Radio.:------- AFFA
On Monday 07 November 2005 11:26 am, Kai Ponte wrote:
Throwing my $.02 in - I have never been really happy with the whole KDE / Gnome thing. Gnome has always been - imo - ugly and not user-friendly, while at the same time being almost as resource-hungry as KDE. If I want to loose the eye-candy, I'll IceWM or Flux or...
The whole reason, IIRC, that Miguel decided to abandon KDE and write his own desktop was becasue of licencing - which is long since resolved. I remember firing up Gnome on my Mandrake 6.1 system and immediately going back to KDE.
That said, I just wish each distro would simply settle on one - or at least build wrappers - so that we could have a consistent look/feel. I absoltely hate using the dialog boxes in any GTK+ app - most horrible is that awful file open in GIMP.
I've used SuSE Linux since 5.1. At that time neither the KDE nor GNOME existed. I have never seen a GNOME install that I liked. That may be due, in part, to the fact that I know the KDE much better than the GNOME. But I suspect there is more to it than that. From what I've seen, the widgets like the file browser are simply inferior to what the KDE provides. The KDE is, in my mind, what now defines SuSE. For Novell to switch to GNOME would take away one of the most important aspects that makes SuSE great. I suspect this has something to do with Mono. They probably think they can achieve greater compatability with the Monopolistic software company's products that way. STH
Well, after reading this thread I decided to fire up Gnome for the first time in three years. It looked ok.. seemed to behave ok... but after I while I figured out I had been lied to by it's pretty face. When I fired up Firefox it was mangled. Gnome had managed to not let me click on any popdown menu or button and the toolbar bookmarks were completely missing. I thought I'd done something wrong so I removed all dot files and tmp files associated with Gnome and shutdown to a login prompted. I then logged in and started Gnome once more.. nope.. Firefox was smoked as far as using it in Gnome. I logged out and started KDE.. and Firefox worked fine. So as far as I'm concerned.. unless SUSE gets Gnome a LOT more polished then it is at present.. I'll not be using Gnome for anything. I do wonder something though. This change is to SLES and NLD right? Well, why would ANYONE *need* a UI to admin a Linux server is beyond me so the SLES thing is no biggie. The NLD issue is solved by using SUSE Pro I would think. I guess if SUSE mangles support for KDE that I'll just find something else to use as a desktop OS on my Dell.. maybe Kubuntu or something. I certainly won't be using Gnome. *shrug* -Ben -- Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
On Monday 07 November 2005 11:40 pm, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
Well, after reading this thread I decided to fire up Gnome for the first time in three years. It looked ok.. seemed to behave ok... but after I while I figured out I had been lied to by it's pretty face. When I fired up Firefox it was mangled. Gnome had managed to not let me click on any popdown menu or button and the toolbar bookmarks were completely missing. I thought I'd done something wrong so I removed all dot files and tmp files associated with Gnome and shutdown to a login prompted. I then logged in and started Gnome once more.. nope.. Firefox was smoked as far as using it in Gnome. I logged out and started KDE.. and Firefox worked fine.
So as far as I'm concerned.. unless SUSE gets Gnome a LOT more polished then it is at present.. I'll not be using Gnome for anything.
I do wonder something though. This change is to SLES and NLD right? Well, why would ANYONE *need* a UI to admin a Linux server is beyond me so the SLES thing is no biggie. The NLD issue is solved by using SUSE Pro I would think. I guess if SUSE mangles support for KDE that I'll just find something else to use as a desktop OS on my Dell.. maybe Kubuntu or something. I certainly won't be using Gnome.
*shrug*
You have described every experience I have ever had with GNOME. The KDE OTOH, is rock solid. Sure, some things go bonkers from time to time, but I'm usually running the bleeding edge bits, or even my own builds. I hope Novell execs aren't stup^h^h^h^h thinking they can get a better deal by cutting TrollTech out of the picture. The best remember, that knife cuts both ways. Steven
On 11/7/05, Steven T. Hatton
You have described every experience I have ever had with GNOME. The KDE OTOH, is rock solid. Sure, some things go bonkers from time to time, but I'm usually running the bleeding edge bits, or even my own builds. I hope Novell execs aren't stup^h^h^h^h thinking they can get a better deal by cutting TrollTech out of the picture. The best remember, that knife cuts both ways.
It's got nothing to do with Trolltech. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that the Novell people think " we can be a success too.. if we emulate Redhat.." and this is just wrong. They DO not understand what made SUSE have such a loyal fanbase. It wasn't emulating Redhat.. it was quality. And if that quality takes a nose dive.. I'm out. At least as far as my desktops and laptops in the office... my servers don't have X installed because a UI isn't need to admin a Linux box.. the day it is needed is the day I switch them all to X86 OS X. :) -Ben -- Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
On Mon November 7 2005 22:12, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
On 11/7/05, Steven T. Hatton
wrote: You have described every experience I have ever had with GNOME. The KDE OTOH, is rock solid. Sure, some things go bonkers from time to time, but I'm usually running the bleeding edge bits, or even my own builds. I hope Novell execs aren't stup^h^h^h^h thinking they can get a better deal by cutting TrollTech out of the picture. The best remember, that knife cuts both ways.
It's got nothing to do with Trolltech. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that the Novell people think " we can be a success too.. if we emulate Redhat.." and this is just wrong. They DO not understand what made SUSE have such a loyal fanbase. It wasn't emulating Redhat.. it was quality. And if that quality takes a nose dive.. I'm out. At least as far as my desktops and laptops in the office... my servers don't have X installed because a UI isn't need to admin a Linux box.. the day it is needed is the day I switch them all to X86 OS X. :)
-Ben
Well, I for one am not a happy camper. I was strolling thru the /. dot site when I stumbled on the news that Novell was going to GNOME as the default. Talk about a step backwards. The generic GNOME project has been a dismal example of a devel mono culture IMHO. And as on poster pointed out, the second you install a new app the dependencies go to to shit and it barfs all over the place. Ya, that's the ticket! I have installed kde with screwed up dependencies and it still runs. Sure Kong may crash or some such but it still loads. Gnome most of the time becomes so kludged at the slightest that it often takes a complete rebuild to fix the silly thing. Though as I type it occurs to me that this is a sure revenue source for all the service and support calls it will garner. On the other hand this sort of stunt only goes so far... What like they're M$ or something - a lock in Novell "ain't" got. But I digress! I do understand going to a single Desktop for support reasons, but KDE is sooooo much more mature than Gnome. Granted, the Ximian builds are generally the best of the lot Gnome has to offer. But as far as I'm concerned thats like saying my Ford Pinto has the 2000 cc engine instead of the 1600cc engine.... IT'S STILL A FORD PINTO. This was the fear I had when Novell bought SuSE. And it isn't as if this is a complete shock. I mean Novell did buy Ximian. But Mr Perens is qouted in eWeek as follows: "The latest KDE snub came last month, when open-source mover Bruce Perens announced that he'd chosen to exclude KDE in favor of GNOME from the forthcoming enterprise-aimed, community-led UserLinux distribution." Gotta love those Corporate power games.... For the love of the CIO! All I have to say is try taking Joe User and tell him to change the fonts in KDE, then tell him to change the fonts in Gnome. Which do think he'll have more success doing? Three guesses and the first two don't count! And if that isn't enough try setting up dual monitors in Gnome... Like I said it freaking PUKES all over the place. In KDE it took me 3 mouse clicks. I'd hate to put SuSE on the shelf, but it Novell goes the way of RH that's just where it's going. Curtis. :/ -- Spammers Beware: Tresspassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again! Warning: Individuals throwing objects at the crocodiles will be asked to retrieve them!
I dont really comment much, but I recently have had thoughts maybe related. In my opinion I would love to see Gnome as the default desktop, that said, but not with KDE installed also. I think I read awhile back that there is a difference in the languages used to build each, c/c++ ? dunno... but in my experience Gnome had always seemed to have a better response time as a desktop, mouse movements was what I noticed... Obviously I love Gnome, but ultimately I'm still using KDE applications... primarily Knonqueror, Kate... FireFox is wonderfull in Gnome, pretty much everything is (but I've had no cause to log into KDE). However, my (only) gripe is, that since installing 9.3 a few months ago, and having done YaST online updates since then, SuSE Plugger and SuSE Watcher are still being a real pain in the rear, and none of the updates have rectified this problem. There might be valid points about dependencies etc, in Gnome, personally I think I found that installing everything including the Development packages is one step closer to reducing the hunt for dependent packages. However, I dont really have the time, or mind to get into that side of things with SuSE/Linux, I just need something that helps me get the few things that I need done etc, so in this respect, my only reason for upgrading is when their might be newer versions of applications that I would like to use... Gnome being one of them. But with the above said, and the comment about SuSE Plugger not being fixed, I'm seriously considering why is it worth be sending off the $x dollars for distro disks and manuals... when something like the bug in (Gnome ?) SuSE Plugger/Watcher is not being fixed... as opposed to finding/installing newer versions of SuSE at no cost.... admittedly each instance of $x dollars might be trivial but over the years == $MS.... I just hope that a portion of the money spent actually does get back to the developers of these applications, eg. KDE, Gnome etc... Anyway... Gnome is my choice for a default desktop. -- devosc
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 03:25 am, devosc wrote:
I dont really comment much, but I recently have had thoughts maybe related.
In my opinion I would love to see Gnome as the default desktop, that said, but not with KDE installed also. I think I read awhile back that there is a difference in the languages used to build each, c/c++ ? dunno... but in my experience Gnome had always seemed to have a better response time as a desktop, mouse movements was what I noticed...
Since I have absolutely no delays with the mouse using the KDE, I can't compare that to anyting. As for the underlying language used, yes, the GNOME is written in C, not C++. If anything, that means it will be slower if both languages are utilized to their fullest reasonable extent. But that speed different may not be significant when dealing with GUIs. I do believe it is harder to write well structured applications in C. Gtk does have a C++ wrapper, and there is work on a C# wrapper, but the last I looked (a few months ago), C# and Mono were still not quite all there. I will say that Mono seems like the best thing going for GNOME. People may object to "buying into" technology promoted by the monopolistic software vendor, but there are advantages to going with the flow at times.
Obviously I love Gnome, but ultimately I'm still using KDE applications... primarily Knonqueror, Kate...
Sheez! Konqueror is basically the heart of the KDE.
FireFox is wonderfull in Gnome, pretty much everything is (but I've had no cause to log into KDE).
Firefox should work well under the GNOME, it's built with the same toolkit.
There might be valid points about dependencies etc, in Gnome, personally I think I found that installing everything including the Development packages is one step closer to reducing the hunt for dependent packages.
The dependency problames may be a question of no-one putting in the effort to get things right. But it may be an indication that it's harder to get things right with GNOME.
However, I dont really have the time, or mind to get into that side of things with SuSE/Linux, I just need something that helps me get the few things that I need done etc, so in this respect, my only reason for upgrading is when their might be newer versions of applications that I would like to use... Gnome being one of them.
But with the above said, and the comment about SuSE Plugger not being fixed, I'm seriously considering why is it worth be sending off the $x dollars for distro disks and manuals... when something like the bug in (Gnome ?) SuSE Plugger/Watcher is not being fixed...
Have you filed a bug report, or asked for help?
as opposed to finding/installing newer versions of SuSE at no cost.... admittedly each instance of $x dollars might be trivial but over the years == $MS....
If your primary reason for using free software is simply to forego the cost of paying for a license, please stop using it.
I just hope that a portion of the money spent actually does get back to the developers of these applications, eg. KDE, Gnome etc...
I suspect that is a very mixed bag. Some developers get paid by other means, some don't get paid anything. Some get paid big bucks. Few opensource developers are in it primarily for the money. Steven
as opposed to finding/installing newer versions of SuSE at no cost.... admittedly each instance of $x dollars might be trivial but over the years == $MS....
If your primary reason for using free software is simply to forego the cost of paying for a license, please stop using it.
I just hope that a portion of the money spent actually does get back to the developers of these applications, eg. KDE, Gnome etc...
I suspect that is a very mixed bag. Some developers get paid by other means, some don't get paid anything. Some get paid big bucks. Few opensource developers are in it primarily for the money.
I'm not sure I understand your point here, you ask me not to use Free Software, but at the same time Corporations can make profit from distributing free software. There are aspects of this that I dont want to begin to understand... But I do find that statement above a little off ---- as said my reasoning for repeatedly paying for the SuSE distribution was in the hope that it benefits those that develop the software.... and b/c Novell are comendering this distribution it would be nice to reasons why its worth doing so... there is a middle ground... and I'm sure there is a wealth of applications that going into to that I've never even heard of nor used etc... btw, my first paragraph omitted the word, 'without', i.e. 'not without'... -- devosc
devosc wrote:
as opposed to finding/installing newer versions of SuSE at no cost.... admittedly each instance of $x dollars might be trivial but over the years == $MS.... If your primary reason for using free software is simply to forego the cost of paying for a license, please stop using it.
I just hope that a portion of the money spent actually does get back to the developers of these applications, eg. KDE, Gnome etc... I suspect that is a very mixed bag. Some developers get paid by other means, some don't get paid anything. Some get paid big bucks. Few opensource developers are in it primarily for the money.
I'm not sure I understand your point here, you ask me not to use Free Software, but at the same time Corporations can make profit from distributing free software.
There are aspects of this that I dont want to begin to understand... But I do find that statement above a little off ---- as said my reasoning for repeatedly paying for the SuSE distribution was in the hope that it benefits those that develop the software.... and b/c Novell are comendering this distribution it would be nice to reasons why its worth doing so... there is a middle ground... and I'm sure there is a wealth of applications that going into to that I've never even heard of nor used etc...
btw, my first paragraph omitted the word, 'without', i.e. 'not without'...
I think he's saying, you get benifit from Linux, please support it. When you, for example, buy SUSE, you're helping to keep the distro viable. You're certainly allowed to download for free, but why not help out a bit, if you can? Also, companies such as SUSE, don't just sell what you can download for free. They provide some support, put together a nice distro etc. All that costs money. Where should that money come from?
I don't mind and indeed enjoy the thought of supporting it (in whatever limited fashion) .... but... and its only this sore point of SuSE Plugger, I dont really want to upgrade more than once per year (v10 was released 2 weeks after I bought 9.3) ... I was hoping that the fix of this bug wouldnt mean having to purchase another version (at least not twice in the same year)... I think the SuSE Plugger thing is Gnome specific (something about hard coding it in). Anyway you guys know better I do in these matters etc... -- devosc
On 11/8/05, Steven T. Hatton
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 03:25 am, devosc wrote:
I dont really comment much, but I recently have had thoughts maybe related.
In my opinion I would love to see Gnome as the default desktop, that said, but not with KDE installed also. I think I read awhile back that there is a difference in the languages used to build each, c/c++ ? dunno... but in my experience Gnome had always seemed to have a better response time as a desktop, mouse movements was what I noticed...
Since I have absolutely no delays with the mouse using the KDE, I can't compare that to anyting. As for the underlying language used, yes, the GNOME is written in C, not C++. If anything, that means it will be slower if both languages are utilized to their fullest reasonable extent.
Umm.. How do you get that? It is rather the other way around. C++ apps are generally slower. Why is the Linux kernel written in C? If C++ was faster, then would that not have made sense? The fact is actually that one cannot really say that the one language is faster than the other, becuase the speed all depends on the implementation and what you want to do. But that speed
different may not be significant when dealing with GUIs. I do believe it is harder to write well structured applications in C.
This is generally true, although I have started Linux GUI programming with KDE and then tried GNOME. It was easier to get going in KDE/Qt because it is in C++ and the API is quite good, but once I got my head wrapped around Gtk and GNOME, the Qt/KDE stuff felt like walking with lead shoes. The Gtk API is more difficult to use in the beginning, but it is more powerful and actually simpler. Fact is that both GNOME and KDE are good desktop solutions. The preference for the one over the other is a personal perception. I have tried KDE on many occations and I support clients that use KDE, but I can just not get used to KDE. I find it diffecult to use. But that is because I do things differently than other people. KDE is still a good desktop, even though I don't like it. And I ahve seen lots of people complain about dependency problems when installing GNOME. Funny thing is that I don't have any. I love using GNOME. I don't like mono though, I would rather opt for Python, but that is personal preference. But, just because I like GNOME, does not mean that KDE is bad. And just because Novell might decide that they would default to GNOME on thier corporate products does not mean that KDE is doomed for SUSE. -- Andre Truter | Software Engineer | Registered Linux user #185282 ICQ #40935899 | AIM: trusoftzaf | http://www.trusoft.za.org ~ A dinosaur is a salamander designed to Mil Spec ~
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:19:09PM +0200, Andre Truter wrote:
On 11/8/05, Steven T. Hatton
wrote: On Tuesday 08 November 2005 03:25 am, devosc wrote:
I dont really comment much, but I recently have had thoughts maybe related.
In my opinion I would love to see Gnome as the default desktop, that said, but not with KDE installed also. I think I read awhile back that there is a difference in the languages used to build each, c/c++ ? dunno... but in my experience Gnome had always seemed to have a better response time as a desktop, mouse movements was what I noticed...
Since I have absolutely no delays with the mouse using the KDE, I can't compare that to anyting. As for the underlying language used, yes, the GNOME is written in C, not C++. If anything, that means it will be slower if both languages are utilized to their fullest reasonable extent.
Umm.. How do you get that? It is rather the other way around. C++ apps are generally slower. Why is the Linux kernel written in C? If C++ was faster, then would that not have made sense?
The fact is actually that one cannot really say that the one language is faster than the other, becuase the speed all depends on the implementation and what you want to do.
A myth usually shown false with a little assembler.
But that speed
different may not be significant when dealing with GUIs. I do believe it is harder to write well structured applications in C.
This is generally true, although I have started Linux GUI programming with KDE and then tried GNOME. It was easier to get going in KDE/Qt because it is in C++ and the API is quite good, but once I got my head wrapped around Gtk and GNOME, the Qt/KDE stuff felt like walking with lead shoes. The Gtk API is more difficult to use in the beginning, but it is more powerful and actually simpler.
Fact is that both GNOME and KDE are good desktop solutions. The preference for the one over the other is a personal perception. I have tried KDE on many occations and I support clients that use KDE, but I can just not get used to KDE. I find it diffecult to use.
But that is because I do things differently than other people. KDE is still a good desktop, even though I don't like it.
And I ahve seen lots of people complain about dependency problems when installing GNOME. Funny thing is that I don't have any.
Install it from source. Why do you think Slackware dropped it?
I love using GNOME. I don't like mono though, I would rather opt for Python, but that is personal preference. But, just because I like GNOME, does not mean that KDE is bad. And just because Novell might decide that they would default to GNOME on thier corporate products does not mean that KDE is doomed for SUSE.
-- Andre Truter | Software Engineer | Registered Linux user #185282 ICQ #40935899 | AIM: trusoftzaf | http://www.trusoft.za.org
~ A dinosaur is a salamander designed to Mil Spec ~
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
On 11/8/05, Allen
The fact is actually that one cannot really say that the one language is faster than the other, becuase the speed all depends on the implementation and what you want to do.
A myth usually shown false with a little assembler.
OK, I'll agree that something written in assembler is about always faster that written in any other language, but someone can also write a program in assembler that will be slower than the same program written in C. The assembler version would then be written very bad. That is my point here. If you compare compilers and languages you generally implement the exact same program in them all and you try to do the best implementation in each language and compile with best options. Then, assembler will be afstest and C will be faster than C++. But to compare somthing like GNOME and KDE and say that one is faster than the other becuase of the language used is not valid, because they are two different things, with two different designs consisting of hundreds of applications. There are too many variables that affect the speed.
And I ahve seen lots of people complain about dependency problems when installing GNOME. Funny thing is that I don't have any.
Install it from source. Why do you think Slackware dropped it?
When one install GNOME on SUSE you don't install it from source, so how is this relevant? People complain that when they install GNOME with rpms that it has dependency problems. Installing from source is a totally different story. By the way, Gentoo is a real install-from-source distro and they use GNOME. Slackware does not install from source, they use pre-compiled binaries in tar.gz archives. -- Andre Truter | Software Engineer | Registered Linux user #185282 ICQ #40935899 | AIM: trusoftzaf | http://www.trusoft.za.org ~ A dinosaur is a salamander designed to Mil Spec ~
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:41:22PM +0200, Andre Truter wrote:
On 11/8/05, Allen
wrote: The fact is actually that one cannot really say that the one language is faster than the other, becuase the speed all depends on the implementation and what you want to do.
A myth usually shown false with a little assembler.
OK, I'll agree that something written in assembler is about always faster that written in any other language, but someone can also write a program in assembler that will be slower than the same program written in C. The assembler version would then be written very bad. That is my point here.
If you compare compilers and languages you generally implement the exact same program in them all and you try to do the best implementation in each language and compile with best options. Then, assembler will be afstest and C will be faster than C++.
But to compare somthing like GNOME and KDE and say that one is faster than the other becuase of the language used is not valid, because they are two different things, with two different designs consisting of hundreds of applications. There are too many variables that affect the speed.
Like Processor and RAM.... I don't care which Desktop they go to, I was merely pointing out language CAN be faster than another.
And I ahve seen lots of people complain about dependency problems when installing GNOME. Funny thing is that I don't have any.
Install it from source. Why do you think Slackware dropped it?
When one install GNOME on SUSE you don't install it from source, so how is this relevant?
Uhhhh the same way that bringin up Gentoo in this is?
People complain that when they install GNOME with rpms that it has dependency problems. Installing from source is a totally different story.
By the way, Gentoo is a real install-from-source distro and they use GNOME. Slackware does not install from source, they use pre-compiled binaries in tar.gz archives.
So is ROCK Linux. What is the point? Gentoo is so fast yet it slows so badly because someone is compiling Open office in the background..... Where is the point? The reason I brought up Slackware was because it was an example of someone not using Gnome anymore because they seem to make ti as hard as possible to add to a distro. I've talked with Pat Multiple times and putting Gnome in a distro isn't so easy as it seems. Dropline Gnome is probably a better option anyway. and it's .tgz, like BSD, there is a slight difference form tar.gz which is source.
-- Andre Truter | Software Engineer | Registered Linux user #185282 ICQ #40935899 | AIM: trusoftzaf | http://www.trusoft.za.org
~ A dinosaur is a salamander designed to Mil Spec ~
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
On 11/8/05, Allen
Like Processor and RAM.... I don't care which Desktop they go to, I was merely pointing out language CAN be faster than another.
Yes, that is true, but in the context of this thread it is not a real factor. A person stated that GNOME should be slower than KDE because it is written in C.
When one install GNOME on SUSE you don't install it from source, so how is this relevant?
Uhhhh the same way that bringin up Gentoo in this is?
No. I brought Gentoo up, because when you mentioned Slackware it sounded as if you indicated that install from source and it does not, Gentoo does. But I guess you mentioned Slackware because the Slackware people find GNOME difficult to compile and thus make it available for installation under Slackware.
By the way, Gentoo is a real install-from-source distro and they use GNOME. Slackware does not install from source, they use pre-compiled binaries in tar.gz archives.
So is ROCK Linux. What is the point? Gentoo is so fast yet it slows so badly because someone is compiling Open office in the background..... Where is the point?
Sorry, I misinterpreted your previous mention of Slackware. See above.
The reason I brought up Slackware was because it was an example of someone not using Gnome anymore because they seem to make ti as hard as possible to add to a distro.
I've talked with Pat Multiple times and putting Gnome in a distro isn't so easy as it seems. Dropline Gnome is probably a better option anyway. and it's .tgz, like BSD, there is a slight difference form tar.gz which is source.
Fortunately there are people at SUSE and outside SUSE like James Ogley who do build rpm packages of GNOME for SUSE. I have been using Jame's version of GNOME for SUSE since SuSE 8.x. These days the GNOME that comes with SUSE is up to date, so I can just use this. But, to get back to the thread: How is the fact that GNOME is difficult to build affect installing GNOME on SUSE from rpms? The people who produce the rpms have the problems, not the end user. If it was such a problem for the SUSE people to build GNOME, then why would they standardise their commercial offerings on GNOME? -- Andre Truter | Software Engineer | Registered Linux user #185282 ICQ #40935899 | AIM: trusoftzaf | http://www.trusoft.za.org ~ A dinosaur is a salamander designed to Mil Spec ~
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 5:13 pm, Andre Truter wrote:
Yes, that is true, but in the context of this thread it is not a real factor. A person stated that GNOME should be slower than KDE because it is written in C. Why would an application written in C (GNOME/GTK) be slower than an application written in C++(KDE/QT). In my experience, I have seen applications written in an interpretive language run faster than comparable apps written in C, but assuming that both sets of code are reasonably well written, C++ should be a bit slower because of 2 factors (C++ has more code, and C++ compilers cannot optimize as well as C compilers yet).
--
Jerry Feldman
On 11/9/05, Jerry Feldman
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 5:13 pm, Andre Truter wrote:
Yes, that is true, but in the context of this thread it is not a real factor. A person stated that GNOME should be slower than KDE because it is written in C. Why would an application written in C (GNOME/GTK) be slower than an application written in C++(KDE/QT). In my experience, I have seen applications written in an interpretive language run faster than comparable apps written in C,
That is my point. With something like GNOME and KDE there are too many variables in design and sub-systems used that you cannot say that one is faster than the other purely based on the language used. but assuming that both sets of code are reasonably well
written, C++ should be a bit slower because of 2 factors (C++ has more code, and C++ compilers cannot optimize as well as C compilers yet).
Yes, I agree here, so, even if we could compare GNOME and KDE purely based on implementation language, then GNOME should be faster, so the original statement made earlier in the thread is invalied. -- Andre Truter | Software Engineer | Registered Linux user #185282 ICQ #40935899 | AIM: trusoftzaf | http://www.trusoft.za.org ~ A dinosaur is a salamander designed to Mil Spec ~
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 05:23 pm, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 5:13 pm, Andre Truter wrote:
Yes, that is true, but in the context of this thread it is not a real factor. A person stated that GNOME should be slower than KDE because it is written in C.
Why would an application written in C (GNOME/GTK) be slower than an application written in C++(KDE/QT). In my experience, I have seen applications written in an interpretive language run faster than comparable apps written in C, but assuming that both sets of code are reasonably well written, C++ should be a bit slower because of 2 factors (C++ has more code, and C++ compilers cannot optimize as well as C compilers yet).
On the contrary. Properly written C++ is very lean, and because of certain capabilities of arranging structures that cannot be emulated very effectively in C, C++ can run run faster than C. If you want to see fast C++: http://www.kdevelop.org/HEAD/doc/api/html/classLexer.html http://www.kdevelop.org/HEAD/doc/api/html/classParser.html http://www.kdevelop.org/HEAD/doc/api/html/dir_e510b82d92bcaa4753346dc3a629a6... With additions such as the new move semantics, I suspect C++ will extend it's performance lead. But you have to know how to exploit C++. A lot of people, even people who are considered "experts" don't really understand it. Steven
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 04:41 pm, Andre Truter wrote:
On 11/8/05, Allen
wrote: The fact is actually that one cannot really say that the one language is faster than the other, becuase the speed all depends on the implementation and what you want to do.
A myth usually shown false with a little assembler.
OK, I'll agree that something written in assembler is about always faster that written in any other language, but someone can also write a program in assembler that will be slower than the same program written in C. The assembler version would then be written very bad. That is my point here.
It's been several years since I studied this at the microcode control level, but I can only imagine compilers have extended this technology. Compilers can ofther analyse the call sequence and find ways of interleaving and prefetching that a human being would have a very hard time competing with. Sure, there are tweeks a person with a profiler can implement with in-line assembly calls, but other than very specialized, and fairly limited cases, it is unlikely assembler is going to provide much if any performance increase. GCC 4.x introduced some impressive performance increases. It you know what you are doing with CPP, you can write your code in a way that doesn't even involve pointers. References are not pointers, and do not incur the same dereferencing hit pointers do.
If you compare compilers and languages you generally implement the exact same program in them all and you try to do the best implementation in each language and compile with best options. Then, assembler will be afstest and C will be faster than C++.
C has nothing significant in the way of performance which C++ lacks. OTOH, C++ has several features which can enhance performance if used correctly. Quit often C programmers with implement solutions which are structured in many way like C++.
But to compare somthing like GNOME and KDE and say that one is faster than the other becuase of the language used is not valid, because they are two different things, with two different designs consisting of hundreds of applications. There are too many variables that affect the speed.
For the record I never stated that the KDE would be faster than the GNOME just because it is written in C++. What I said what that C++ can, in principle, be used in ways that improve performance which C would have a hard time emulating.
People complain that when they install GNOME with rpms that it has dependency problems. Installing from source is a totally different story.
I've been down that road too.
Steven T. Hatton wrote:
It's been several years since I studied this at the microcode control level, but I can only imagine compilers have extended this technology. Compilers can ofther analyse the call sequence and find ways of interleaving and prefetching that a human being would have a very hard time competing with.
Are you sure you're looking at microcode? Microcode is the software within the CPU and nowadays generally isn't available to programmers. Years ago, many mini-computers (VAX, Data General Eclipse, etc.) supported writing to microcode. Back in the days when I was a computer tech, repairing mini-computers, I used to have to trouble shoot at the microcode level, within the CPU.
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 22:41, Andre Truter wrote:
OK, I'll agree that something written in assembler is about always faster that written in any other language
Today, I would say almost never (though some extremely performance requiring programs use assembly for a few inner loops here and there) Modern optimization technology will almost always outperform humans
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 5:06 pm, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 22:41, Andre Truter wrote:
OK, I'll agree that something written in assembler is about always faster that written in any other language
Today, I would say almost never (though some extremely performance requiring programs use assembly for a few inner loops here and there)
Modern optimization technology will almost always outperform humans I would agree with you Anders as an assembler programmer. When programming in assembler, while you have the power, most of the time "you can't see the fortest for the trees". Today's compilers do a very good job not only optimizing code, but also scheduling code. Code scheduling is a form of optimization for hardware when one knows the latencies between instructions. Some optimizations might also be counter-intuative: Take this loop: if (test is false) branch to end. begin loop ... perform loop if (test is true) branch to begin end
You might code this as:
while (test is true) {
... perform loop
}
Why would the compiler insert the second test at the end of the loop?
One reason is that the beginning of the loop may reside on a different
memory page. Code were as written as below, on the last iteration, you
branch to the initial test, then since the test is false, you branch back.
This could cause 2 potential paging operations. So by inserting the second
test you avoid a branch.
start
If (test is false) branch to end.
begin loop
... perform loop
branch to start
end
Even if there is no potential page fault, on modern processors, they can
load up some of the instructions in the pipeline, and if the branch is
taken dump them. The compiler then makes some decisions based on branch
prediction.
--
Jerry Feldman
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Tuesday 2005-11-08 at 23:41 +0200, Andre Truter wrote:
But to compare somthing like GNOME and KDE and say that one is faster than the other becuase of the language used is not valid, because they are two different things, with two different designs consisting of hundreds of applications. There are too many variables that affect the speed.
As a matter of fact, yes, it was felt that kde was slower than gnome, and one of the given reasons was because one was written with C++ and the other in C. This was felt by the kde developers, so much so, that they teamed with the gcc folks to improve the optimizing code method for gcc (g++) when compiling c++ code. Now, the feeling is that kde has improved in speed due to this effort (as seen in SuSE 10, I'm told). Note that this do not means that one is inherently slower than the other, or viceversa; rather, that the proper attention to optimizing code had not yet been given to the compiler used. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFDd9pttTMYHG2NR9URAnDBAJ9WwA73k+iZY72wIOdHvud7ZffwAQCfU0IV 7TztIyLzzV4fEdKpaPgMDV0= =uAuM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Allen, On Tuesday 08 November 2005 13:00, Allen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:19:09PM +0200, Andre Truter wrote:
On 11/8/05, Steven T. Hatton
wrote: ...
Since I have absolutely no delays with the mouse using the KDE, I can't compare that to anyting. As for the underlying language used, yes, the GNOME is written in C, not C++. If anything, that means it will be slower if both languages are utilized to their fullest reasonable extent.
Umm.. How do you get that? It is rather the other way around. C++ apps are generally slower. Why is the Linux kernel written in C? If C++ was faster, then would that not have made sense?
The fact is actually that one cannot really say that the one language is faster than the other, becuase the speed all depends on the implementation and what you want to do.
A myth usually shown false with a little assembler.
That's irrelevant, because code written in assembly has little or no portability to other platforms and often marginal portability to other processors in the same family. And programmer productivity writing in assembler is abysmal. And believe it or not, assembly code is not always the fastest. It may hold the most potential for execution speed under some idealized set of assumptions, but that's neither here nor there in the world of real software engineering. Just as Java's dynamic native code generation can perform optimizations no static C++ optimizer can, assembly code can only be statically optimized. That limits the ways and degrees to which it can be optimized for real-world dynamic situations. There's some code that can be statically and universally optimized (memcpy, perhaps) but much that cannot. Randall Schulz
On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 22:08 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Allen,
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 13:00, Allen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:19:09PM +0200, Andre Truter wrote:
On 11/8/05, Steven T. Hatton
wrote: ...
Since I have absolutely no delays with the mouse using the KDE, I can't compare that to anyting. As for the underlying language used, yes, the GNOME is written in C, not C++. If anything, that means it will be slower if both languages are utilized to their fullest reasonable extent.
Umm.. How do you get that? It is rather the other way around. C++ apps are generally slower. Why is the Linux kernel written in C? If C++ was faster, then would that not have made sense?
. . .
A myth usually shown false with a little assembler.
That's irrelevant, because code written in assembly has little or no portability to other platforms and often marginal portability to other processors in the same family. And programmer productivity writing in assembler is abysmal.
. . . Portability and programmer productivity has nothing to do with program execution speed. The difference in C and C++ runtimes will be dependent on the compiler used. Rudolf
Rudolf, On Thursday 10 November 2005 15:08, rudolf wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 22:08 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote: ...
A myth usually shown false with a little assembler.
That's irrelevant, because code written in assembly has little or no portability to other platforms and often marginal portability to other processors in the same family. And programmer productivity writing in assembler is abysmal.
. . . Portability and programmer productivity has nothing to do with program execution speed. The difference in C and C++ runtimes will be dependent on the compiler used.
Not directly, at least, nor did I claim it did. What I am saying is that some hypothetical advantage for assembler in some restrictive setting under some restrictive assumptions will almost never make up for the sizeable down-side of programming at the lowest (or nearly lowest) level possible. To address your point, productivity actually can become a factor in program speed because programming / programmer time is a limited resource like any other, and the amount of work required to produce correct and optimized code must be taken into account. Working in higher-level languages, while it may (_may_) exact some run-time costs, will pay back in other ways. Ultimately, a given programming project may well (often will) reach a given level of performance from the software earlier when doing more of the programming in a higher-level language than in assembly. The portability issues with assembler introduce a parallel set of impacts on performance, since work done to optimize for one architecture or CPU model is either not at all or only partially applicable on other processors. There are good reasons assembly programming is justified less and employed less and less each year. Basically, if software is going to meet the challenges ahead, it's going to have to look to higher-level means of expressing programmatic intent, not lower-level ones.
Rudolf
Randall Schulz
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 16:00:57 -0500, Allen wrote:
A myth usually shown false with a little assembler.
Not all assembler code is faster then what a good optimizing compiler does. Even assembler wizards like Michael Abrash have been telling that for quite a long time. In most cases, the win from using assembler is so minimal that it's just not worth the effort. Philipp
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 11:53 pm, Philipp Thomas wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 16:00:57 -0500, Allen wrote:
A myth usually shown false with a little assembler.
Not all assembler code is faster then what a good optimizing compiler does. Even assembler wizards like Michael Abrash have been telling that for quite a long time. In most cases, the win from using assembler is so minimal that it's just not worth the effort.
Philipp
Assembler is good when you want to tickle the registers of a periferial device. I will observe that Java has a lot of asm calls in the platform specific parts. And, yes, a lot of that stuff is C, not C++. What I was taught in my course on hardware in college years ago is that some compilers on "RISC" processors skipped assembler, and wrote in a more cryptic instruction set which was virtually impossible for a human to make sense of. The assembler instructions for such systems is written as a "higher level" language. http://www.unix.org/images/unix_plate-med.jpg Steven
What I was taught in my course on hardware in college years ago is that some compilers on "RISC" processors skipped assembler, and wrote in a more cryptic instruction set which was virtually impossible for a human to make sense of. The assembler instructions for such systems is written as a "higher level" language. Most modern compilers generate their code directly rather than calling the assembler. Some of the reasons for this is optimization and scheduling. Although on the Digital Alpha with our older compiler we went through the assembler (a beast written in a dialect of Pascal). We rewrote the assembler from scratch, but we also switched compilers to Dec's new compiler that was able to optimize better. In the old assembler, the schduler was added to the end of the assembler where it would go through
On Thursday 10 November 2005 12:08 am, Steven T. Hatton wrote:
the code stream, with the new assembler, the scheduler was integrated and
operated on the assembler's internal data structure.
--
Jerry Feldman
On Thursday 10 November 2005 14:02, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Thursday 10 November 2005 12:08 am, Steven T. Hatton wrote:
What I was taught in my course on hardware in college years ago is that some compilers on "RISC" processors skipped assembler, and wrote in a more cryptic instruction set which was virtually impossible for a human to make sense of. The assembler instructions for such systems is written as a "higher level" language.
Most modern compilers generate their code directly rather than calling the assembler.
This is true, but I suspect Steven is talkiing about microcode. Microcode is the stuff the CPU really understands, and assembly (or machine language, which is a one-to-one translation of assembly code, not counting the administrative stuff, and the occasional macro) gets translated to microcode on the fly. This is true for most modern platforms, and especially for AMD. I'm told AMD actually implements the Intel compatibility on top of their native microcode I'd love to see a linux version written directly to the native AMD core :)
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Thursday 10 November 2005 14:02, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Thursday 10 November 2005 12:08 am, Steven T. Hatton wrote:
What I was taught in my course on hardware in college years ago is that some compilers on "RISC" processors skipped assembler, and wrote in a more cryptic instruction set which was virtually impossible for a human to make sense of. The assembler instructions for such systems is written as a "higher level" language. Most modern compilers generate their code directly rather than calling the assembler.
This is true, but I suspect Steven is talkiing about microcode. Microcode is the stuff the CPU really understands, and assembly (or machine language, which is a one-to-one translation of assembly code, not counting the administrative stuff, and the occasional macro) gets translated to microcode on the fly. This is true for most modern platforms, and especially for AMD. I'm told AMD actually implements the Intel compatibility on top of their native microcode
I'd love to see a linux version written directly to the native AMD core :)
If you are AMD, you understand that Intel is likely to unleash some features to render your hardware obsolete in a timeframe that you can't react to speedily enough, with the need for redesigning and retooling, so recoding in microcode gives you the ability to swiftly respond. For years that's how we at Amdahl were able to stay with the twists and turns by IBM that were designed to kill us off. When IBM started off on that road, we didn't have microcode, so we had to add a FAM (Fast Assist Mode) so that when the new instructions generated an exception, they could be emulated by substituting a series of software instructions - so Microcode and Macrocode appeared in our succeeding products. An ex-colleague remarked last week how amazing it is that the latest greatest stuff like Xen has been standard on mainframes (Amdahl MDF followed by IBM LPAR's) for decades. Eventually IBM got us, not by technology, but by nearly going under themselves. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks
On Sunday 13 November 2005 04:29, Sid Boyce wrote:
If you are AMD, you understand that Intel is likely to unleash some features to render your hardware obsolete in a timeframe that you can't react to speedily enough,
No actually, I don't. You see, the problem is that Intel can't make AMD machines obsolete without at the same time making their own machines obsolete, which the market won't accept. This is why Itanium failed so miserably. Intel is simply locked into its own past.
with the need for redesigning and retooling, so recoding in microcode gives you the ability to swiftly respond. For years that's how we at Amdahl were able to stay with the twists and turns by IBM that were designed to kill us off.
I think that's slightly different, since the mainframe market is far lower volume, IBM is/was in contact with each of their customers (who in many cases didn't buiy, they leased), so their ability to introduce new, incompatible features is/was far higher than Intel's will ever be
When IBM started off on that road, we didn't have microcode, so we had to add a FAM (Fast Assist Mode) so that when the new instructions generated an exception, they could be emulated by substituting a series of software instructions - so Microcode and Macrocode appeared in our succeeding products. An ex-colleague remarked last week how amazing it is that the latest greatest stuff like Xen has been standard on mainframes (Amdahl MDF followed by IBM LPAR's) for decades. Eventually IBM got us, not by technology, but by nearly going under themselves.
mainframes created almost all technology we see today. I have said many times that the past 30 or so years in computer development could have been skipped by giving the 3270 3D accelerated graphics
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 13 November 2005 04:29, Sid Boyce wrote:
If you are AMD, you understand that Intel is likely to unleash some features to render your hardware obsolete in a timeframe that you can't react to speedily enough,
No actually, I don't. You see, the problem is that Intel can't make AMD machines obsolete without at the same time making their own machines obsolete, which the market won't accept. This is why Itanium failed so miserably. Intel is simply locked into its own past.
You are no doubt correct, both IBM and more recently Intel have been shown that they are not masters of the PC architecture. If you are AMD you probably want to cover all bases - Fear is the main driver in this industry and it shows - if Itanium had been successful, the air would be thick with flying pigs, yet some faction within Intel was able to convince senior management it was the only sane business model and the one sure way to smash AMD, likewise AMD needed a credible anti-FUD story to tell.
with the need for redesigning and retooling, so recoding in microcode gives you the ability to swiftly respond. For years that's how we at Amdahl were able to stay with the twists and turns by IBM that were designed to kill us off.
I think that's slightly different, since the mainframe market is far lower volume, IBM is/was in contact with each of their customers (who in many cases didn't buiy, they leased), so their ability to introduce new, incompatible features is/was far higher than Intel's will ever be
Lower numbers, mega bucks, it didn't seem like low volume when growth rates were so high and the amount of work to turn out a new machine was so huge. The major stranglehold IBM had on the industry was ownership of both software and hardware definitions, that's why I was asking our senior management why we weren't fighting to have the FTC authorities order that hardware specs be drawn up by a separate industry body. I obviously got nowhere with that, I'd ask one question and get an answer to one I didn't ask, instead they kept feeding us a line that Solaris and SPARC was going to blow away the mainframe. Once we effectively left the scene, mainframe sales from the one remaining vendor went sky high once more and we could only drool. It'll be interesting to see how the guys at PSI (Platform Solutions Inc.) make an impact this time around, all the mainframe resilience and reliability features in an Itanium based box + Amdahl firmware running z/OS, Linux, Windows, Solaris x86 and I imagine a lot else also.
When IBM started off on that road, we didn't have microcode, so we had to add a FAM (Fast Assist Mode) so that when the new instructions generated an exception, they could be emulated by substituting a series of software instructions - so Microcode and Macrocode appeared in our succeeding products. An ex-colleague remarked last week how amazing it is that the latest greatest stuff like Xen has been standard on mainframes (Amdahl MDF followed by IBM LPAR's) for decades. Eventually IBM got us, not by technology, but by nearly going under themselves.
mainframes created almost all technology we see today. I have said many times that the past 30 or so years in computer development could have been skipped by giving the 3270 3D accelerated graphics
SGI and Sun stepped into that slot admirably, and Apple, so the mainframe makers didn't see the need for or care about graphics. If you wanted something standard, 3270 was it and if you had higher demands, a Sun workstation with X3270 Windows did the lot. Now you see lots of NT/W2K have replaced the Sun kit, perhaps the IBM HMC based on Linux may drive a change to Linux. Speaking to the smart ex-colleagues, they have moved some and are moving all the diagnostic tools over to Linux, these guys always saw great merits in Linux, but the majority of the average support techs and some managers often tried to give me grief for using Linux, so it sure was a smug feeling when they all started having Linux business plans in their presentations. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 05:53:22AM +0100, Philipp Thomas wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 16:00:57 -0500, Allen wrote:
A myth usually shown false with a little assembler.
Not all assembler code is faster then what a good optimizing compiler does. Even assembler wizards like Michael Abrash have been telling that for quite a long time. In most cases, the win from using assembler is so minimal that it's just not worth the effort.
Philipp
What you do the small speed boost may not matter, but in the 80s my teacher was writing code for the 68K processor and you couldn't use C for that. -Allen
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
On Thursday 10 November 2005 11:01 am, Allen wrote:
What you do the small speed boost may not matter, but in the 80s my teacher was writing code for the 68K processor and you couldn't use C for that. There are always applications that require assembler. One that comes to mind was a project I was working on a few years ago where we had to insert code into a program that called a library function, but on return it had to restore all the registers back to the state they were in before the code, including the scratch registers. Some things you can do using ASMs from C. If you need to do things directly at the hardware level, assembler is required. -- Jerry Feldman
Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Thursday 10 November 2005 11:01 am, Allen wrote:
What you do the small speed boost may not matter, but in the 80s my teacher was writing code for the 68K processor and you couldn't use C for that. There are always applications that require assembler. One that comes to mind was a project I was working on a few years ago where we had to insert code into a program that called a library function, but on return it had to restore all the registers back to the state they were in before the code, including the scratch registers. Some things you can do using ASMs from C. If you need to do things directly at the hardware level, assembler is required.
About 10 years ago, someone wanted a DOS utility that would simply exit with a 0 return code. I did it in 5 bytes, using debug. With Turbo C, it took a few K bytes.
James, On Thursday 10 November 2005 18:18, James Knott wrote:
...
About 10 years ago, someone wanted a DOS utility that would simply exit with a 0 return code. I did it in 5 bytes, using debug. With Turbo C, it took a few K bytes.
So what? That tells us nothing about how real designs are made efficient. The programs we use all day long every day are not trivial "exit with fixed status" programs, they're large, complex systems that absolutely demand refined designs comprising multiple independent, often reusable components: kernel modules, drivers, libraries (lots of 'em), utilities, servers, daemons, plug-ins etc. Randall Schulz
Randall R Schulz wrote:
James,
On Thursday 10 November 2005 18:18, James Knott wrote:
...
About 10 years ago, someone wanted a DOS utility that would simply exit with a 0 return code. I did it in 5 bytes, using debug. With Turbo C, it took a few K bytes.
So what? That tells us nothing about how real designs are made efficient.
That would depend on what you mean by "efficient". Are you talking about writing a large program for use on a full desktop system, where developer time is important? Or perhaps writing for a small embedded device, where memory is critical? Until you know the priorities, you cannot say which method is better. In some situations, getting right down to the "bare metal", counting every byte is important. In others, what's a few meg of memory here and there?
James, On Friday 11 November 2005 06:45, James Knott wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
James,
On Thursday 10 November 2005 18:18, James Knott wrote:
...
About 10 years ago, someone wanted a DOS utility that would simply exit with a 0 return code. I did it in 5 bytes, using debug. With Turbo C, it took a few K bytes.
So what? That tells us nothing about how real designs are made efficient.
That would depend on what you mean by "efficient". Are you talking about writing a large program for use on a full desktop system, where developer time is important? Or perhaps writing for a small embedded device, where memory is critical? Until you know the priorities, you cannot say which method is better. In some situations, getting right down to the "bare metal", counting every byte is important. In others, what's a few meg of memory here and there?
Your example was for DOS, a so-called desktop OS (so-called OS, too, I guess...) Libraries help real programs (not degenerate special cases) remain small, too, just as the very concept of a subroutine does. And people are writing Java code for cell phones, you know. Randall Schulz
On Friday 11 November 2005 9:45 am, James Knott wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
James,
On Thursday 10 November 2005 18:18, James Knott wrote:
...
About 10 years ago, someone wanted a DOS utility that would simply exit with a 0 return code. I did it in 5 bytes, using debug. With Turbo C, it took a few K bytes.
So what? That tells us nothing about how real designs are made efficient.
That would depend on what you mean by "efficient". Are you talking about writing a large program for use on a full desktop system, where developer time is important? Or perhaps writing for a small embedded device, where memory is critical? Until you know the priorities, you cannot say which method is better. In some situations, getting right down to the "bare metal", counting every byte is important. In others, what's a few meg of memory here and there? The issue here is that if you build with a high level language line C (not really a high-level language) you are going to get libraries linked in. (Note that IBM's OS used to supply one called IEFBR14. This was simply a utility that would exit). The C language requires the use of a library to set up the environment, and provide the 2 arguments to main. Most C compilers will automatically link in the C runtime libraries. In the above case, you are talking about just a few assembler statements.
--
Jerry Feldman
On Friday 11 November 2005 10:20 am, Jerry Feldman wrote:
The issue here is that if you build with a high level language line C (not really a high-level language) you are going to get libraries linked in. (Note that IBM's OS used to supply one called IEFBR14. This was simply a utility that would exit). The C language requires the use of a library to set up the environment, and provide the 2 arguments to main. Most C compilers will automatically link in the C runtime libraries. In the above case, you are talking about just a few assembler statements.
As I stated previously, the C-code in Java has a lot of in-line asm calls. There is clearly a place (or so the Java implementors believe) for assembler knowhow in the development of large projects. Steven
On Friday 11 November 2005 12:33 pm, Steven T. Hatton wrote:
As I stated previously, the C-code in Java has a lot of in-line asm calls. There is clearly a place (or so the Java implementors believe) for assembler knowhow in the development of large projects. As a COBOL programmer in the mid 1970s: PROCEDURE DIVISION. START. ENTER SYMBOLIC. --> much assember code ENTER COBOL. CALL EXIT. (Or whatever we did in COBOL to exit).
WRT: Java, I don't understand what you actually mean. Are you talking about
the Java JVM? Certainly, the Java developers (like Gosling) never intended
Java programs to call any other language.
Because Java is essentially an interpretive language it is slower than a
compiled language.
But, I think your statement, that there will always be the place for
assembler knowhow is certainly true. There are always places direct access
to the hardware is required.
--
Jerry Feldman
On Friday 11 November 2005 01:38 pm, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 12:33 pm, Steven T. Hatton wrote:
As I stated previously, the C-code in Java has a lot of in-line asm calls. There is clearly a place (or so the Java implementors believe) for assembler knowhow in the development of large projects. [COBAL...I'll take your word for it]
WRT: Java, I don't understand what you actually mean. Are you talking about the Java JVM? Certainly, the Java developers (like Gosling) never intended Java programs to call any other language. Because Java is essentially an interpretive language it is slower than a compiled language.
Yes, the VM. You can fetch the Java implementation source (but please don't ask for a link, I don't remember where I found it.) I have it all on my harddrive. It's quite an impressive mix of C and C++. The very nitty-gritty stuff is written in C, proper, with the more structured stuff built in C++ on top of that.
But, I think your statement, that there will always be the place for assembler knowhow is certainly true. There are always places direct access to the hardware is required.
Steven
Yes, the VM. You can fetch the Java implementation source (but please don't ask for a link, I don't remember where I found it.) I have it all on my harddrive. It's quite an impressive mix of C and C++. The very nitty-gritty stuff is written in C, proper, with the more structured stuff built in C++ on top of that. Actually there are a number of JVMs (Sun, IBM, BEA, ...). The JVM itself needs to be somewhat platform dependent. It also needs to consider
On Friday 11 November 2005 1:48 pm, Steven T. Hatton wrote:
performance, and needs to be native. I would suspect that there would be
very few lines of assembler as that really kills portability.
--
Jerry Feldman
On Friday 11 November 2005 01:55 pm, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 1:48 pm, Steven T. Hatton wrote:
Yes, the VM. You can fetch the Java implementation source (but please don't ask for a link, I don't remember where I found it.) I have it all on my harddrive. It's quite an impressive mix of C and C++. The very nitty-gritty stuff is written in C, proper, with the more structured stuff built in C++ on top of that.
Actually there are a number of JVMs (Sun, IBM, BEA, ...). The JVM itself needs to be somewhat platform dependent. It also needs to consider performance, and needs to be native. I would suspect that there would be very few lines of assembler as that really kills portability.
When I say there are a lot of asm calls, I am specifically referring to the platform specific parts of the sun JVM. As a percentage of the entire Java source tree, this is probably miniscule. If I get motivated, I'll try to fish out some of the source I'm talking about. Steven
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 11:01 -0500, Allen wrote:
What you do the small speed boost may not matter, but in the 80s my teacher was writing code for the 68K processor and you couldn't use C for that.
Not sure what you mean here? It was and is certainly possible to use C on the 68000. Just one example was a machine called the 'Unicorn' from a company here in the UK called Torch. It not only ran a C compiler, it's native operating system was Unix. Cheers, Dave
On Thursday 10 November 2005 11:50 am, Dave Howorth wrote:
Not sure what you mean here? It was and is certainly possible to use C on the 68000. Just one example was a machine called the 'Unicorn' from a company here in the UK called Torch. It not only ran a C compiler, it's native operating system was Unix. A number of Unix vendors used the 68000, and C was certainly available on it. -- Jerry Feldman
Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 12:00 -0500, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Thursday 10 November 2005 11:50 am, Dave Howorth wrote:
Not sure what you mean here? It was and is certainly possible to use C on the 68000. Just one example was a machine called the 'Unicorn' from a company here in the UK called Torch. It not only ran a C compiler, it's native operating system was Unix. A number of Unix vendors used the 68000, and C was certainly available on it.
Like the HP Integral, running SVR4 from PROM. Doing windows. Almost 20 years ago. -- Roger Oberholtzer OPQ Systems AB
Hi, On Thursday 10 November 2005 09:00, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Thursday 10 November 2005 11:50 am, Dave Howorth wrote:
Not sure what you mean here? It was and is certainly possible to use C on the 68000. Just one example was a machine called the 'Unicorn' from a company here in the UK called Torch. It not only ran a C compiler, it's native operating system was Unix.
A number of Unix vendors used the 68000, and C was certainly available on it.
The successors in that architecture that had memory protection and mapping software (68010, perhaps?) were the basis for the first Sun workstations.
-- Jerry Feldman
Randall Schulz
On Thursday 10 November 2005 09:39, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Hi,
...
A number of Unix vendors used the 68000, and C was certainly available on it.
The successors in that architecture that had memory protection and mapping software (68010, perhaps?) were the basis for the first Sun workstations.
And by "software" I meant "hardware," of course. Randall Schulz
The successors in that architecture that had memory protection and mapping software (68010, perhaps?) were the basis for the first Sun workstations. This is correct, Sun, Cadmus, and other Unix workstation vendors at the time
On Thursday 10 November 2005 12:39 pm, Randall R Schulz wrote:
pretty much used the 68010. We (Cadmus) ran on System V with virtual memory
in 1984 time frame. We also had a windowing system based on the original
Macintosh. We sold our windowing software before we closed our doors. Also
note that we had a very nice netfork file system using raw ethernet
protocol back in that time frame.
--
Jerry Feldman
On Thursday 10 November 2005 18:56, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Thursday 10 November 2005 12:39 pm, Randall R Schulz wrote:
The successors in that architecture that had memory protection and mapping software (68010, perhaps?) were the basis for the first Sun workstations.
This is correct, Sun, Cadmus, and other Unix workstation vendors at the time pretty much used the 68010. We (Cadmus) ran on System V with virtual memory in 1984 time frame. We also had a windowing system based on the original Macintosh. We sold our windowing software before we closed our doors. Also note that we had a very nice netfork file system using raw ethernet protocol back in that time frame.
Even the Amiga 500 had a C compiler. I owned one called Lattice (or was that the company that made it, I forget)
On Thursday 10 November 2005 2:29 pm, Anders Johansson wrote:
Even the Amiga 500 had a C compiler. I owned one called Lattice (or was that the company that made it, I forget) Was the Amiga a computer :-) I had Lattice on the Atari ST. -- Jerry Feldman
Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
On Thursday 10 November 2005 20:48, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Thursday 10 November 2005 2:29 pm, Anders Johansson wrote:
Even the Amiga 500 had a C compiler. I owned one called Lattice (or was that the company that made it, I forget)
Was the Amiga a computer :-)
You asked for it :) It was mostly used as a gaming platform, but it is one of the more underestimated platforms I've seen (by far the most would be the AS/400) Designwise it kicked everything around at the time - I'm talking about the things available for regular people now. And the OS was very unix-like, though I didn't know it at the time, since I didn't come across unix until 1993 when I started University When it came out it was at least 10 years ahead of the pathetic excuse that Intel and IBM called PC at the time. It was fit for use for much more than just games. I know TV stations that used the Amiga for overlays and other effects many years after it fell out of fashion as a home computer As a corporate desktop it had much more to offer. It had functioning multitasking, a sane memory addressing and a neat windowing system when Gates was still teaching people how to edit autoexec.bat and using terminate-stay-resident Pity they couldn't keep up
Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Thursday 10 November 2005 11:50 am, Dave Howorth wrote:
Not sure what you mean here? It was and is certainly possible to use C on the 68000. Just one example was a machine called the 'Unicorn' from a company here in the UK called Torch. It not only ran a C compiler, it's native operating system was Unix. A number of Unix vendors used the 68000, and C was certainly available on it.
And even if a computer didn't have the resources to run the compiler, cross compiling was always an option.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 04:50:04PM +0000, Dave Howorth wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 11:01 -0500, Allen wrote:
What you do the small speed boost may not matter, but in the 80s my teacher was writing code for the 68K processor and you couldn't use C for that.
Not sure what you mean here? It was and is certainly possible to use C on the 68000. Just one example was a machine called the 'Unicorn' from a company here in the UK called Torch. It not only ran a C compiler, it's native operating system was Unix.
Weird. They had to use Assembler for pretty much everything. They used those processors and.... I don't even know which OS, but they had a lot of Unix. He told me back when he did this that Vi would only show one line at a time and you'd have like thousands of lines of code and have to check something a few lines up so you'd have to give the command to view it up in that area or something. I installed Linux on a box for him and showed him Vim
Cheers, Dave
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
On Thursday 10 November 2005 12:14 pm, Allen wrote:
Weird. They had to use Assembler for pretty much everything. They used those processors and.... I don't even know which OS, but they had a lot of Unix. Probably device drivers, but Unix has always been mostly C (actually the original Unix was not, but it was rewritten in C when they invented C). He told me back when he did this that Vi would only show one line at a time and you'd have like thousands of lines of code and have to check something a few lines up so you'd have to give the command to view it up in that area or something. I worked on Xenix in 1981 using a Heath/Zenith ASCII terminal and VI did full screen. -- Jerry Feldman
Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
On Thursday 10 November 2005 18:52, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Thursday 10 November 2005 12:14 pm, Allen wrote:
Weird. They had to use Assembler for pretty much everything. They used those processors and.... I don't even know which OS, but they had a lot of Unix.
Probably device drivers, but Unix has always been mostly C (actually the original Unix was not, but it was rewritten in C when they invented C).
He told me back when he did this that Vi would only show one line at a time and you'd have like thousands of lines of code and have to check something a few lines up so you'd have to give the command to view it up in that area or something.
I worked on Xenix in 1981 using a Heath/Zenith ASCII terminal and VI did full screen.
ed does one line at a time. vi is ed with multiline display, more or less
On Thursday 10 November 2005 02:30 pm, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Thursday 10 November 2005 18:52, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Thursday 10 November 2005 12:14 pm, Allen wrote:
Weird. They had to use Assembler for pretty much everything. They used those processors and.... I don't even know which OS, but they had a lot of Unix.
Probably device drivers, but Unix has always been mostly C (actually the original Unix was not, but it was rewritten in C when they invented C).
He told me back when he did this that Vi would only show one line at a time and you'd have like thousands of lines of code and have to check something a few lines up so you'd have to give the command to view it up in that area or something.
I worked on Xenix in 1981 using a Heath/Zenith ASCII terminal and VI did full screen.
ed does one line at a time. vi is ed with multiline display, more or less
Thumb switches to enter the start code to read the key punched tape 1979.
Thumb switches to enter the start code to read the key punched tape 1979. Did that on the PDP-8 in 1970. On the PDP-8, you entered the RIM loader by hand. This was a loader whose only job was to read in the paper tape driver. The RIM format was an inefficient format, but required a minimum number of instructions. The steps here are: Key in RIM loader. Read the paper tape bootstrap code. This was a paper tape reader that used
On Thursday 10 November 2005 2:45 pm, Steven T. Hatton wrote:
the more appropriate paper tape format. (This is essentially what you have
in ROM today except today it can read from multiple media forms).
Then read in the rest of the system.
--
Jerry Feldman
Jerry Feldman wrote:
Thumb switches to enter the start code to read the key punched tape 1979. Did that on the PDP-8 in 1970. On the PDP-8, you entered the RIM loader by hand. This was a loader whose only job was to read in the paper tape driver. The RIM format was an inefficient format, but required a minimum number of instructions. The steps here are: Key in RIM loader. Read the paper tape bootstrap code. This was a paper tape reader that used
On Thursday 10 November 2005 2:45 pm, Steven T. Hatton wrote: the more appropriate paper tape format. (This is essentially what you have in ROM today except today it can read from multiple media forms). Then read in the rest of the system.
Yep, I toggled in the RIM loader on a PDP-8i, on more than a few occasions. Back in those days, "real" computers had front panels, just like my IMSAI 8080.
On Thursday 10 November 2005 2:30 pm, Anders Johansson wrote:
ed does one line at a time. vi is ed with multiline display, more or less Vi is short for Visual. It has as one of its modes, ex, which is essentially ed. But, vi was designed as a full screen editor. It was layered on Termcap. -- Jerry Feldman
Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Anders Johansson wrote:
He told me back when he did this that Vi would only show one line at a time and you'd have like thousands of lines of code and have to check something a few lines up so you'd have to give the command to view it up in that area or something.
I worked on Xenix in 1981 using a Heath/Zenith ASCII terminal and VI did full screen.
ed does one line at a time. vi is ed with multiline display, more or less
Original vi is a front-end to ex, not ed. This is one of the things that made it the one full-screen editor which could work on documents much bigger than what you could hold in RAM, it was/is actually a line-editor which acted like a file editor. Things were a lot more fun in those days... Bjørn -- Bjørn Tore Sund Phone: (+47) 555-84894 Stupidity is like a System administrator Fax: (+47) 555-89672 fractal; universal and Math. Department Mobile: (+47) 918 68075 infinitely repetitive. University of Bergen VIP: 81724 Support: system@mi.uib.no Contact: teknisk@mi.uib.no Direct: bjornts@mi.uib.no
From: Bjorn Tore Sund
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:33:22 +0100 (CET) To: Anders Johansson Cc: Subject: Re: [SLE] Gnome disappointment On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Anders Johansson wrote:
He told me back when he did this that Vi would only show one line at a time and you'd have like thousands of lines of code and have to check something a few lines up so you'd have to give the command to view it up in that area or something.
I worked on Xenix in 1981 using a Heath/Zenith ASCII terminal and VI did full screen.
ed does one line at a time. vi is ed with multiline display, more or less
Original vi is a front-end to ex, not ed. This is one of the things that made it the one full-screen editor which could work on documents much bigger than what you could hold in RAM, it was/is actually a line-editor which acted like a file editor.
Things were a lot more fun in those days...
You know, with each e-mail in this thread, the same thought comes to the
front of my mind...
y'all be old!
Hello, Ian, On Friday 11 November 2005 05:38, Ian Marlier wrote:
...
Things were a lot more fun in those days...
You know, with each e-mail in this thread, the same thought comes to the front of my mind...
y'all be old!
And you'd prefer not to become old?
- Ian
RRS
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 08:38:09AM -0500, Ian Marlier wrote:
From: Bjorn Tore Sund
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:33:22 +0100 (CET) To: Anders Johansson Cc: Subject: Re: [SLE] Gnome disappointment On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Anders Johansson wrote:
He told me back when he did this that Vi would only show one line at a time and you'd have like thousands of lines of code and have to check something a few lines up so you'd have to give the command to view it up in that area or something.
I worked on Xenix in 1981 using a Heath/Zenith ASCII terminal and VI did full screen.
ed does one line at a time. vi is ed with multiline display, more or less
Original vi is a front-end to ex, not ed. This is one of the things that made it the one full-screen editor which could work on documents much bigger than what you could hold in RAM, it was/is actually a line-editor which acted like a file editor.
Things were a lot more fun in those days...
You know, with each e-mail in this thread, the same thought comes to the front of my mind...
y'all be old!
I'm 22. I got my first computer when I was 17 / 18. I'm just good with history. -Allen
- Ian
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
On Friday 11 November 2005 01:01 pm, James Knott wrote:
Allen wrote:
I'm 22. I got my first computer when I was 17 / 18. I'm just good with history.
So, what was Bill Gates' first product (besides BS)?
I thought he got his start in programming by rummaging through dumpsters to find discarded printouts he could pirate. Steven
Steven T. Hatton wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 01:01 pm, James Knott wrote:
Allen wrote:
I'm 22. I got my first computer when I was 17 / 18. I'm just good with history. So, what was Bill Gates' first product (besides BS)?
I thought he got his start in programming by rummaging through dumpsters to find discarded printouts he could pirate.
Yes, he did do that, but his first product was (IIRC) a traffic counting system called Traf-O-Data. The first Microsoft (then Micro Soft) product was a BASIC interpreter, for the Altair 8800. http://www.smartcomputing.com/editorial/dictionary/detail.asp?guid=&searchtype=1&DicID=19295&RefType=Encyclopedia
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 13:15 -0500, Steven T. Hatton wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 01:01 pm, James Knott wrote:
Allen wrote:
I'm 22. I got my first computer when I was 17 / 18. I'm just good with history.
So, what was Bill Gates' first product (besides BS)?
I thought he got his start in programming by rummaging through dumpsters to find discarded printouts he could pirate.
Makes sense, with that and his mother on the board of director's for IBM, you can see how far hard work really gets you.
Mike McMullin wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 13:15 -0500, Steven T. Hatton wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 01:01 pm, James Knott wrote:
Allen wrote:
I'm 22. I got my first computer when I was 17 / 18. I'm just good with history. So, what was Bill Gates' first product (besides BS)? I thought he got his start in programming by rummaging through dumpsters to find discarded printouts he could pirate.
Makes sense, with that and his mother on the board of director's for IBM, you can see how far hard work really gets you.
I thought she met someone from IBM, while working on the board of some charity.
On Friday 11 November 2005 13:15, Steven T. Hatton wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 01:01 pm, James Knott wrote: [...]
So, what was Bill Gates' first product (besides BS)?
I thought he got his start in programming by rummaging through dumpsters to find discarded printouts he could pirate.
When did you hear he stopped doing this?
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 01:01:30PM -0500, James Knott wrote:
Allen wrote:
I'm 22. I got my first computer when I was 17 / 18. I'm just good with history.
So, what was Bill Gates' first product (besides BS)?
A compiler. ;) Though he did this before Microsoft was even well know. He almost made BASIC.... well, not sure HE made it, I mean God knows he doesn't code often. He also wrote a note to the computer club saying they stole things (You can see this in the movie Revolution OS, cool). He almost had Xenix but ditched that when IBM came to him for an OS for the "PC" in which he bought a rip off of CP/M from Tim Patterson of Seattle computer products. He didn't pay much for it. It took a few weeks to compile it and if you have this version of DOS, you can see his name on it as of yet because even back then, they put it out before chekcing to make sure it was gone. Tim then worked for Microsoft for a couple years. Gates got away with not selling DOS outright to IBM, so he had MS-DOS, they had PC-DOS, and Dr-DOS was out.... Lots of DOS, even Apple had a DOS. DOS couldn't actually use a HD and then alter on support for those was added in, it didn't handle them well but people were willing to look the other way because they no longer needed to share a HD with their deparment and had one of their very own. (You can find this story in the book "The Complete Free BSD, 3rd Edition"). Gates made a GUI called Windows 1.0 which I have a copy of, friend got it for me, he knows I collect OSs. The look was apple. Apple got pissed but Gates tricked them in court so he was allowed to use their stuff. Can't find the story right now because I'm not searching as I type this, I closed my browser to do an update. Gates then started realising Windows wasn't in competition with Unix. He wanted all of the PC market and took some CMS coders anbd told them what they could do, to make Windows NT. That was already a joke of an OS but it was more stable than previous versions. But the UI was crap and looked like Windows 2.o and 3.0. He promised a new version with the Windows 95 interface and that came years later than he said ti would. Surpise, he stuck with that motto. Windows 2000 was going to be called NT5 and in some parts of the system it is called that. Windows XP is called NT 5.1. I can type more if you want but this is becoming long. -Allen.
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
Allen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 01:01:30PM -0500, James Knott wrote:
Allen wrote:
I'm 22. I got my first computer when I was 17 / 18. I'm just good with history. So, what was Bill Gates' first product (besides BS)?
A compiler. ;) Though he did this before Microsoft was even well know. He almost made BASIC.... well, not sure HE made it, I mean God knows he doesn't code often.
Well, he produced a BASIC interpreter, not compliler for the Altair 8800, but his first product was Traf-O-Data, a traffic counting system. http://www.smartcomputing.com/editorial/dictionary/detail.asp?guid=&searchtype=1&DicID=19295&RefType=Encyclopedia
I wrote all this and no one replied to it. did it not show up? On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 01:19:08PM -0500, Allen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 01:01:30PM -0500, James Knott wrote:
Allen wrote:
I'm 22. I got my first computer when I was 17 / 18. I'm just good with history.
So, what was Bill Gates' first product (besides BS)?
A compiler. ;) Though he did this before Microsoft was even well know. He almost made BASIC.... well, not sure HE made it, I mean God knows he doesn't code often.
He also wrote a note to the computer club saying they stole things (You can see this in the movie Revolution OS, cool). He almost had Xenix but ditched that when IBM came to him for an OS for the "PC" in which he bought a rip off of CP/M from Tim Patterson of Seattle computer products. He didn't pay much for it.
It took a few weeks to compile it and if you have this version of DOS, you can see his name on it as of yet because even back then, they put it out before chekcing to make sure it was gone.
Tim then worked for Microsoft for a couple years.
Gates got away with not selling DOS outright to IBM, so he had MS-DOS, they had PC-DOS, and Dr-DOS was out.... Lots of DOS, even Apple had a DOS.
DOS couldn't actually use a HD and then alter on support for those was added in, it didn't handle them well but people were willing to look the other way because they no longer needed to share a HD with their deparment and had one of their very own. (You can find this story in the book "The Complete Free BSD, 3rd Edition").
Gates made a GUI called Windows 1.0 which I have a copy of, friend got it for me, he knows I collect OSs. The look was apple. Apple got pissed but Gates tricked them in court so he was allowed to use their stuff. Can't find the story right now because I'm not searching as I type this, I closed my browser to do an update.
Gates then started realising Windows wasn't in competition with Unix. He wanted all of the PC market and took some CMS coders anbd told them what they could do, to make Windows NT. That was already a joke of an OS but it was more stable than previous versions. But the UI was crap and looked like Windows 2.o and 3.0.
He promised a new version with the Windows 95 interface and that came years later than he said ti would. Surpise, he stuck with that motto. Windows 2000 was going to be called NT5 and in some parts of the system it is called that. Windows XP is called NT 5.1. I can type more if you want but this is becoming long.
-Allen.
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
* Allen
I wrote all this and no one replied to it. did it not show up?
yes, including two complete superfluous sigs. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 08:07:44PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Allen
[11-11-05 20:01]: I wrote all this and no one replied to it. did it not show up?
yes, including two complete superfluous sigs.
Ummm, sigs? I don't have one...
-- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
* Allen
Ummm, sigs? I don't have one...
But it hasn't stopped you from repeatedly quoting op's ad nauseum -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 08:39:26PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Allen
[11-11-05 20:13]: Ummm, sigs? I don't have one...
But it hasn't stopped you from repeatedly quoting op's ad nauseum
That's because I don't know how to reply and trim away anything without it showing up as a bunch of white space in Mutt.
-- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 13:01 -0500, James Knott wrote:
Allen wrote:
I'm 22. I got my first computer when I was 17 / 18. I'm just good with history.
So, what was Bill Gates' first product (besides BS)?
I didn't know he dated Barbera Streisand. As to his first product what has he really developed from scratch ever. DOS was simply a fork of CPM and that he got cheap and exploited to the hilt. Since then I can not think of a single scratch idea through code and release that BG ever created. I think he is more Borg than man assimilating whatever and whoever can not stand up to him. -- ___ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ | | | | [__ | | | |___ |_|_| ___] | \/
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 18:36 -0800, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 13:01 -0500, James Knott wrote:
Allen wrote:
I'm 22. I got my first computer when I was 17 / 18. I'm just good with history.
So, what was Bill Gates' first product (besides BS)?
I didn't know he dated Barbera Streisand.
As to his first product what has he really developed from scratch ever. DOS was simply a fork of CPM and that he got cheap and exploited to the hilt. Since then I can not think of a single scratch idea through code and release that BG ever created. I think he is more Borg than man assimilating whatever and whoever can not stand up to him.
Would Altair Basic be it? The one that he cried about not getting all of the registrations (and monies) that the thought he was entitled to?
Mike McMullin wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 18:36 -0800, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 13:01 -0500, James Knott wrote:
Allen wrote:
I'm 22. I got my first computer when I was 17 / 18. I'm just good with history. So, what was Bill Gates' first product (besides BS)?
I didn't know he dated Barbera Streisand.
As to his first product what has he really developed from scratch ever. DOS was simply a fork of CPM and that he got cheap and exploited to the hilt. Since then I can not think of a single scratch idea through code and release that BG ever created. I think he is more Borg than man assimilating whatever and whoever can not stand up to him.
Would Altair Basic be it? The one that he cried about not getting all of the registrations (and monies) that the thought he was entitled to?
No. While He developed BASIC for the Altair and complained about the "theft", his first product was a traffic counting system called Traf-O-Data. I included a URL in another note.
On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 17:30 -0500, James Knott wrote:
Mike McMullin wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 18:36 -0800, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 13:01 -0500, James Knott wrote:
Allen wrote:
I'm 22. I got my first computer when I was 17 / 18. I'm just good with history. So, what was Bill Gates' first product (besides BS)?
I didn't know he dated Barbera Streisand.
As to his first product what has he really developed from scratch ever. DOS was simply a fork of CPM and that he got cheap and exploited to the hilt. Since then I can not think of a single scratch idea through code and release that BG ever created. I think he is more Borg than man assimilating whatever and whoever can not stand up to him.
Would Altair Basic be it? The one that he cried about not getting all of the registrations (and monies) that the thought he was entitled to?
No. While He developed BASIC for the Altair and complained about the "theft", his first product was a traffic counting system called Traf-O-Data. I included a URL in another note.
My bad. I keep going back to this one thing as being the seminal event that forms the crux of M$ core philosophy. Make sure they pay you, and pay you more, and can't help but pay you again. Mike
On Saturday 12 November 2005 03:06 pm, Mike McMullin wrote:
On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 17:30 -0500, James Knott wrote:
Mike McMullin wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 18:36 -0800, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 13:01 -0500, James Knott wrote:
Allen wrote:
I'm 22. I got my first computer when I was 17 / 18. I'm just good with history.
So, what was Bill Gates' first product (besides BS)?
I didn't know he dated Barbera Streisand.
As to his first product what has he really developed from scratch ever. DOS was simply a fork of CPM and that he got cheap and exploited to the hilt. Since then I can not think of a single scratch idea through code and release that BG ever created. I think he is more Borg than man assimilating whatever and whoever can not stand up to him.
Would Altair Basic be it? The one that he cried about not getting all of the registrations (and monies) that the thought he was entitled to?
No. While He developed BASIC for the Altair and complained about the "theft", his first product was a traffic counting system called Traf-O-Data. I included a URL in another note.
My bad. I keep going back to this one thing as being the seminal event that forms the crux of M$ core philosophy. Make sure they pay you, and pay you more, and can't help but pay you again.
You're almost there. Check out the April and November letters, from '75, I think. The homebrew computer club was passing out copies of Altair basic, which pissed off Gates to no end. He then wrote full page letters in Byte magazine describing how all software should be closed source and paid for. -- kai www.perfectreign.com linux - genuine windows replacement part
Kai Ponte wrote:
You're almost there. Check out the April and November letters, from '75, I think. The homebrew computer club was passing out copies of Altair basic, which pissed off Gates to no end. He then wrote full page letters in Byte magazine describing how all software should be closed source and paid for.
There wasn't an April 1975 issue of Byte. The first issue was Sept 75.
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 05:30:10PM -0500, James Knott wrote:
Mike McMullin wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 18:36 -0800, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 13:01 -0500, James Knott wrote:
Allen wrote:
I'm 22. I got my first computer when I was 17 / 18. I'm just good with history. So, what was Bill Gates' first product (besides BS)?
I didn't know he dated Barbera Streisand.
As to his first product what has he really developed from scratch ever. DOS was simply a fork of CPM and that he got cheap and exploited to the hilt. Since then I can not think of a single scratch idea through code and release that BG ever created. I think he is more Borg than man assimilating whatever and whoever can not stand up to him.
Would Altair Basic be it? The one that he cried about not getting all of the registrations (and monies) that the thought he was entitled to?
No. While He developed BASIC for the Altair and complained about the "theft", his first product was a traffic counting system called Traf-O-Data. I included a URL in another note.
Ah hell, you got me here. 'I forgot about that. So that was first and then came the ones I was talking about. -Allen.
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 03:20:48PM -0500, Mike McMullin wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 18:36 -0800, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 13:01 -0500, James Knott wrote:
Allen wrote:
I'm 22. I got my first computer when I was 17 / 18. I'm just good with history.
So, what was Bill Gates' first product (besides BS)?
I didn't know he dated Barbera Streisand.
As to his first product what has he really developed from scratch ever. DOS was simply a fork of CPM and that he got cheap and exploited to the hilt. Since then I can not think of a single scratch idea through code and release that BG ever created. I think he is more Borg than man assimilating whatever and whoever can not stand up to him.
Would Altair Basic be it? The one that he cried about not getting all of the registrations (and monies) that the thought he was entitled to?
I answered this already. A compiler and a language were his first products. The BASIC for Altair is in fact where he got pissy and sent a letter to the computer guys saying they were criminals. I have seen the letter it's funny.
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
Allen wrote:
As to his first product what has he really developed from scratch ever. DOS was simply a fork of CPM and that he got cheap and exploited to the hilt. Since then I can not think of a single scratch idea through code and release that BG ever created. I think he is more Borg than man assimilating whatever and whoever can not stand up to him. Would Altair Basic be it? The one that he cried about not getting all of the registrations (and monies) that the thought he was entitled to?
I answered this already. A compiler and a language were his first products.
His first product was Traf-O-Data. I provided a link in an earlier message.
On November 11, 2005 9:36 pm, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 13:01 -0500, James Knott wrote:
Allen wrote:
I'm 22. I got my first computer when I was 17 / 18. I'm just good with history.
So, what was Bill Gates' first product (besides BS)?
I didn't know he dated Barbera Streisand.
As to his first product what has he really developed from scratch ever. DOS was simply a fork of CPM and that he got cheap and exploited to the hilt. Since then I can not think of a single scratch idea through code and release that BG ever created. I think he is more Borg than man assimilating whatever and whoever can not stand up to him.
I've heard people claim that BOB was his greatest innovation. I keep a copy on a laptop to show people. -- Collector of vintage computers http://www.ncf.ca/~ba600 Open Source Weekend http://www.osw.ca
On Saturday 12 November 2005 06:07 pm, Mike wrote:
As to his first product what has he really developed from scratch ever. DOS was simply a fork of CPM and that he got cheap and exploited to the hilt. Since then I can not think of a single scratch idea through code and release that BG ever created. I think he is more Borg than man assimilating whatever and whoever can not stand up to him.
I've heard people claim that BOB was his greatest innovation. I keep a copy on a laptop to show people.
His wife was really the champion of BOB.....
Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Saturday 12 November 2005 06:07 pm, Mike wrote:
As to his first product what has he really developed from scratch ever. DOS was simply a fork of CPM and that he got cheap and exploited to the hilt. Since then I can not think of a single scratch idea through code and release that BG ever created. I think he is more Borg than man assimilating whatever and whoever can not stand up to him. I've heard people claim that BOB was his greatest innovation. I keep a copy on a laptop to show people.
His wife was really the champion of BOB.....
Wasn't her name Ms. Dos? ;-)
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 07:07:58PM -0400, Mike wrote:
On November 11, 2005 9:36 pm, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 13:01 -0500, James Knott wrote:
Allen wrote:
I'm 22. I got my first computer when I was 17 / 18. I'm just good with history.
So, what was Bill Gates' first product (besides BS)?
I didn't know he dated Barbera Streisand.
As to his first product what has he really developed from scratch ever. DOS was simply a fork of CPM and that he got cheap and exploited to the hilt. Since then I can not think of a single scratch idea through code and release that BG ever created. I think he is more Borg than man assimilating whatever and whoever can not stand up to him.
I've heard people claim that BOB was his greatest innovation. I keep a copy on a laptop to show people.
That and Windows ME are the to biggest flops gates has ever done. Unless he needs Viagra, but those flop pretty bad lol. I've seen Bob, I can't imagine why it didn't sell! lol. I know why, back when it was release steep requirements meant something to people. -Allen.
-- Collector of vintage computers http://www.ncf.ca/~ba600 Open Source Weekend http://www.osw.ca
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 12:41 -0500, Allen wrote:
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 07:07:58PM -0400, Mike wrote:
On November 11, 2005 9:36 pm, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 13:01 -0500, James Knott wrote:
Allen wrote:
I'm 22. I got my first computer when I was 17 / 18. I'm just good with history.
So, what was Bill Gates' first product (besides BS)?
I didn't know he dated Barbera Streisand.
As to his first product what has he really developed from scratch ever. DOS was simply a fork of CPM and that he got cheap and exploited to the hilt. Since then I can not think of a single scratch idea through code and release that BG ever created. I think he is more Borg than man assimilating whatever and whoever can not stand up to him.
I've heard people claim that BOB was his greatest innovation. I keep a copy on a laptop to show people.
That and Windows ME are the to biggest flops gates has ever done. Unless he needs Viagra, but those flop pretty bad lol.
ME (which is the version of that other OS that I run,) is the biggest reason I started looking at Linux. So thank you MicroSoft for giving me the need to look elsewhere. As for Bob? Well, I'll pass.
I've seen Bob, I can't imagine why it didn't sell! lol. I know why, back when it was release steep requirements meant something to people.
I can imagine. Mike -- who passed up a 50/50 ticket whose first prize was for a non-upgrade Professional Office-2003.
On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 19:07 -0400, Mike wrote:
On November 11, 2005 9:36 pm, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 13:01 -0500, James Knott wrote:
Allen wrote:
I'm 22. I got my first computer when I was 17 / 18. I'm just good with history.
So, what was Bill Gates' first product (besides BS)?
I didn't know he dated Barbera Streisand.
As to his first product what has he really developed from scratch ever. DOS was simply a fork of CPM and that he got cheap and exploited to the hilt. Since then I can not think of a single scratch idea through code and release that BG ever created. I think he is more Borg than man assimilating whatever and whoever can not stand up to him.
I've heard people claim that BOB was his greatest innovation. I keep a copy on a laptop to show people.
Spelling error there are two letter O in that name. -- ___ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ | | | | [__ | | | |___ |_|_| ___] | \/
On Friday 11 November 2005 14:38, Ian Marlier wrote:
You know, with each e-mail in this thread, the same thought comes to the front of my mind...
y'all be old!
Depends on your definition. I'm either relatively young, middle aged, or totally archaic, depending on who you ask How old are you then?
From: Anders Johansson
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:22:35 +0100 To: Subject: Re: [SLE] Gnome disappointment On Friday 11 November 2005 14:38, Ian Marlier wrote:
You know, with each e-mail in this thread, the same thought comes to the front of my mind...
y'all be old!
Depends on your definition. I'm either relatively young, middle aged, or totally archaic, depending on who you ask
How old are you then?
nolo contendere. Very young.
On Friday 11 November 2005 08:33 am, Bjorn Tore Sund wrote:
Original vi is a front-end to ex, not ed. This is one of the things that made it the one full-screen editor which could work on documents much bigger than what you could hold in RAM, it was/is actually a line-editor which acted like a file editor.
Things were a lot more fun in those days...
When I began my computer science program in the early 90s I was expected to access systems running such editors (the one I remember was kind of a hybrid ed/vi thing with a single input line, but full screen display) through a DOS tty emulation. No one seemed to know how it worked, nor how it was supposed to work. So, add to the intuitive, user friendly nature of ed the coherence of using it through a dialup connection with a terminal emulation program that remaps the control characters, and documentation that describes using the editor from a real VT100. You want fun, you got fun. These days my only problem is recognizing which interface I'm in. Switching between Mathematica(Emacs on steroids), Emacs, Vi(in a pinch), Mozilla, Konqueror, KMail, bash, etc. can really get confusing after coding for about 18 hours. I think my favorite is C-w. In Emacs it's a cut into the kill ring, in just about everything else it's a close window. I've closed a lot of windows that way. And then there's C-z...M-S-Tab...grumble... Steven
Allen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 04:50:04PM +0000, Dave Howorth wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 11:01 -0500, Allen wrote:
What you do the small speed boost may not matter, but in the 80s my teacher was writing code for the 68K processor and you couldn't use C for that. Not sure what you mean here? It was and is certainly possible to use C on the 68000. Just one example was a machine called the 'Unicorn' from a company here in the UK called Torch. It not only ran a C compiler, it's native operating system was Unix.
Weird. They had to use Assembler for pretty much everything. They used those processors and.... I don't even know which OS, but they had a lot of Unix.
He told me back when he did this that Vi would only show one line at a time and you'd have like thousands of lines of code and have to check something a few lines up so you'd have to give the command to view it up in that area or something.
Perhaps he didn't know what he was talking about. Wouldn't be the first or last time that happened.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 09:21:28PM -0500, James Knott wrote:
Allen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 04:50:04PM +0000, Dave Howorth wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 11:01 -0500, Allen wrote:
What you do the small speed boost may not matter, but in the 80s my teacher was writing code for the 68K processor and you couldn't use C for that. Not sure what you mean here? It was and is certainly possible to use C on the 68000. Just one example was a machine called the 'Unicorn' from a company here in the UK called Torch. It not only ran a C compiler, it's native operating system was Unix.
Weird. They had to use Assembler for pretty much everything. They used those processors and.... I don't even know which OS, but they had a lot of Unix.
He told me back when he did this that Vi would only show one line at a time and you'd have like thousands of lines of code and have to check something a few lines up so you'd have to give the command to view it up in that area or something.
Perhaps he didn't know what he was talking about. Wouldn't be the first or last time that happened.
Mmmmm, usually I'd say yes to this, but this guy is one of the most intelligent computer people I've ever met. He has like no arrogance about him, but he knows he's not an idiot either. We get along good and I should check with him about when the dates were where Vi did this supposedly. I know Vi is "Visual" ed, but the first versions of it maybe did only do one line at a time. Not positive about that though. -Allen.
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
Allen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 04:50:04PM +0000, Dave Howorth wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 11:01 -0500, Allen wrote:
What you do the small speed boost may not matter, but in the 80s my teacher was writing code for the 68K processor and you couldn't use C for
Since earliest days of Unix -- vi was/is a screen editor; ed, a line at a time tool. (see edlin in earliest PC DOS) Wouldn't you love to have earliest edition of Brian W. Kernighan/Rob Pike "The Unix Programming Environment" or Brian W. Kernighan/Dennis M. Ritchie "The C Programming Language" Somewhere around here is a Ken Thompson masterpiece - and to clear up an earlier item: Ken Thompson, in 1969, began writing the Unix kernel (a small general purpose time sharing-system) on salvaged DEC PDP-7 store room junk. By 1970, C development was started on a PDP-11, and by 1973, the kernel had been rewritten in C by Dennis M. Ritchie and Ken Thompson and compiled with Dennis M. Ritchie's C Compiler. In 1974 Unix was first licensed to universities "for educational purposes." Lonn C. Dugan -----Original Message----- From: Allen [mailto:gorebofh@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 22:05 To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] Gnome disappointment On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 09:21:28PM -0500, James Knott wrote: that.
Not sure what you mean here? It was and is certainly possible to use C on the 68000. Just one example was a machine called the 'Unicorn' from a company here in the UK called Torch. It not only ran a C compiler, it's native operating system was Unix.
Weird. They had to use Assembler for pretty much everything. They used those processors and.... I don't even know which OS, but they had a lot of Unix.
He told me back when he did this that Vi would only show one line at a time and you'd have like thousands of lines of code and have to check something a few lines up so you'd have to give the command to view it up in that area or something.
Perhaps he didn't know what he was talking about. Wouldn't be the first or last time that happened.
Mmmmm, usually I'd say yes to this, but this guy is one of the most intelligent computer people I've ever met. He has like no arrogance about him, but he knows he's not an idiot either. We get along good and I should check with him about when the dates were where Vi did this supposedly. I know Vi is "Visual" ed, but the first versions of it maybe did only do one line at a time. Not positive about that though. -Allen.
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
Lonn, On Thursday 10 November 2005 19:50, Lonn Dugan wrote:
Since earliest days of Unix -- vi was/is a screen editor; ed, a line at a time tool. (see edlin in earliest PC DOS) Wouldn't you love to have earliest edition of Brian W. Kernighan/Rob Pike "The Unix Programming Environment" or Brian W. Kernighan/Dennis M. Ritchie "The C Programming Language"
Who says I don't? I've even got a copy of the University of New South Wales annotated version 6 kernel sources!! I doubt there's many of them floating around any more.
Somewhere around here is a Ken Thompson masterpiece - and to clear up an earlier item: Ken Thompson, in 1969, began writing the Unix kernel (a small general purpose time sharing-system) on salvaged DEC PDP-7 store room junk. By 1970, C development was started on a PDP-11, and by 1973, the kernel had been rewritten in C by Dennis M. Ritchie and Ken Thompson and compiled with Dennis M. Ritchie's C Compiler. In 1974 Unix was first licensed to universities "for educational purposes."
And the rest, as they say, is history (some of it yet unwritten, of course). And boy, would today's users whine and carp if they had to use version 6 or 7 Unix.
Lonn C. Dugan
RRS
On 11/10/05, Lonn Dugan
Lonn C. Dugan
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 09:21:28PM -0500, James Knott wrote:
Allen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 04:50:04PM +0000, Dave Howorth wrote: He told me back when he did this that Vi would only show one line at a time and you'd have like thousands of lines of code and have to check something a few lines up so you'd have to give the command to view it up in that area or something.
Perhaps he didn't know what he was talking about. Wouldn't be the first or last time that happened.
Mmmmm, usually I'd say yes to this, but this guy is one of the most intelligent computer people I've ever met. He has like no arrogance about him, but he knows he's not an idiot either. We get along good and I should check with him about when the dates were where Vi did this supposedly.
I know Vi is "Visual" ed, but the first versions of it maybe did only do one line at a time. Not positive about that though.
-Allen.
I haven't tried in a while, but last I knew VI still went into single line mode if you have an unsupported terminal. Not sure what other option it has. I've personally never had this happen with VIM, but that could be because I've never used VIM from a dumb terminal. IIRC, it has been a number of years (10-15) since I used a dumb terminal for anything. Greg -- Greg Freemyer The Norcross Group Forensics for the 21st Century
* Greg Freemyer
IIRC, it has been a number of years (10-15) since I used a dumb terminal for anything.
:^) my terminal has been dumb for at least that long and it seems to be in ?good? company :^) -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
Lonn Dugan wrote:
Since earliest days of Unix -- vi was/is a screen editor; ed, a line at a time tool. (see edlin in earliest PC DOS) Wouldn't you love to have earliest edition of Brian W. Kernighan/Rob Pike "The Unix Programming Environment" or Brian W. Kernighan/Dennis M. Ritchie "The C Programming Language"
Holy mackerel! Don't you ever compare ed (a line editor that could basically do everything except making coffee) with edlin (a line editor that could basically do nothing). Ed was designed with a teletype in mind (the pre-crt stage of computing) edlin was designed without anything in mind. Editing with edlin was editing with both hands tied behind your back and you had to type with your nose. Yikes! -- Jos van Kan registered Linux user #152704
Jos van Kan wrote:
Lonn Dugan wrote:
Since earliest days of Unix -- vi was/is a screen editor; ed, a line at a time tool. (see edlin in earliest PC DOS) Wouldn't you love to have earliest edition of Brian W. Kernighan/Rob Pike "The Unix Programming Environment" or Brian W. Kernighan/Dennis M. Ritchie "The C Programming Language"
Holy mackerel! Don't you ever compare ed (a line editor that could basically do everything except making coffee) with edlin (a line editor that could basically do nothing).
Ed was designed with a teletype in mind (the pre-crt stage of computing) edlin was designed without anything in mind. Editing with edlin was editing with both hands tied behind your back and you had to type with your nose.
The line editor (Ed?) included with Pr1me computers was worse than Edlin. I have never seen an editor as bad as that one.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 12:59:18PM -0500, James Knott wrote:
Jos van Kan wrote:
Lonn Dugan wrote:
Since earliest days of Unix -- vi was/is a screen editor; ed, a line at a time tool. (see edlin in earliest PC DOS) Wouldn't you love to have earliest edition of Brian W. Kernighan/Rob Pike "The Unix Programming Environment" or Brian W. Kernighan/Dennis M. Ritchie "The C Programming Language"
Holy mackerel! Don't you ever compare ed (a line editor that could basically do everything except making coffee) with edlin (a line editor that could basically do nothing).
Ed was designed with a teletype in mind (the pre-crt stage of computing) edlin was designed without anything in mind. Editing with edlin was editing with both hands tied behind your back and you had to type with your nose.
The line editor (Ed?) included with Pr1me computers was worse than Edlin. I have never seen an editor as bad as that one.
You've never used WordPad or Word have you? -Allen
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
Allen wrote:
The line editor (Ed?) included with Pr1me computers was worse than Edlin. I have never seen an editor as bad as that one.
You've never used WordPad or Word have you?
Yes, I've used both and they're fantastic, compared with that Pr1me editor. It was a line editor and IIRC, you could only use relative line number, not aboslute, other that the 1st and last lines. So, if you were working on line 29 and you wanted to work on line 12, you'd have to jump -17 lines. You couldn't just jump to line 12. There were many other oddities, which I have (thankfully) long since forgotten.
On Friday 11 November 2005 2:04 pm, James Knott wrote:
Yes, I've used both and they're fantastic, compared with that Pr1me editor. It was a line editor and IIRC, you could only use relative line number, not aboslute, other that the 1st and last lines. So, if you were working on line 29 and you wanted to work on line 12, you'd have to jump -17 lines. You couldn't just jump to line 12. There were many other oddities, which I have (thankfully) long since forgotten. I did a bit of work on a Pr1me years ago, but I couldn't help soiling myself each time :-) -- Jerry Feldman
Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
There aren't any files in the universe that you "have to" edit with vi.
It's just a text editor. You might want to use it if you:
a) know it well (like many of us do, which probably accounts for it's
continued popularity)
b) can't find anything better that's ready to hand
c) need a feature that you know how to use in vi but don't know how to
use in anything else.
As to system files that might make you believe you have to edit them
with vi, there are two reasons that spring to mind:
1) In the old days, with heavily partitioned systems, you would
sometimes find yourself with a sick Unix system booted to single user
and the need to repair a config file. In this situation, you were often
only able to make vi work--and then usually in ex (line) mode. That's a
reason why most sysadmins know vi; it's the one thing they can be sure
of (well, after death and taxes anyway)
2) vi allows editing of files that include non-printing characters.
That's nothing special, but many "pure" text editors don't give you any
mechanism to insert control codes. This is really not something you'll
need often, and even if you do, vi is not the only editor capable of
this, just one of them.
$0.02,
Simon (~20 year vi user)
--- Jerry Feldman
On Friday 11 November 2005 2:04 pm, James Knott wrote:
Yes, I've used both and they're fantastic, compared with that Pr1me editor. It was a line editor and IIRC, you could only use relative line number, not aboslute, other that the 1st and last lines. So, if you were working on line 29 and you wanted to work on line 12, you'd have to jump -17 lines. You couldn't just jump to line 12. There were many other oddities, which I have (thankfully) long since forgotten. I did a bit of work on a Pr1me years ago, but I couldn't help soiling myself each time :-) -- Jerry Feldman
Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
"You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions." Naguib Mahfouz __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com
On Friday 11 November 2005 02:29 pm, Simon Roberts wrote:
There aren't any files in the universe that you "have to" edit with vi. It's just a text editor. You might want to use it if you:
a) know it well (like many of us do, which probably accounts for it's continued popularity) b) can't find anything better that's ready to hand c) need a feature that you know how to use in vi but don't know how to use in anything else.
d) You're on a strange or brand new *nix system. vi is almost always the only editor you can count on being there.
On Friday 11 November 2005 3:36 pm, Bruce Marshall wrote
d) You're on a strange or brand new *nix system. vi is almost always the only editor you can count on being there.
I believe that's the case in the SuSE rescue system, and it's unfortunate. There are other simple editors around and it wouldn't be hard to include one of them, but it's not something that I as a user can do. Paul
On Friday 11 November 2005 03:45 pm, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 3:36 pm, Bruce Marshall wrote
d) You're on a strange or brand new *nix system. vi is almost always the
only
editor you can count on being there.
I believe that's the case in the SuSE rescue system, and it's unfortunate. There are other simple editors around and it wouldn't be hard to include one of them, but it's not something that I as a user can do.
Paul
vi is a standard of sorts... get used to it. I don't use it on a regular basis and I only know how to do real simple visual editing with it. But it gets me by when putting up a fresh install of SuSE, or using the rescue system, or Tom's root boot. (I'm sure he'd be willing to put the editor of your choice on that floppy... <NOT> )
On Friday 11 November 2005 4:01 pm, Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 03:45 pm, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
d) You're on a strange or brand new *nix system. vi is almost always the only editor you can count on being there.
I believe that's the case in the SuSE rescue system, and it's unfortunate. There are other simple editors around and it wouldn't be hard to include one of them, but it's not something that I as a user can do.
vi is a standard of sorts... get used to it.
I agree that it's a standard, but it's an ill-chosen one. It wouldn't be all that hard for SuSE and others to include pico or some other more modern editor as well -- the space it takes is, I'm pretty sure, trivial. This is a case of tradition triumphing over rationality. For another example of obsolete tradition, look at the manpage of stty. Paul
On Fri November 11 2005 5:15 pm, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
vi is a standard of sorts... get used to it.
I agree that it's a standard, but it's an ill-chosen one. It wouldn't be all that hard for SuSE and others to include pico or some other more modern editor as well -- the space it takes is, I'm pretty sure, trivial. This is a case of tradition triumphing over rationality. maybe during the install process you could choose youe editor, not a bad idea..
For another example of obsolete tradition, look at the manpage of stty.
loook at almost ANY man page, and a windows person would run screaming back to a DOS prompt! -- Paul Cartwright Registered Linux user # 367800 X-Request-PGP: http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-pcartwright/key.asc
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 05:15:31PM -0500, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 4:01 pm, Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 03:45 pm, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
d) You're on a strange or brand new *nix system. vi is almost always the only editor you can count on being there.
I believe that's the case in the SuSE rescue system, and it's unfortunate. There are other simple editors around and it wouldn't be hard to include one of them, but it's not something that I as a user can do.
vi is a standard of sorts... get used to it.
I agree that it's a standard, but it's an ill-chosen one. It wouldn't be all that hard for SuSE and others to include pico or some other more modern editor as well -- the space it takes is, I'm pretty sure, trivial. This is a case of tradition triumphing over rationality.
For another example of obsolete tradition, look at the manpage of stty.
Is it REALLY that hard to remember pressing i for instering text, hitting escape and then :wq to save and exit? And if you screw up hitting escape and then :q! to leave without saving? You made this out to sound like Vi only let you use it if you could speak 7 languages and knew Binary... -Allen
Paul
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
On Saturday 12 Nov 2005 01:06, Allen wrote: pruned
Is it REALLY that hard to remember pressing i for instering text, hitting escape and then :wq to save and exit? And if you screw up hitting escape and then :q! to leave without saving?
joe beats the crap out of vi , ed , edlin ..
You made this out to sound like Vi only let you use it if you could speak 7 languages and knew Binary...
-Allen
Paul
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
Pete . -- If Bill Gates had gotten LAID at High School do YOU think there would be a Microsoft ? Of course NOT ! You gotta spend a lot of time at your school Locker stuffing underware up your ass to think , I am going to take on the worlds Computer Industry -------:heard on Cyber Radio.:------- AFFA
On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 11:11 +0000, Peter Nikolic wrote:
On Saturday 12 Nov 2005 01:06, Allen wrote: pruned
Is it REALLY that hard to remember pressing i for instering text, hitting escape and then :wq to save and exit? And if you screw up hitting escape and then :q! to leave without saving?
joe beats the crap out of vi , ed , edlin ..
That's the one I'm missing. I had Joe on with 8.2, and really liked it. I'll have to see if there's a copy for 10.0-GM
You made this out to sound like Vi only let you use it if you could speak 7 languages and knew Binary...
-Allen
Paul
Pete .
Mike
That's the one I'm missing. I had Joe on with 8.2, and really liked it. I'll have to see if there's a copy for 10.0-GM
You made this out to sound like Vi only let you use it if you could speak 7 languages and knew Binary...
-Allen
Paul
Pete .
Mike I just tried man joe and it gave me info, then I tried just joe from
On Sat November 12 2005 2:29 pm, Mike McMullin wrote: the command line and it opened up a new window! Version 3.3 Paul ( the other Paul) -- Paul Cartwright Registered Linux user # 367800 X-Request-PGP: http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-pcartwright/key.asc
joeOn Sat, 2005-11-12 at 14:45 -0500, Paul Cartwright wrote:
That's the one I'm missing. I had Joe on with 8.2, and really liked it. I'll have to see if there's a copy for 10.0-GM
You made this out to sound like Vi only let you use it if you could speak 7 languages and knew Binary...
-Allen
Paul
Pete .
Mike I just tried man joe and it gave me info, then I tried just joe from
On Sat November 12 2005 2:29 pm, Mike McMullin wrote: the command line and it opened up a new window! Version 3.3
Yes I found it on my system as well. I'm impressed with 10.0 so far. Some niggles, one major pita, no mp3 in xmms. :( My slow 9.3 box has disappeared to be replaced with a very responsive 10.0 box.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Friday 2005-11-11 at 20:06 -0500, Allen wrote:
Is it REALLY that hard to remember pressing i for instering text, hitting escape and then :wq to save and exit? And if you screw up hitting escape and then :q! to leave without saving?
It may not be so difficult to remember those things... if you ever knew those things, to start with. I remember the first time I tried vi and could even exit from it. With many other "user friendly" editors there is some kind of menu or help line to get you started at least. It is not the best editor for novices in this time and age: that's why the suse rescue system nowdays also includes 'joe'. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFDdekAtTMYHG2NR9URAv8lAKCQjZdemfLznHTM/oIqo9+fiOzRfQCgglru pULP4YIEM+BnAfpSk7h2c48= =yrw5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Saturday 2005-11-12 at 14:07 +0100, I wrote:
It may not be so difficult to remember those things... if you ever knew those things, to start with. I remember the first time I tried vi and could even exit from it.
Errata: I meant "could _not_ even exit" - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFDdyiOtTMYHG2NR9URAhniAJ411xKzmpCLw6suYk8gE+uIAW+mggCgktRn 8CQSvlgrl4VulgGyiuxlyjM= =5yc0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 11/12/05 8:07 AM, "Carlos E. R."
I remember the first time I tried vi and could even exit from it.
ROFLOL And I thought it was me! OK, I admit...it was the first few times...(maybe more) ;) -- Thanks, George If there is no monitor, it's an Apple ASIP server. If there is a dusty stool sitting in front of it, it's a Linux server If there is a comfortable chair and several coffee cup stains in front of it, it's an NT server. If no one can remember where the server is, it's a Novell server. If there is a high paid network admin contractor, comfortable chair, several coffee cup stains sitting in front of it, it's a Apple OSX server.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Sunday 2005-11-13 at 10:49 -0500, suse_gasjr4wd@mac.com wrote:
I remember the first time I tried vi and could even exit from it.
ROFLOL
And I thought it was me!
OK, I admit...it was the first few times...(maybe more) ;)
I was using Linux through a telnet session, I think, and I had to kill it, in windows. Then open another and check the manual or something. Made me think that Linux had some very obsolete programs, that required you to study the manual before using them, and learning an awkward interface. Not funny. I persevered, and finally installed Linux on my own PC, but... I had my doubts at the time. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFDd6KTtTMYHG2NR9URAvCcAJ94FOJtP8K/hNHsz2ZD3ciQC42RtgCeKBIh RKsKyacrrPyeZ4Ige7eIcXE= =uFyh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Friday 11 November 2005 5:15 pm, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
I agree that it's a standard, but it's an ill-chosen one. This is your opinion. I'm sure that others disagree. -- Jerry Feldman
Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Monday 2005-11-14 at 09:16 -0500, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 5:15 pm, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
I agree that it's a standard, but it's an ill-chosen one.
This is your opinion. I'm sure that others disagree.
And others will agree :-) - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFDePr0tTMYHG2NR9URAgz4AJ4lReYKBajtlfQgh+LX6XtgIk6OQgCfWUbH 1qbHhjTQhDjdx5rhF2X0FWg= =WjzB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 5:15 pm, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
I agree that it's a standard, but it's an ill-chosen one. This is your opinion. I'm sure that others disagree.
This is your opinion. I'm sure that others disagree. ;-)
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 18:58 -0500, James Knott wrote:
Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 5:15 pm, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
I agree that it's a standard, but it's an ill-chosen one. This is your opinion. I'm sure that others disagree.
This is your opinion. I'm sure that others disagree. ;-)
Sure: http://thomer.com/vi/vi.html -- pgp-id: 926EBB12 pgp-fingerprint: BE97 1CBF FAC4 236C 4A73 F76E EDFC D032 926E BB12 Registered linux user: 75761 (http://counter.li.org)
On Wednesday 16 November 2005 3:10 am, Hans Witvliet wrote:
This is your opinion. I'm sure that others disagree. ;-)
Sure: http://thomer.com/vi/vi.html One statement that Thomer makes in the above web site is "Which editor to use is mainly a matter of taste, style, and needs". In any case, I plan to see if I can get him to come to some of our BLU meetings.
--
Jerry Feldman
On Friday 11 November 2005 3:45 pm, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
I believe that's the case in the SuSE rescue system, and it's unfortunate. There are other simple editors around and it wouldn't be hard to include one of them, but it's not something that I as a user can do. Vi has effectively been the standard editor for both Unix and Linux systems since AT&T included in System III. it does the job and it is on virtually every Unix and Linux system. I don't think that SuSE wants to get into an editor war especially since the Novell HQ is within easy reach of RMS. (And Ximian is in his back yard). -- Jerry Feldman
Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
On Friday 11 November 2005 4:09 pm, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 3:45 pm, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
I believe that's the case in the SuSE rescue system, and it's unfortunate. There are other simple editors around and it wouldn't be hard to include one of them, but it's not something that I as a user can do. Vi has effectively been the standard editor for both Unix and Linux systems since AT&T included in System III. it does the job and it is on virtually every Unix and Linux system. I don't think that SuSE wants to get into an editor war especially since the Novell HQ is within easy reach of RMS. (And Ximian is in his back yard).
I don't think anyone would argue that vi isn't the standard editor. My point is that it's an ill-chosen and obsolete one, especially since it's so easy to include a second one as a more rational choice. That would make everyone happy, including those who believe that vi is indeed perfection incarnate. Paul
On Friday 11 November 2005 05:49 pm, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
I don't think anyone would argue that vi isn't the standard editor. My point is that it's an ill-chosen and obsolete one, especially since it's so easy to include a second one as a more rational choice. That would make everyone happy, including those who believe that vi is indeed perfection incarnate.
I don't think vi is anything.... it's just a tool that is small and is on most *nix systems and is an emergency tool. As such it's like a can-opener. A standard that you can find almost anywhere. As an emergency tool, it can run on almost any system, including Tom's rootboot which is a really handy tool to carry around in your pocket. If you want to have <your fav editor> available... any time... put it on a floppy and use it wherever you happen to be. Nobody is stopping you from doing that. Enjoy....
On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 09:04 +0100, Kaare Rasmussen wrote:
I don't think anyone would argue that vi isn't the standard editor. My point is that it's an ill-chosen and obsolete one, especially since it's so
You can call vi many things. You can't call it obsolete.
Well, if a linux box doesn't have vi I battle to use it. vi is both simple and complicated, it does the quick edit very effiently and it can do the complicated task that even programmers require, I support over 1000 System with it remotley, and have tried many other programs. Not are quick and easy enough to for me. vi filename <ins> edit file nav with arrow keys jump up and down (LOL) with page up and down <shift>:wq to save an quit There are tone of features that I jst can't do with out like dw delete word d3000 clears from here to the end of a file yy yank a line and press p to paste more and more and more basically I have proven it so many times, to coloegues and friends, that I can build webpages and config files and readme faster than they can in any other editor.. maybe I am a vi man, who knows... my 2c Chadley
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Friday 2005-11-11 at 15:45 -0500, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 3:36 pm, Bruce Marshall wrote
d) You're on a strange or brand new *nix system. vi is almost always the only editor you can count on being there.
I believe that's the case in the SuSE rescue system, and it's unfortunate. There are other simple editors around and it wouldn't be hard to include one of them, but it's not something that I as a user can do.
The SuSE rescue system contains 'joe', but not it's alias like 'jstar' (a symlink). At least in 9.3 it does. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFDdee7tTMYHG2NR9URAo7FAJ9dhHNKRWHFZ7LeaGuZMYFkteljowCaAojX V5nxPBA2seS/PBBMK09Rwz8= =2Ojf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Friday 11 November 2005 2:29 pm, Simon Roberts wrote:
2) vi allows editing of files that include non-printing characters. That's nothing special, but many "pure" text editors don't give you any mechanism to insert control codes. This is really not something you'll need often, and even if you do, vi is not the only editor capable of this, just one of them. As does EMACS. And, I agree.
One of the real beauties of Unix and Linux is that virtually every
configuration file is text and may be edited with just about any text
editor, even notepad running under WINE.
Essentially, Bill Joy and associates wanted a better editor and wrote one.
On the East Coast, Stallman wrote EMACS in 1975 as a set of macros around
the TECO editor.
http://www.softpanorama.org/Editors/humor.shtml
It has been written, that on the day of the Great Editor War, the peace
is shattered by an unprovoked attack by nvi on Emacs. Emacs strikes
back, sending viper out to annihilate vile, while repelling the continued
attacks from nvi without sweat, until XEmacs and jed join forces in
another attack on Emacs. Emacs is crushed, but XEmacs is seriously
wounded in the battle, and unable to defend itself when Crisp, XCoral,
and nedit all attacks at the same time. Meanwhile, jed, although less
severely harmed from the battle, find itself facing a formidable opposition
in the form of µEmacs, mg, joe, freemacs, and notGNU, who all join the
battle now. nvi, now with perl as an extension language, tries to claim
the now vacant title as The Mother of All Editors, but is immediately
attacked by vim, elvis, sam, and wily.
The battle continues, drawing in more and more editors, even obscure
presumed dead editors like xedit, teco, and tpu/edt, until finally a single
survivor emerges, pico, which has meanwhile been bought by Bill Gates,
renamed to MS Edit, and stripped for all the advanced features that just
confused the users.
So the answer, my friend, is to learn pico now and get rich on
consulting once MS Edit becomes the accepted industry standard.
--
Jerry Feldman
On Friday 11 November 2005 3:37 pm, Jerry Feldman wrote:
The battle continues, drawing in more and more editors, even obscure presumed dead editors like xedit, teco, and tpu/edt, until finally a single survivor emerges, pico, which has meanwhile been bought by Bill Gates, renamed to MS Edit, and stripped for all the advanced features that just confused the users.
So the answer, my friend, is to learn pico now and get rich on consulting once MS Edit becomes the accepted industry standard.
I didn't realize that MS Edit, which I think is a good replacement for vi, is just pico. Now if only SuSE/Novell would put it on the installation DVD rescue system ... Paul
I didn't realize that MS Edit, which I think is a good replacement for vi, is just pico. Now if only SuSE/Novell would put it on the installation DVD rescue system ... Ah, yes. And then Novell would be required to add the Microsoft EULA on
On Friday 11 November 2005 3:48 pm, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
their distros :-)
--
Jerry Feldman
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 04:05:06PM -0500, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 3:48 pm, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
I didn't realize that MS Edit, which I think is a good replacement for vi, is just pico. Now if only SuSE/Novell would put it on the installation DVD rescue system ... Ah, yes. And then Novell would be required to add the Microsoft EULA on their distros :-)
Don't forget how nice it would be when an admin tries to use Rescue and wonders why Vi isn't loading *Sigh*. Like they said if you don't like Vi, put little pico on a floppy, and stick it in. -Allen.
-- Jerry Feldman
Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
On Friday 11 November 2005 03:48 pm, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
I didn't realize that MS Edit, which I think is a good replacement for vi, is just pico. Now if only SuSE/Novell would put it on the installation DVD rescue system ...
Use your own system (which is possible 99% of the time) 1) boot the rescue system 2) login as root (no password) 3) mount /dev/hda? /mnt (mount your root partition) 4) chroot /mnt And you can use pico to your hearts content if it was installed. So what's the problem?
On Friday 11 November 2005 4:05 pm, Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 03:48 pm, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
I didn't realize that MS Edit, which I think is a good replacement for vi, is just pico. Now if only SuSE/Novell would put it on the installation DVD rescue system ...
Use your own system (which is possible 99% of the time)
1) boot the rescue system 2) login as root (no password) 3) mount /dev/hda? /mnt (mount your root partition) 4) chroot /mnt
And you can use pico to your hearts content if it was installed.
So what's the problem?
Maybe my hard drive is on life support!! Actually, whenever I can I mount the root partition, just as you recommend, and use Emacs. Paul
I remember xedit from Cal Poly SLO i think it was on the Poly Cyber system. Its installed but there are no man pages and my old notes from then are gone. Does anyone have a url? -- ___ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ | | | | [__ | | | |___ |_|_| ___] | \/
On Friday 11 November 2005 09:22 pm, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
I remember xedit from Cal Poly SLO i think it was on the Poly Cyber system. Its installed but there are no man pages and my old notes from then are gone.
Does anyone have a url?
There are man pages for it on 10.0
On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 10:12 -0500, Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 09:22 pm, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
I remember xedit from Cal Poly SLO i think it was on the Poly Cyber system. Its installed but there are no man pages and my old notes from then are gone.
Does anyone have a url?
There are man pages for it on 10.0
Not apparently on 9.2. If you could capture them and send off list it would be apreciated. Perhaps its 10.0 time but on the other machine. But for now its 9.2 all the way. -- ___ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ | | | | [__ | | | |___ |_|_| ___] | \/
Holy mackerel! Don't you ever compare ed (a line editor that could basically do everything except making coffee) with edlin (a line editor that could basically do nothing). True :-) Ed was designed with a teletype in mind (the pre-crt stage of computing) Ken Thompson et. al. built Unix with teletype interface, and ed was the default line editor on Unix. Glass terminals (simply glass tty) were just starting to come out in the late '60s. By the time Bill Joy started writing vi, VT100 type terminals were common. Termcap and curses were really very
On Friday 11 November 2005 12:24 pm, Jos van Kan wrote:
powerful features that Unix had where other proprietary OSs at the time
were tied to a limited number of terminals.
it was interesting that when the PC came out, it really had no support for
color or any of the more interesting stuff that its competitors, like
Apple, had. I think IBM had the view of the drab corporate desktop where
noone wanted color or graphics.
--
Jerry Feldman
Jerry Feldman wrote: .
it was interesting that when the PC came out, it really had no support for color or any of the more interesting stuff that its competitors, like Apple, had. I think IBM had the view of the drab corporate desktop where noone wanted color or graphics.
The original PC supported colour. Green IIRC. ;-)
On Friday 11 November 2005 2:06 pm, James Knott wrote:
Jerry Feldman wrote:
.
it was interesting that when the PC came out, it really had no support for color or any of the more interesting stuff that its competitors, like Apple, had. I think IBM had the view of the drab corporate desktop where noone wanted color or graphics.
The original PC supported colour. Green IIRC. ;-) Henry Ford said about the Model T, "You can paint it any color, so long as it's black". -- Jerry Feldman
Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
On Friday 11 November 2005 14:24, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 2:06 pm, James Knott wrote:
Jerry Feldman wrote:
.
it was interesting that when the PC came out, it really had no support for color or any of the more interesting stuff that its competitors, like Apple, had. I think IBM had the view of the drab corporate desktop where noone wanted color or graphics.
The original PC supported colour. Green IIRC. ;-)
Henry Ford said about the Model T, "You can paint it any color, so long as it's black".
The PC supported CGA. 16 colours? Nick
CGA is not part of "original" IBM PC, though with the flattening effect
of distant perspective, it might seem like that.
Cheers,
Simon
--- Nick Zentena
On Friday 11 November 2005 14:24, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 2:06 pm, James Knott wrote:
Jerry Feldman wrote:
.
it was interesting that when the PC came out, it really had no support for color or any of the more interesting stuff that its competitors, like Apple, had. I think IBM had the view of the drab corporate desktop where noone wanted color or graphics.
The original PC supported colour. Green IIRC. ;-)
Henry Ford said about the Model T, "You can paint it any color, so long as it's black".
The PC supported CGA. 16 colours?
Nick
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
"You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions." Naguib Mahfouz __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
On Friday 11 November 2005 14:33, Simon Roberts wrote:
CGA is not part of "original" IBM PC, though with the flattening effect of distant perspective, it might seem like that.
Do you mean included in the basic PC? Or do you mean it was released later? I thought it came out at the same time. It was an added cost but then so was anything more then 16K memory-) Nick
Nick Zentena wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 14:33, Simon Roberts wrote:
CGA is not part of "original" IBM PC, though with the flattening effect of distant perspective, it might seem like that.
Do you mean included in the basic PC? Or do you mean it was released later? I thought it came out at the same time. It was an added cost but then so was anything more then 16K memory-)
The original IBM PC was monochrome only with CGA following later.
Nick Zentena wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 15:19, James Knott wrote:
The original IBM PC was monochrome only with CGA following later.
I don't think that's right. I remember the RF connector-)
IIRC, when the IBM PC was first released, only the monochrome card was available. The CGA card came out very shortly after.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Friday 2005-11-11 at 20:37 -0500, James Knott wrote:
The original IBM PC was monochrome only with CGA following later.
I don't think that's right. I remember the RF connector-)
IIRC, when the IBM PC was first released, only the monochrome card was available. The CGA card came out very shortly after.
I don't know when they were comercialized, but I just dug out the "Technical Reference" book of the IBM PC, first edition (Revised January 1983) and it documents both interfaces: IBM Monochrome Display and Parallel Printer Adapter 2-47 ... Color/Graphics Adapter 2-55 They were different cards. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFDdgMetTMYHG2NR9URAreHAJ9BB8yrDffIbrftHnQhrM2ikMzmlwCdHYOZ DMLraMWVWUNSjL5g+Nq0WEE= =3VQC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Carlos E. R. wrote:
The Friday 2005-11-11 at 20:37 -0500, James Knott wrote:
The original IBM PC was monochrome only with CGA following later.
I don't think that's right. I remember the RF connector-) IIRC, when the IBM PC was first released, only the monochrome card was available. The CGA card came out very shortly after.
I don't know when they were comercialized, but I just dug out the "Technical Reference" book of the IBM PC, first edition (Revised January 1983) and it documents both interfaces:
IBM Monochrome Display and Parallel Printer Adapter 2-47 ... Color/Graphics Adapter 2-55
They were different cards.
The "PC" was announced in August 1981 and went on sale in October. By 1983, the XT would have been available, IIRC.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Sunday 2005-11-13 at 08:54 -0500, James Knott wrote:
I don't know when they were comercialized, but I just dug out the "Technical Reference" book of the IBM PC, first edition (Revised January 1983) and it documents both interfaces:
IBM Monochrome Display and Parallel Printer Adapter 2-47 ... Color/Graphics Adapter 2-55
They were different cards.
The "PC" was announced in August 1981 and went on sale in October. By 1983, the XT would have been available, IIRC.
Even if that were so, which I don't know (after all, I don't/didn't live in the USA), that book was published by IBM that year and was for the PC only, no mention of the XT at all. And it documents the CGA card. And it is a reprint, thus there was an earlier print date. That documentation had much to do with the PC boom, it facilitated making cards, adaptors, clones, and software. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFDd1s5tTMYHG2NR9URAgE7AJwPGvz5G/kZKssc5WzwU0KxQ1EmVwCgjSLs hPc7bWsHBmrouz5of3uRg6g= =GmKq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Nick Zentena wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 14:24, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 2:06 pm, James Knott wrote:
Jerry Feldman wrote:
.
it was interesting that when the PC came out, it really had no support for color or any of the more interesting stuff that its competitors, like Apple, had. I think IBM had the view of the drab corporate desktop where noone wanted color or graphics. The original PC supported colour. Green IIRC. ;-) Henry Ford said about the Model T, "You can paint it any color, so long as it's black".
The PC supported CGA. 16 colours?
Nick
IIRC, when the IBM PC was first released, it supported only monochrome text. CGA came out slightly later.
On Friday 11 November 2005 2:28 pm, Nick Zentena wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 14:24, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 2:06 pm, James Knott wrote:
Jerry Feldman wrote:
.
it was interesting that when the PC came out, it really had no support for color or any of the more interesting stuff that its competitors, like Apple, had. I think IBM had the view of the drab corporate desktop where noone wanted color or graphics.
The original PC supported colour. Green IIRC. ;-)
Henry Ford said about the Model T, "You can paint it any color, so long as it's black".
The PC supported CGA. 16 colours? The original PC had a mono card in it. The color cards like CGA came shortlay afterward. -- Jerry Feldman
Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
On 11-Nov-05 James Knott wrote:
Jerry Feldman wrote:
.
it was interesting that when the PC came out, it really had no support for color or any of the more interesting stuff that its competitors, like Apple, had. I think IBM had the view of the drab corporate desktop where noone wanted color or graphics.
The original PC supported colour. Green IIRC. ;-)
As anyone who used cathode-ray oscilloscopes back on the 60s
knows, that colour was due to the green electrons.
Best wishes,
Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding)
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 14:06 -0500, James Knott wrote:
Jerry Feldman wrote:
.
it was interesting that when the PC came out, it really had no support for color or any of the more interesting stuff that its competitors, like Apple, had. I think IBM had the view of the drab corporate desktop where noone wanted color or graphics.
The original PC supported colour. Green IIRC. ;-)
Tandy Radio Shack offered brown or green as options on the Model 4P. -- ___ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ | | | | [__ | | | |___ |_|_| ___] | \/
Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 14:06 -0500, James Knott wrote:
Jerry Feldman wrote:
.
it was interesting that when the PC came out, it really had no support for color or any of the more interesting stuff that its competitors, like Apple, had. I think IBM had the view of the drab corporate desktop where noone wanted color or graphics. The original PC supported colour. Green IIRC. ;-)
Tandy Radio Shack offered brown or green as options on the Model 4P.
I believe you meant amber or green, as amber was becoming popular for monochrome screens.
On Friday 11 November 2005 9:23 pm, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
Tandy Radio Shack offered brown or green as options on the Model 4P.
The Apple II (II not IIE) supported 16 colors. You essentially used a
commercial TV as your monitor.
--
Jerry Feldman
Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Friday 11 November 2005 9:23 pm, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
Tandy Radio Shack offered brown or green as options on the Model 4P. The Apple II (II not IIE) supported 16 colors. You essentially used a commercial TV as your monitor.
When I first bought my IMSAI 8080, it had 1K of video memory configured as 16 line x 32 characters and used a portable B&W TV and video modulator. I then upgraded to a full 2K bytes and a direct connection to a security monitor, running at 16 x 64!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Friday 2005-11-11 at 18:24 +0100, Jos van Kan wrote:
Ed was designed with a teletype in mind (the pre-crt stage of computing) edlin was designed without anything in mind. Editing with edlin was editing with both hands tied behind your back and you had to type with your nose.
Edlin was a line editor, quite crude, but it "saved my life" once: it is possible to edit a file in a headless PC, with keyboard and printer only. Other operationg systems also had an editor equivalent (more or less) to edlin, designed to work with dumb terminals or teleprinters. The problem was not that dos included edlin, but that it only included edlin as an editor. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFDdgk/tTMYHG2NR9URAgwNAJ9j36QdwqLLSZ3iuL9i0lvsymMhlgCeKCab SyFKbJM+4KTb18p1LcrA12I= =n6QR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 10:50:59PM -0500, Lonn Dugan wrote:
Since earliest days of Unix -- vi was/is a screen editor; ed, a line at a time tool. (see edlin in earliest PC DOS) Wouldn't you love to have earliest edition of Brian W. Kernighan/Rob Pike "The Unix Programming Environment" or Brian W. Kernighan/Dennis M. Ritchie "The C Programming Language"
Actually when Unix was created Vi didn't exist. When BSD started working on it, they made Vi. -Allen
Somewhere around here is a Ken Thompson masterpiece - and to clear up an earlier item: Ken Thompson, in 1969, began writing the Unix kernel (a small general purpose time sharing-system) on salvaged DEC PDP-7 store room junk. By 1970, C development was started on a PDP-11, and by 1973, the kernel had been rewritten in C by Dennis M. Ritchie and Ken Thompson and compiled with Dennis M. Ritchie's C Compiler. In 1974 Unix was first licensed to universities "for educational purposes."
Lonn C. Dugan
-----Original Message----- From: Allen [mailto:gorebofh@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 22:05 To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] Gnome disappointment
Allen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 04:50:04PM +0000, Dave Howorth wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 11:01 -0500, Allen wrote:
What you do the small speed boost may not matter, but in the 80s my teacher was writing code for the 68K processor and you couldn't use C for
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 09:21:28PM -0500, James Knott wrote: that.
Not sure what you mean here? It was and is certainly possible to use C on the 68000. Just one example was a machine called the 'Unicorn' from a company here in the UK called Torch. It not only ran a C compiler, it's native operating system was Unix.
Weird. They had to use Assembler for pretty much everything. They used those processors and.... I don't even know which OS, but they had a lot of Unix.
He told me back when he did this that Vi would only show one line at a time and you'd have like thousands of lines of code and have to check something a few lines up so you'd have to give the command to view it up in that area or something.
Perhaps he didn't know what he was talking about. Wouldn't be the first or last time that happened.
Mmmmm, usually I'd say yes to this, but this guy is one of the most intelligent computer people I've ever met. He has like no arrogance about him, but he knows he's not an idiot either. We get along good and I should check with him about when the dates were where Vi did this supposedly.
I know Vi is "Visual" ed, but the first versions of it maybe did only do one line at a time. Not positive about that though.
-Allen.
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
I was around in the early days of vee-eye (not "vie"), aka vi, and I've never liked it. The fact that it's built on top of a truly horrendous line editor, ex, is a particularly unpleasant flaw, which shows itself in the need to use "ex" commands for many operations such as inserting one file within another. The particular bit of execrable human engineering in vi that bugs me the most is the mode dependence. Vi is extraordinarily vulnerable to mistyping; a couple of wrong keystrokes in insert mode and you're in command mode where the text you're typing can just about wipe out your file. It's too bad that vi still occupies a prominent place in Linux; as I remember it's the editor you need to use to modify the sudoers file (or maybe it's some other system file). Even the DOS editors are better, and they can operate from a command line also -- which is of course what you need when you're working with a crippled system where X isn't an option. And of course there's Emacs, which can be overwhelming but also doesn't require a window system. Paul
I was around in the early days of vee-eye (not "vie"), aka vi, and I've never liked it. The fact that it's built on top of a truly horrendous line editor, ex, is a particularly unpleasant flaw, which shows itself in the need to use "ex" commands for many operations such as inserting one file within another. Bill Joy wrote vi in 1976. It was not built on top of ex. Vi is a modal editor. Ex is one of the modes of vi that provides a high degree of compatibility to ex. A person who is familiar with ed, can use vi and just learn some of the basic visual commands, but when something needed to be done, such as search and replace, then the ex mode was easy because it was syntactically similar to ed. In the Unix community there is the EMACS religion where Richard Stallman is
On Friday 11 November 2005 1:10 pm, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
the lord high prophet, and the VI religion where Bill Joy is the lord high
prephet. I admit I pray to RMS every day and I am an EMACSIAN. But I also
use vi. When I want to do a quick edit on a file, I'll still just vi the
file do what I want and save it. In the old days, when starting up our
systems, we would run emacs and stop it, then bring it back into the
foreground when needed because it took forever to load.
I did not start using Unix until about 1979, so I missed the first 3 years
of vi, and I only live a few miles from RMS.
But, going back to ex, it is not a flaw at all, it was a design feature.
--
Jerry Feldman
On Friday 11 November 2005 1:50 pm, Jerry Feldman wrote:
Bill Joy wrote vi in 1976. It was not built on top of ex. Vi is a modal editor. Ex is one of the modes of vi that provides a high degree of compatibility to ex. A person who is familiar with ed, can use vi and just learn some of the basic visual commands, but when something needed to be done, such as search and replace, then the ex mode was easy because it was syntactically similar to ed.
I don't think of "ex" as a mode in vi, because each ex command has to be invoked separately with the ":" prefix (in command mode, of course). The insert/command modes persist until you switch to the other one. "ex", by the way, stands for "extended editor" because it was supposed to be an extension of ed. Vi was an achievement in its time, but its design was dictated by the terminals available when it was written. My argument against vi now is that terminal technology has advanced enormously and has made editing modes possible that weren't practicable when vi was written.
I admit I pray to RMS every day and I am an EMACSIAN.
I'm an emacsian too (or an Emacsian, to use RMS's preferred capitalization). I still find the Emacs directory mode the easiest way to do most file operations, even under KDE. And my desktop includes a "root emacs" icon for running Emacs with root privileges. Paul
Vi was an achievement in its time, but its design was dictated by the terminals available when it was written. My argument against vi now is that terminal technology has advanced enormously and has made editing modes possible that weren't practicable when vi was written. but VI is still a powerful tool, so is emacs. I can do things in VI
On Fri November 11 2005 3:38 pm, Paul W. Abrahams wrote: that would take hours in a graphical editor, or at least many more menu item selections.
I admit I pray to RMS every day and I am an EMACSIAN.
I'm an emacsian too (or an Emacsian, to use RMS's preferred capitalization). I still find the Emacs directory mode the easiest way to do most file operations, even under KDE. And my desktop includes a "root emacs" icon for running Emacs with root privileges.
and I use VI from the ALT-F1 text-mode login screen, when I need to do something as root... to each his/her own :) I don't need a desktop icon to run VI, just a Konsole/terminal window, which I normally have 1 or 2 of minimized. -- Paul Cartwright Registered Linux user # 367800 X-Request-PGP: http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-pcartwright/key.asc
On Friday 11 November 2005 3:38 pm, Paul W. Abrahams wrote: > I don't think of "ex" as a mode in vi, because each ex command has to be > invoked separately with the ":" prefix (in command mode, of course). The > insert/command modes persist until you switch to the other one. "ex", by > the way, stands for "extended editor" because it was supposed to be an > extension of ed. Whether you don't think of it as a mode, it is a mode of vi. And also, while you can use the ex command, and then switch to the vi mode. Vi has 3 modes: 1. Command mode - this is the default full screen mode 2. Insert mode where you are actually editing the text 3. Line mode - this is the "ex" mode. "The full command set of the more traditional, line oriented editor ex is available within vi; it is quite simple to switch between the two modes of editing". Bill Joy http://docs.freebsd.org/44doc/usd/12.vi/paper.html If you want to switch from Command mode to Line mode, use the Q command. You will now be in ex, and you can type in ex commands without having to use a ":". In Ex, you type vi, and you go back to command mode. > Vi was an achievement in its time, but its design was dictated by the > terminals available when it was written. My argument against vi now is > that terminal technology has advanced enormously and has made editing > modes possible that weren't practicable when vi was written. -- Jerry FeldmanBoston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
On Friday 11 November 2005 4:32 pm, Jerry Feldman wrote:
Vi has 3 modes: 1. Command mode - this is the default full screen mode 2. Insert mode where you are actually editing the text 3. Line mode - this is the "ex" mode. "The full command set of the more traditional, line oriented editor ex is available within vi; it is quite simple to switch between the two modes of editing". Bill Joy http://docs.freebsd.org/44doc/usd/12.vi/paper.html
I stand corrected. Paul
On Fri November 11 2005 1:10 pm, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
The particular bit of execrable human engineering in vi that bugs me the most is the mode dependence. Vi is extraordinarily vulnerable to mistyping; a couple of wrong keystrokes in insert mode and you're in command mode where the text you're typing can just about wipe out your file. as with ANY file/folder/drive, backups are important. every now and then, ef you are editing a LARGE file, it is always good to do a :w
It's too bad that vi still occupies a prominent place in Linux; as I remember it's the editor you need to use to modify the sudoers file (or maybe it's some other system file). Even the DOS editors are better, and they can operate from a command line also -- vi has colon commands ":" just like ED, and I use them often. There are no better DOS editors than VI, but we all have our opinions, and you are welcome to yours. That's exactly why there are so many editors out
then keep going. Or if you totally screw it up, a :e to start over with the existing file. VI only does what it is told. Since I fat finger things alot, I learned these lessons years ago:) there to use. I personally don't like EMACS, but that's because I already learned VI. -- Paul Cartwright Registered Linux user # 367800 X-Request-PGP: http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-pcartwright/key.asc
vi has colon commands ":" just like ED, and I use them often. There are no better DOS editors than VI, but we all have our opinions, and you are welcome to yours. That's exactly why there are so many editors out there to use. I personally don't like EMACS, but that's because I already learned VI. While as an EMACSIAN I think you are a heretic :-) The ":" commands are part of vi's ex mode. Bill Joy 1984. "I wish we hadn't used all the keys on the keyboard. I think one of the interesting things is that vi is really a mode-based editor. I think as mode-based editors go, it pretty good. One of the good things about EMACS,
On Friday 11 November 2005 2:15 pm, Paul Cartwright wrote:
though, is its programmability and the modelessness".
http://www.cs.pdx.edu/~kirkenda/joy84.html
This article gives a lot of history on Vi.
--
Jerry Feldman
Jerry Feldman wrote:
vi has colon commands ":" just like ED, and I use them often. There are no better DOS editors than VI, but we all have our opinions, and you are welcome to yours. That's exactly why there are so many editors out there to use. I personally don't like EMACS, but that's because I already learned VI. While as an EMACSIAN I think you are a heretic :-) The ":" commands are part of vi's ex mode. Bill Joy 1984. "I wish we hadn't used all the keys on the keyboard. I think one of the interesting things is that vi is really a mode-based editor. I think as mode-based editors go, it pretty good. One of the good things about EMACS,
On Friday 11 November 2005 2:15 pm, Paul Cartwright wrote: though, is its programmability and the modelessness". http://www.cs.pdx.edu/~kirkenda/joy84.html This article gives a lot of history on Vi.
All that's needed now, is to add OpenDocument support. ;-)
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:30:37 -0500
James Knott
All that's needed now, is to add OpenDocument support. ;-) Don't laugh, it may be coming :-)
--
Jerry Feldman
Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:30:37 -0500 James Knott
wrote: All that's needed now, is to add OpenDocument support. ;-) Don't laugh, it may be coming :-)
If you want some real excitement (I believe we're all geeks here <g>) change the extention of an OpenDoc file to .zip and then unzip it. You can see all the components of the file.
On Friday 11 November 2005 2:15 pm, Paul Cartwright wrote:
as with ANY file/folder/drive, backups are important. every now and then, ef you are editing a LARGE file, it is always good to do a :w
then keep going. Or if you totally screw it up, a :e to start over with the existing file. VI only does what it is told. Since I fat finger things alot, I learned these lessons years ago:)
Yes, that's exactly my point. With education and expertise you can overcome the obscure aspects of most software. But vulnerability to fat-fingering doesn't go away no matter how good your knowledge. Every mistyping introduces an error and a negative consequence, but with modeless editors the damage is usually much more limited and easier to correct. Paul
:e
to start over with the existing file. VI only does what it is told. Since I fat finger things alot, I learned these lessons years ago:)
Yes, that's exactly my point. With education and expertise you can overcome the obscure aspects of most software. But vulnerability to fat-fingering doesn't go away no matter how good your knowledge. Every mistyping introduces an error and a negative consequence, but with modeless editors the damage is usually much more limited and easier to correct.
Paul Paul, I disagree :) because of my fat fingering capabilities, EVERY time I try something... Brave/stupid/extensive, I ALWAYS do a ":w" write before I do it. It comes naturally:) remember, this ISN'T a word processor, this is a text editor. If I was working on something like a newsletter, I'd be doing it in OpenOfficeWrite, or another word processor. And even with THAT you can CTRL-A highlight the entire document and DEL it... of course there is always UNDO:) Use what you are comfortable with, there are many text editors/word
On Fri November 11 2005 3:29 pm, Paul W. Abrahams wrote: processors to choose from. I happen to like VI, I've used it for 20 years. -- Paul Cartwright Registered Linux user # 367800 X-Request-PGP: http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-pcartwright/key.asc
On Friday 11 November 2005 4:36 pm, Paul Cartwright wrote:
If I was working on something like a newsletter, I'd be doing it in OpenOfficeWrite, or another word processor. How about EMACS. It has a word processor mode :-) -- Jerry Feldman
Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
On Fri November 11 2005 4:51 pm, Jerry Feldman wrote:
If I was working on something like a newsletter, I'd be doing it in OpenOfficeWrite, or another word processor.
How about EMACS. It has a word processor mode after 20 years of VI, I've tried emacs before, but I always got confused with the key commands.. does emacsdo what openoffice 2.0 does?? I doubt my wife would like to learn emacs, it's been enough for her to use SUSE and kmail <G>
-- Paul Cartwright Registered Linux user # 367800
after 20 years of VI, I've tried emacs before, but I always got confused with the key commands.. does emacsdo what openoffice 2.0 does?? I doubt my wife would like to learn emacs, it's been enough for her to use SUSE and kmail <G> The bottom line is that there are many good tools out there to do a job. EMACS is a very good tool for working with program sources since it is a context sensitive editor and has modes for just about every programming language as well as HTML. It also has a document mode, but is not and never will be intended as a word processor. (I was actually kind of joking about
On Friday 11 November 2005 5:04 pm, Paul Cartwright wrote:
that when I suggested it).
Open Office Writer, KOffice, Abiword, MS Word, and others are specific tools
for producing complex documents and have many features, but none of these
will ever be good at editing program text.
There are a large number of text editors that are good for editing plain
text for editing config files, program text, et. al. Most of these editors
are very good and have followings. EMACS, Vi (and VIM), JEdit, Kate, Kedit,
Notepad, and hundreds more including those supplied with IDEs. WRT: what
should be supplied on a rescue disk, I vote for Vi (vim) not because it is
the best, but because this has been effectively the standard text editor
that has been provided on Unix and Linux systems since the early 1980s.
Some people love it, some people hate it, but there will never be a
consensus. When I work on someone else's system, I can always expect that
vi (or vim) will be available.
--
Jerry Feldman
On Monday 14 November 2005 9:15 am, Jerry Feldman wrote:
The bottom line is that there are many good tools out there to do a job.
The problem I see is that when working with a rudimentary system such as a rescue or recovery CD, a choice of editor is generally not provided. (I hadn't realized that SuSE now includes joe as well as vi.) I understand that there are a lot of people out there who still love vi; "de gustibus non est disputandum", as the saying goes. If we're forced to choose a single editor for recovery purposes, then it's natural that religious wars will ensue. Recovery via a CD or DVD provides more flexibility; recovery via a floppy is pretty restrictive, though most current hardware obviates the need for recovery from a floppy. Paul
On Monday 14 November 2005 11:01 am, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
The problem I see is that when working with a rudimentary system such as a rescue or recovery CD, a choice of editor is generally not provided. (I hadn't realized that SuSE now includes joe as well as vi.) I understand that there are a lot of people out there who still love vi;
I think you're missing the point here..... totally. I don't love vi... I don't exactly hate it either because I DO NOT normally use it. I know just enough about vi to change a line and file the file... or not file it. Heck, I don't even know how to delete a line... since what little I use vi I don't need that very often and if I do I'll just hold down the delete key for awhile. But it is a TOOL... and it is ALWAYS available... and as such it is INDISPENSABLE.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Monday 2005-11-14 at 11:01 -0500, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
Recovery via a CD or DVD provides more flexibility; recovery via a floppy is pretty restrictive, though most current hardware obviates the need for recovery from a floppy.
I had a "Tiny Editor" (TED) for dos, in assembler, published by PCMagazine years ago. It was really tiny, less than 3K - I remember I had to type by hand all those assembler pages myself, I had no modem and compuserve was unknown here, anyway. So, I wonder: is there a comparably small editor in linux? "vi" is a symlink to vim and occupies 1M, and joe is about 1/3 M. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFDePpZtTMYHG2NR9URAuZPAJ46i4DmFDLqCysk5M4SrRSQBbFZlgCfVy2S Zzq7Vw8k1BlzgCldonsuUgQ= =Ak/4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Monday 14 November 2005 03:57 pm, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I had a "Tiny Editor" (TED) for dos, in assembler, published by PCMagazine years ago. It was really tiny, less than 3K - I remember I had to type by hand all those assembler pages myself, I had no modem and compuserve was unknown here, anyway.
Take a look at 'e3' It is only 13K (unless something is hiding but I don't think so) and it has modes of vi, emacs, and wordstar (ctl key usage only I assume)
* Carlos E. R.
So, I wonder: is there a comparably small editor in linux? "vi" is a symlink to vim and occupies 1M, and joe is about 1/3 M.
pat@wahoo:~> ls -la `which jed` -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 182016 2004-03-16 18:46 /usr/local/bin/jed* but has *much* more capability than TED did. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
On Monday 14 November 2005 16:44, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Carlos E. R.
[11-14-05 16:05]: So, I wonder: is there a comparably small editor in linux? "vi" is a symlink to vim and occupies 1M, and joe is about 1/3 M.
pat@wahoo:~> ls -la `which jed` -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 182016 2004-03-16 18:46 /usr/local/bin/jed*
but has *much* more capability than TED did.
Considering how small it is why was it yanked? Making me install it from the source now. Nick
* Nick Zentena
pat@wahoo:~> ls -la `which jed` -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 182016 2004-03-16 18:46 /usr/local/bin/jed*
but has *much* more capability than TED did.
Considering how small it is why was it yanked? Making me install it from the source now.
I do not know. I had to install from source also. I have used it, expecially for an email editor with mutt, for years. It has macros, automagically deletes properly delineated sigs from quotes, will delete quote-levels intelligently..... -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Friday 2005-11-11 at 13:10 -0500, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
It's too bad that vi still occupies a prominent place in Linux; as I remember it's the editor you need to use to modify the sudoers file (or maybe it's some other system file).
That's not true any more. #export EDITOR=/usr/bin/mcedit export EDITOR=/usr/bin/jstar and those system commands will use your prefered editor. Vi is not "required", it is just the "default" editor. You have "joe" in the rescue dvd, for instance. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFDdgbDtTMYHG2NR9URAj2YAJ9yuEE74iBIW5AObPRJ9YWaZuUFEACfT/zw karlv5tEmxpP8ZqQ22Fjl80= =GsvO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Lonn Dugan wrote:
Since earliest days of Unix -- vi was/is a screen editor; ed, a line at a time tool. (see edlin in earliest PC DOS) Wouldn't you love to have earliest edition of Brian W. Kernighan/Rob Pike "The Unix Programming Environment" or Brian W. Kernighan/Dennis M. Ritchie "The C Programming Language"
Somewhere around here is a Ken Thompson masterpiece - and to clear up an earlier item: Ken Thompson, in 1969, began writing the Unix kernel (a small general purpose time sharing-system) on salvaged DEC PDP-7 store room junk. By 1970, C development was started on a PDP-11, and by 1973, the kernel had been rewritten in C by Dennis M. Ritchie and Ken Thompson and compiled with Dennis M. Ritchie's C Compiler. In 1974 Unix was first licensed to universities "for educational purposes."
Lonn C. Dugan
For many years it was said that the single most thing that held Unix back was the lack of a decent editor, simply they were all supremely lousy. I've used vi for over 23 years on a regular basis and I don't think much of it or any of the other Unix editors designed for octupuses and trained concert pianists - the likes of Joe. Then I met YEEEEUUUUUKKK!!!! "ksh -o vi" in Solaris, an example of how to waste brain cells, so I stuck two fingers up to learning that rubbish, at least bash and arrow keys made life more tolerable and I installed bash as my first act on a Solaris box if allowed by the customer. I gave a demo of SPF/PC (A version of the IBM MVS editor ported to DOS) to our local Linux group about 14 years ago to demonstrate what a decent editor was like and I think they understood my loathing of Unix editors/edlin that looked like they were written as a project at the school for retarded programmers. I was taught SPF in about 10 minutes and I've taught SPF to others also within 10 minutes, it being as intuitive as you'll ever get. I use vi for simple stuff, insert/delete/replace and cooledit if I ever have any substantial editing to be done. Regards Sid. <STUFF DELETED> -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks
Sid Boyce wrote:
I was taught SPF in about 10 minutes and I've taught SPF to others also within 10 minutes, it being as intuitive as you'll ever get. I use vi for simple stuff, insert/delete/replace and cooledit if I ever have any substantial editing to be done. I prefer mc (mcedit) It was (is) much easier for me than any other I have tried, and took no additional training to learn, it was intuitive and logical, at least to me.
-- Joe Morris New Tribes Mission Email Address: Joe_Morris@ntm.org Registered Linux user 231871
On Sunday 13 November 2005 11:43, Joe Morris (NTM) wrote:
Sid Boyce wrote:
I was taught SPF in about 10 minutes and I've taught SPF to others also within 10 minutes, it being as intuitive as you'll ever get. I use vi for simple stuff, insert/delete/replace and cooledit if I ever have any substantial editing to be done.
I prefer mc (mcedit) It was (is) much easier for me than any other I have tried, and took no additional training to learn, it was intuitive and logical, at least to me.
Same here. MC was a logical follow up on my Dos days where I mainly used NC.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Sunday 2005-11-13 at 13:27 +0700, C. Brouerius van Nidek wrote:
I prefer mc (mcedit) It was (is) much easier for me than any other I have tried, and took no additional training to learn, it was intuitive and logical, at least to me.
Same here. MC was a logical follow up on my Dos days where I mainly used NC.
Agreed. It is a fantastically useful program, I haven't found a graphical equivalent with all its functionality. The only snag with mcedit is that it doesn't handle well not English letters, which are shown as dots. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFDdyn3tTMYHG2NR9URAiGFAJsH1AeyP0B++GSKUDVUAh05b4eg3wCeMs4/ r1hg81PvqzV28QeDR4D/kuE= =jhRx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
For many years it was said that the single most thing that held Unix back was the lack of a decent editor, simply they were all supremely lousy. I've never heard that before. Since I first used Unix 25 years ago, I found a number of decent editors, including vi and EMACS, but... I don't think the lack of a decent editor ever help Unix back. The main
On Saturday 12 November 2005 9:35 pm, Sid Boyce wrote:
thing that held it back was the AT&T pricing. While a 2-user license was
fairly low, it was still expensive, and the muti-user licenses were very
expensive. There were a few PC based Unixes in then 1980s (including SCO
(classic)). But another thing that held it back was the lack of a good GUI,
and we now have them.
--
Jerry Feldman
Jerry Feldman wrote:
For many years it was said that the single most thing that held Unix back was the lack of a decent editor, simply they were all supremely lousy. I've never heard that before. Since I first used Unix 25 years ago, I found a number of decent editors, including vi and EMACS, but... I don't think the lack of a decent editor ever help Unix back. The main
On Saturday 12 November 2005 9:35 pm, Sid Boyce wrote: thing that held it back was the AT&T pricing. While a 2-user license was fairly low, it was still expensive, and the muti-user licenses were very expensive. There were a few PC based Unixes in then 1980s (including SCO (classic)). But another thing that held it back was the lack of a good GUI, and we now have them.
Unix pricing was still way below anything you could get from IBM. SCO was beginning to gain in popularity, though a bit pricy for Joe user. The fledgling Coherent looked very promising as Joe user's Unix until Linux changed the landscape. At that time, the GUI was not all that important, but what was there for Solaris and SGI seemed appealing. The editors were a constant complaint, people used them, but they were never satisfactory. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Tuesday 2005-11-08 at 04:49 -0500, Steven T. Hatton wrote:
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 03:25 am, devosc wrote:
But with the above said, and the comment about SuSE Plugger not being fixed, I'm seriously considering why is it worth be sending off the $x dollars for distro disks and manuals... when something like the bug in (Gnome ?) SuSE Plugger/Watcher is not being fixed...
Have you filed a bug report, or asked for help?
It is a well known "feature" and there is no intention to correct it for 9.3. It is intentional. Bad choice, but intentional. It has been comented here and forgotten. And solutions have also been posted here. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFDd9C3tTMYHG2NR9URAjNDAJ0QRwGHojMHwY3p9Xxsrig6bHPdpwCeJqJ8 t3M236MFHeozI2VHed3T64I= =EmgZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
devosc wrote:
I dont really comment much, but I recently have had thoughts maybe related.
In my opinion I would love to see Gnome as the default desktop, that said, but not with KDE installed also. I think I read awhile back that there is a difference in the languages used to build each, c/c++ ? dunno... but in my experience Gnome had always seemed to have a better response time as a desktop, mouse movements was what I noticed...
Obviously I love Gnome, but ultimately I'm still using KDE applications... primarily Knonqueror, Kate...
FireFox is wonderfull in Gnome, pretty much everything is (but I've had no cause to log into KDE).
However, my (only) gripe is, that since installing 9.3 a few months ago, and having done YaST online updates since then, SuSE Plugger and SuSE Watcher are still being a real pain in the rear, and none of the updates have rectified this problem.
There might be valid points about dependencies etc, in Gnome, personally I think I found that installing everything including the Development packages is one step closer to reducing the hunt for dependent packages.
Fantastic, it's essential to install all the devel packages if you intend to build new apps, but that's not a lot of help when some new app comes out and nothing you have installed for Gnome matches the dependencies you need. Recently on 9.3 you could build and install gimp-2.3.3 but it wouldn't work and also scuppered the old package when it was reinstalled. In that way Gnome is very easy to make a mess of.
However, I dont really have the time, or mind to get into that side of things with SuSE/Linux, I just need something that helps me get the few things that I need done etc, so in this respect, my only reason for upgrading is when their might be newer versions of applications that I would like to use... Gnome being one of them.
But with the above said, and the comment about SuSE Plugger not being fixed, I'm seriously considering why is it worth be sending off the $x dollars for distro disks and manuals... when something like the bug in (Gnome ?) SuSE Plugger/Watcher is not being fixed... as opposed to finding/installing newer versions of SuSE at no cost.... admittedly each instance of $x dollars might be trivial but over the years == $MS.... I just hope that a portion of the money spent actually does get back to the developers of these applications, eg. KDE, Gnome etc...
Anyway... Gnome is my choice for a default desktop.
-- devosc
Repeating myself, just like Windows, install Gnome, don't touch it and it's wonderful. Two things on the cost, I subscribe to Mandriva and I buy SuSE distros mainly as my way of contributing to Linux development, the big gain is that I can and do install these distros on multiple PC's and I am planning to install Linux on someone's PC (quite legallY) to dual boot with Windows. There are then the people who buy brand new PC's with XP installed who didn't realise they had to pay for annual updates of their AntiVirus software and other stuff, get swammped in scumware and have to pay big money to have it cleaned up by the supplier or be a nuisance to people like myself. I think SuSE and Linux users in general get a much better deal. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks
Thats probably what all this is about and maybe why Novell are focusing on Gnome, probably way off base here so dont flame me for it :)... For example (just a thought came to me), Novell probably has a good idea of what the largest majority of users desktops are from the online updates (I'm guessing here)... So in order to better address the compatibility issues for this larger (Gnome) user base they're focusing in this area (or they simply have other reasons for pushing Gnome etc). My comments, and thoughts, are as a humble user, I gave up the trying to do the install packages thing (over a year ago, I tried to DIY upgrade Gnome) and now only rarely install packages provided there is a SuSE rpm for it, if not, I just settle for whatever versions are in the distro currently used... Obviously there is a broad spectrum of SuSE userships, and for the most part (in my case) one could say that the SuSE distro (and YaST updates) is my System Administrator (and thus I can only put up with figuring out the install/config stuff once a year --- in all previous instances it has been either when my hard drive died, or when a better version of Gnome was available etc)... -- devosc
On Monday 07 November 2005 22:44, Curtis Rey wrote:
On Mon November 7 2005 22:12, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
This was the fear I had when Novell bought SuSE. And it isn't as if this is a complete shock. I mean Novell did buy Ximian. But Mr Perens is qouted in eWeek as follows:
"The latest KDE snub came last month, when open-source mover Bruce Perens announced that he'd chosen to exclude KDE in favor of GNOME from the forthcoming enterprise-aimed, community-led UserLinux distribution."
Gotta love those Corporate power games.... For the love of the CIO!
All I have to say is try taking Joe User and tell him to change the fonts in KDE, then tell him to change the fonts in Gnome. Which do think he'll have more success doing? Three guesses and the first two don't count!
And if that isn't enough try setting up dual monitors in Gnome... Like I said it freaking PUKES all over the place. In KDE it took me 3 mouse clicks.
I'd hate to put SuSE on the shelf, but it Novell goes the way of RH that's just where it's going.
I really hate to agree, but I do. Jerome
Curtis. :/
At 12:05 AM 11/8/2005 -0500, Steven T. Hatton wrote:
Content-Disposition: inline
/snip/
I guess if SUSE mangles support for KDE that I'll just find something else to use as a desktop OS on my Dell.. maybe Kubuntu or something. I certainly won't be using Gnome.
*shrug*
You have described every experience I have ever had with GNOME. The KDE OTOH, is rock solid. Sure, some things go bonkers from time to time, but I'm usually running the bleeding edge bits, or even my own builds. I hope Novell execs aren't stup^h^h^h^h thinking they can get a better deal by cutting TrollTech out of the picture. The best remember, that knife cuts both ways.
/snip/ According to a recent news release that I read on the net, here, Novell will cut KDE out and use Gnome only, and I, too, will be gone. (Yes, I'm in XP now--having trouble with the network "card"--part of MOBO.) --doug -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release Date: 11/5/2005
On 11/9/05, Doug McGarrett
According to a recent news release that I read on the net, here, Novell will cut KDE out and use Gnome only, and I, too, will be gone.
Can you give a URL to that news release please? -- Andre Truter | Software Engineer | Registered Linux user #185282 ICQ #40935899 | AIM: trusoftzaf | http://www.trusoft.za.org ~ A dinosaur is a salamander designed to Mil Spec ~
At 01:21 AM 11/9/2005 +0200, Andre Truter wrote:
Content-Disposition: inline
On 11/9/05, Doug McGarrett
wrote: According to a recent news release that I read on the net, here, Novell will cut KDE out and use Gnome only, and I, too, will be gone.
Can you give a URL to that news release please?
-- Andre Truter | Software Engineer | Registered Linux user #185282
This is not the article, but refers to it: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/05/1620206&from=rss Another quickie shot: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=12551 You can Google the stuff yourself; I didn't save the original posting. OTOH, some other correspondents have pointed out that KDE will still be available. Whether it will be kept up to date is another question, particularly since apparently Mandrake (now Mandriva?) will be the only distro that standardizes on KDE. --doug -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release Date: 11/5/2005
* Doug McGarrett
This is not the article, but refers to it:
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/05/1620206&from=rss
Another quickie shot:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=12551
You can Google the stuff yourself; I didn't save the original posting.
He does not need to goggle for it. He knows the _complete_ story and you should get that information, yourself, and quit spreading fud.
OTOH, some other correspondents have pointed out that KDE will still be available. Whether it will be kept up to date is another question, particularly since apparently Mandrake (now Mandriva?) will be the only distro that standardizes on KDE.
and this is more fud! Please, do your own research and get the facts straight. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
On 11/8/05, Patrick Shanahan
* Doug McGarrett
[11-08-05 21:55]:
OTOH, some other correspondents have pointed out that KDE will still be available. Whether it will be kept up to date is another question, particularly since apparently Mandrake (now Mandriva?) will be the only distro that standardizes on KDE.
and this is more fud!
Please, do your own research and get the facts straight.
True. I downloaded Kubuntu to give it a shot. It's the same Ubuntu but with KDE installed instead of Gnome. I'm going to install it on a test machine tomorrow just for the hell of it. -Ben -- Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 19:43 -0800, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
On 11/8/05, Patrick Shanahan
wrote: * Doug McGarrett
[11-08-05 21:55]: OTOH, some other correspondents have pointed out that KDE will still be available. Whether it will be kept up to date is another question, particularly since apparently Mandrake (now Mandriva?) will be the only distro that standardizes on KDE.
and this is more fud!
Please, do your own research and get the facts straight.
True. I downloaded Kubuntu to give it a shot. It's the same Ubuntu but with KDE installed instead of Gnome. I'm going to install it on a test machine tomorrow just for the hell of it.
I've got Ubuntu with KDE installed on my other system. I'm rather impressed by it. YMMV.
Doug McGarrett wrote:
OTOH, some other correspondents have pointed out that KDE will still be available. Whether it will be kept up to date is another question, particularly since apparently Mandrake (now Mandriva?) will be the only distro that standardizes on KDE.
--doug
Humm... I've always thought about trying Mandrake. Good to know there is a fallback distro with KDE at standard. However, I'll only switch from SuSE when they stop supporting KDE. -- SuSE Linux 9.3 (i586) -- 2.6.11.4-21.9-default -- Tue 11/08/05 8:55pm up 49 days 2:23, 3 users, load average: 0.60, 0.55, 0.37
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 09:01:41PM -0600, Terry Eck wrote:
Doug McGarrett wrote:
OTOH, some other correspondents have pointed out that KDE will still be available. Whether it will be kept up to date is another question, particularly since apparently Mandrake (now Mandriva?) will be the only distro that standardizes on KDE.
--doug
Humm... I've always thought about trying Mandrake. Good to know there is a fallback distro with KDE at standard. However, I'll only switch from SuSE when they stop supporting KDE.
And not once has anyone said they are dropping KDE..... Damn I love how you can take generally smart people and add more people, stir for one minute, and they lose IQ.
-- SuSE Linux 9.3 (i586) -- 2.6.11.4-21.9-default -- Tue 11/08/05 8:55pm up 49 days 2:23, 3 users, load average: 0.60, 0.55, 0.37
My uptime PWNS you. -Allen.
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 18:28, Allen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 09:01:41PM -0600, Terry Eck wrote:
Doug McGarrett wrote:
OTOH, some other correspondents have pointed out that KDE will still be available. Whether it will be kept up to date is another question, particularly since apparently Mandrake (now Mandriva?) will be the only distro that standardizes on KDE.
--doug
Humm... I've always thought about trying Mandrake. Good to know there is a fallback distro with KDE at standard. However, I'll only switch from SuSE when they stop supporting KDE.
And not once has anyone said they are dropping KDE..... Damn I love how you can take generally smart people and add more people, stir for one minute, and they lose IQ.
-- SuSE Linux 9.3 (i586) -- 2.6.11.4-21.9-default -- Tue 11/08/05 8:55pm up 49 days 2:23, 3 users, load average: 0.60, 0.55, 0.37
My uptime PWNS you.
-Allen.
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
I just happen to have a theory about this: "In general, the larger the group the lower the collective IQ" Jerome
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 07:55:12PM -1000, Susemail wrote:
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 18:28, Allen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 09:01:41PM -0600, Terry Eck wrote:
Doug McGarrett wrote:
OTOH, some other correspondents have pointed out that KDE will still be available. Whether it will be kept up to date is another question, particularly since apparently Mandrake (now Mandriva?) will be the only distro that standardizes on KDE.
--doug
Humm... I've always thought about trying Mandrake. Good to know there is a fallback distro with KDE at standard. However, I'll only switch from SuSE when they stop supporting KDE.
And not once has anyone said they are dropping KDE..... Damn I love how you can take generally smart people and add more people, stir for one minute, and they lose IQ.
-- SuSE Linux 9.3 (i586) -- 2.6.11.4-21.9-default -- Tue 11/08/05 8:55pm up 49 days 2:23, 3 users, load average: 0.60, 0.55, 0.37
My uptime PWNS you.
-Allen.
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
I just happen to have a theory about this: "In general, the larger the group the lower the collective IQ"
I agree. I've been thinking of writing a paper on it -Allen
Jerome
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
On 11/8/05, Allen
And not once has anyone said they are dropping KDE..... Damn I love how you can take generally smart people and add more people, stir for one minute, and they lose IQ.
Your right. They never said they were dropping it. But once relegated to the background.. how long before YaST is rewritten using GTK? How long before the KDE development that SUSE was famous for stops..etc..etc..etc. I'm taking a wait and see stance. If they drop KDE then they lose me as a desktop customer for my work machines. I don't install X/KDE or any other UI's on my servers, so that's not an issue.. no one should need a bloody UI to admin a Linux/UNIX box.. just my opinion. As for my home machines I could care less about what UI SUSE uses these days.. I've been using a Powerbook at home and will have an X86 PowerMac when they are released. *shrug* But please don't take our disdain for SUSE switching to Gnome on their commerical distros as low IQ.. it's called debate and voicing ones opinion... we are able to do that.. right? And no.. YOUR uptime owns NO one. ;) I think my desktop stacks up and surpasses. 2:19am up 180 days 8:12, 9 users, load average: 5.12, 5.32, 4.90 -ben -- Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:24:15PM -0800, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
On 11/8/05, Allen
wrote: And not once has anyone said they are dropping KDE..... Damn I love how you can take generally smart people and add more people, stir for one minute, and they lose IQ.
Your right. They never said they were dropping it. But once relegated to the background.. how long before YaST is rewritten using GTK? How long before the KDE development that SUSE was famous for stops..etc..etc..etc.
I bet you turn your monitor to the side at night so the secret agents can't watch you sleep. Lol.
I'm taking a wait and see stance. If they drop KDE then they lose me as a desktop customer for my work machines. I don't install X/KDE or any other UI's on my servers, so that's not an issue.. no one should need a bloody UI to admin a Linux/UNIX box.. just my opinion. As for my home machines I could care less about what UI SUSE uses these days.. I've been using a Powerbook at home and will have an X86 PowerMac when they are released. *shrug*
They are more expensive than an SGI. Guess which one I'd pick?
But please don't take our disdain for SUSE switching to Gnome on their commerical distros as low IQ.. it's called debate and voicing ones opinion... we are able to do that.. right?
No.
And no.. YOUR uptime owns NO one. ;)
You don't know my uptime.
I think my desktop stacks up and surpasses.
2:19am up 180 days 8:12, 9 users, load average: 5.12, 5.32, 4.90
Didn't install that Kernel update did you?
-ben -- Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
On 11/9/05, Allen
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:24:15PM -0800, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
On 11/8/05, Allen
wrote: And not once has anyone said they are dropping KDE..... Damn I love how you can take generally smart people and add more people, stir for one minute, and they lose IQ.
Your right. They never said they were dropping it. But once relegated to the background.. how long before YaST is rewritten using GTK? How long before the KDE development that SUSE was famous for stops..etc..etc..etc.
I bet you turn your monitor to the side at night so the secret agents can't watch you sleep. Lol.
Good one.. good one. I'll bet you've worked at SUSE and see how things go? Right? Yes? You have? And I'm sure you've spend years in the corp. world and in the tech industry so you know EVERYTHING there is to know about how software dev. is planned out and how things work? Right? I'm sure you have lots of friends who still work at SUSE? Right? Yes? Well, Gomer.. I do. And I've watched how things go in the commercial world for years. So it's not a " tinhat, the sky is falling" comment when I say that once SUSE isn't paying the dev guys and putting energy into KDE that it will suffer. KDE under Redhat sucks ass and so could it under SUSE if they put no effort into it. I'm not going to trade barbs with you about who does what at night and who is retarded or not. Because you have nothing of worth to say and have resorted to name calling and innuendo.
I'm taking a wait and see stance. If they drop KDE then they lose me
as a desktop customer for my work machines. I don't install X/KDE or any other UI's on my servers, so that's not an issue.. no one should need a bloody UI to admin a Linux/UNIX box.. just my opinion. As for my home machines I could care less about what UI SUSE uses these days.. I've been using a Powerbook at home and will have an X86 PowerMac when they are released. *shrug*
They are more expensive than an SGI. Guess which one I'd pick?
Oh step off. Do not spread "Macs are more expensive anything" FUD. Moron. A business class Dell with the same specs as the Powerbook is within $100 of each other. You just lost more credibility. And if you'd pick an SGI then you're a bigger idiot as they've just been delisted and will probably be bought in the next year or go out of business.
But please don't take our disdain for SUSE switching to Gnome on their
commerical distros as low IQ.. it's called debate and voicing ones opinion... we are able to do that.. right?
No.
Ah. You must be one of those Neo-Con's.. or simply a rube.
And no.. YOUR uptime owns NO one. ;)
You don't know my uptime.
I guess you just didn't trim your reply and it was an uptime from someone in this thread. *shrug* Whatever.
I think my desktop stacks up and surpasses.
2:19am up 180 days 8:12, 9 users, load average: 5.12, 5.32, 4.90
Didn't install that Kernel update did you?
Didn't need to. This machine sits behind a FreeBSD box with a very restrictive ipfw rule set that also runs OpenVPN. :) -- Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 11:11:02AM -0800, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
On 11/9/05, Allen
wrote: On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:24:15PM -0800, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
On 11/8/05, Allen
wrote: And not once has anyone said they are dropping KDE..... Damn I love how you can take generally smart people and add more people, stir for one minute, and they lose IQ.
Your right. They never said they were dropping it. But once relegated to the background.. how long before YaST is rewritten using GTK? How long before the KDE development that SUSE was famous for stops..etc..etc..etc.
I bet you turn your monitor to the side at night so the secret agents can't watch you sleep. Lol.
Good one.. good one. I'll bet you've worked at SUSE and see how things go?
Yea, because they are hiring right now, right after they dropped those employees they put a now hiring sign in the window.
Right? Yes? You have? And I'm sure you've spend years in the corp. world and in the tech industry so you know EVERYTHING there is to know about how software dev. is planned out and how things work? Right? I'm sure you have
I've owned a computer for 5 years. But you're right I do know how that works. Between college courses and a few friends of mine that worked for IBM on AIX, and a friend of mine who works for Intel as a developer. Yes I do think I have a fairly good understanding.
lots of friends who still work at SUSE? Right? Yes? Well, Gomer.. I do. And
I can't believe you called me a gomer....Lol I bet you have lots of friends.
I've watched how things go in the commercial world for years. So it's not a " tinhat, the sky is falling" comment when I say that once SUSE isn't paying the dev guys and putting energy into KDE that it will suffer. KDE under Redhat sucks ass and so could it under SUSE if they put no effort into it.
And I'm saying you're a dumb ass because not ONE time has anyone said that's happening. Bill Gates said Linus torvalds was a talented "chap" before 1993. Would he say that now if it wasn't a press release? Hell no. Just because you've watched the trees grow doesn't mean they are going to fall on you.
I'm not going to trade barbs with you about who does what at night and who is retarded or not. Because you have nothing of worth to say and have resorted to name calling and innuendo.
Yea, it's not like you called me a gomer....
I'm taking a wait and see stance. If they drop KDE then they lose me
as a desktop customer for my work machines. I don't install X/KDE or any other UI's on my servers, so that's not an issue.. no one should need a bloody UI to admin a Linux/UNIX box.. just my opinion. As for my home machines I could care less about what UI SUSE uses these days.. I've been using a Powerbook at home and will have an X86 PowerMac when they are released. *shrug*
They are more expensive than an SGI. Guess which one I'd pick?
Oh step off. Do not spread "Macs are more expensive anything" FUD. Moron. A
And now you're calling me a moron, yet I have nothing of worth to say because I called you names? Well, you must think you're the biggest dip shit on the planet with your way of thinking then, hell I don't recall calling you anything but I have nothing of worth to say because of it, and just in THIS message, you've called me a gomer and a moron.
business class Dell with the same specs as the Powerbook is within $100 of each other. You just lost more credibility. And if you'd pick an SGI then
I lost credibility? FROM WHERE I'M TEXT ON YOUR SCREEN. So first I know nothing because I called you some name, then you call me names, and now because I don't have 3 grand to buy a DECENT Mac I'm worse? I don't buy "business" class machines. I don't own a business and I go to college every night, I have no use wasting that much money on one. Which is where I used Mac OS X for my first time. Well, sort of, the only app I had to sue for my class crashed and I had to "pick a new machine" because they couldn't fix it.
you're a bigger idiot as they've just been delisted and will probably be bought in the next year or go out of business.
Oh and now I'm an idiot, gee for someone who doesn't like when people resort to name calling you sure are quick to bite that in the ass. Hmmm, they delisted, yea, that means a lot to me considering I've never used a company after buying hardware from them ever. Would you get the Mac1 if you had a chance even though they aren't sold anymore and the company doesn't support them? Most mac weenies I know would just to have one. Same thing here.
But please don't take our disdain for SUSE switching to Gnome on their
commerical distros as low IQ.. it's called debate and voicing ones opinion... we are able to do that.. right?
No.
Ah. You must be one of those Neo-Con's.. or simply a rube.
NeoCons? WTF is that? Did you mean Neo Nazi? And you just called me another TWO names Mr "You resorted to name calling and therefore can't have anything worth saying". Lol, Wow, You took all this time to reply to me in your busy schedual of watching paint dry.... I'm honored really. Not that I need my giant ego stroked by the impaired.
And no.. YOUR uptime owns NO one. ;)
You don't know my uptime.
I guess you just didn't trim your reply and it was an uptime from someone in this thread. *shrug* Whatever.
You know, I bet that had something to do with the fact I REPLIED to his uptime.... Did you miss that in your infinite wisdom of how everything on earth works?
I think my desktop stacks up and surpasses.
2:19am up 180 days 8:12, 9 users, load average: 5.12, 5.32, 4.90
Didn't install that Kernel update did you?
Didn't need to. This machine sits behind a FreeBSD box with a very restrictive ipfw rule set that also runs OpenVPN. :)
You must reboot that a lot seeing as how just in the last year Free BSD has had multiple updates requiring a reboot. Of course I'd know this, I wrote docs for them. But, if I get some free time, I'd LOVE a signed agreement from you with that IP addy giving me permission to test those "Strict IPFW" crap you set up. -Allen.
-- Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 07:01 pm, Allen wrote:
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 11:11:02AM -0800, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
On 11/9/05, Allen
wrote: On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:24:15PM -0800, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
On 11/8/05, Allen
wrote: And not once has anyone said they are dropping KDE..... Damn I love
how
you can take generally smart people and add more people, stir for one minute, and they lose IQ.
Your right. They never said they were dropping it. But once relegated to the background.. how long before YaST is rewritten using GTK? How long before the KDE development that SUSE was famous for stops..etc..etc..etc.
I bet you turn your monitor to the side at night so the secret agents can't watch you sleep. Lol.
Good one.. good one. I'll bet you've worked at SUSE and see how things go?
Yea, because they are hiring right now, right after they dropped those employees they put a now hiring sign in the window.
Right? Yes? You have? And I'm sure you've spend years in the corp. world and in the tech industry so you know EVERYTHING there is to know about how software dev. is planned out and how things work? Right? I'm sure you have
I've owned a computer for 5 years. But you're right I do know how that works. Between college courses and a few friends of mine that worked for IBM on AIX, and a friend of mine who works for Intel as a developer. Yes I do think I have a fairly good understanding.
lots of friends who still work at SUSE? Right? Yes? Well, Gomer.. I do. And
I can't believe you called me a gomer....Lol I bet you have lots of friends.
I've watched how things go in the commercial world for years. So it's not a " tinhat, the sky is falling" comment when I say that once SUSE isn't paying the dev guys and putting energy into KDE that it will suffer. KDE under Redhat sucks ass and so could it under SUSE if they put no effort into it.
And I'm saying you're a dumb ass because not ONE time has anyone said that's happening. Bill Gates said Linus torvalds was a talented "chap" before 1993. Would he say that now if it wasn't a press release? Hell no. Just because you've watched the trees grow doesn't mean they are going to fall on you.
I'm not going to trade barbs with you about who does what at night and who is retarded or not. Because you have nothing of worth to say and have resorted to name calling and innuendo.
Yea, it's not like you called me a gomer....
I'm taking a wait and see stance. If they drop KDE then they lose me
as a desktop customer for my work machines. I don't install X/KDE or any other UI's on my servers, so that's not an issue.. no one should need a bloody UI to admin a Linux/UNIX box.. just my opinion. As for my home machines I could care less about what UI SUSE uses these days.. I've been using a Powerbook at home and will have an X86 PowerMac when they are released. *shrug*
They are more expensive than an SGI. Guess which one I'd pick?
Oh step off. Do not spread "Macs are more expensive anything" FUD. Moron. A
And now you're calling me a moron, yet I have nothing of worth to say because I called you names? Well, you must think you're the biggest dip shit on the planet with your way of thinking then, hell I don't recall calling you anything but I have nothing of worth to say because of it, and just in THIS message, you've called me a gomer and a moron.
business class Dell with the same specs as the Powerbook is within $100 of each other. You just lost more credibility. And if you'd pick an SGI then
I lost credibility? FROM WHERE I'M TEXT ON YOUR SCREEN. So first I know nothing because I called you some name, then you call me names, and now because I don't have 3 grand to buy a DECENT Mac I'm worse?
I don't buy "business" class machines. I don't own a business and I go to college every night, I have no use wasting that much money on one. Which is where I used Mac OS X for my first time. Well, sort of, the only app I had to sue for my class crashed and I had to "pick a new machine" because they couldn't fix it.
you're a bigger idiot as they've just been delisted and will probably be bought in the next year or go out of business.
Oh and now I'm an idiot, gee for someone who doesn't like when people resort to name calling you sure are quick to bite that in the ass. Hmmm, they delisted, yea, that means a lot to me considering I've never used a company after buying hardware from them ever.
Would you get the Mac1 if you had a chance even though they aren't sold anymore and the company doesn't support them? Most mac weenies I know would just to have one. Same thing here.
But please don't take our disdain for SUSE switching to Gnome on their
commerical distros as low IQ.. it's called debate and voicing ones opinion... we are able to do that.. right?
No.
Ah. You must be one of those Neo-Con's.. or simply a rube.
NeoCons? WTF is that? Did you mean Neo Nazi? And you just called me another TWO names Mr "You resorted to name calling and therefore can't have anything worth saying".
Lol, Wow, You took all this time to reply to me in your busy schedual of watching paint dry.... I'm honored really. Not that I need my giant ego stroked by the impaired.
And no.. YOUR uptime owns NO one. ;)
You don't know my uptime.
I guess you just didn't trim your reply and it was an uptime from someone in this thread. *shrug* Whatever.
You know, I bet that had something to do with the fact I REPLIED to his uptime.... Did you miss that in your infinite wisdom of how everything on earth works?
I think my desktop stacks up and surpasses.
2:19am up 180 days 8:12, 9 users, load average: 5.12, 5.32, 4.90
Didn't install that Kernel update did you?
Didn't need to. This machine sits behind a FreeBSD box with a very restrictive ipfw rule set that also runs OpenVPN. :)
You must reboot that a lot seeing as how just in the last year Free BSD has had multiple updates requiring a reboot. Of course I'd know this, I wrote docs for them.
But, if I get some free time, I'd LOVE a signed agreement from you with that IP addy giving me permission to test those "Strict IPFW" crap you set up.
-Allen.
-- Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
Sounds to me like to gents need to really GROW UP... -- tom@netins.net Tom McCutcheon
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 08:24, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
Your right. They never said they were dropping it. But once relegated to the background.. how long before YaST is rewritten using GTK?
YaST is mostly UI agnostic. The features are done in a home made language, and the UI is laid on top of that. The most that would happen is that there would be a yast2-gtk just as there are yast2-qt and yast2-ncurses today
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 8:41 pm, Anders Johansson wrote:
YaST is mostly UI agnostic. The features are done in a home made language, and the UI is laid on top of that. The most that would happen is that there would be a yast2-gtk just as there are yast2-qt and yast2-ncurses today IMHO, YaST is one of the best features of SuSE. You can run it from any windows manager, or from a command line interface. I find SLES systems much easier to maintain via a serial console than RHEL systems. -- Jerry Feldman
Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 07:55:49AM -0500, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 8:41 pm, Anders Johansson wrote:
YaST is mostly UI agnostic. The features are done in a home made language, and the UI is laid on top of that. The most that would happen is that there would be a yast2-gtk just as there are yast2-qt and yast2-ncurses today IMHO, YaST is one of the best features of SuSE. You can run it from any windows manager, or from a command line interface. I find SLES systems much easier to maintain via a serial console than RHEL systems.
That's not all, I was working on my cousin's box one day fixing something, and needed YAST, and the whole thing loaded up. I was on a RedHat box doing testing at the time and YAST loaded up all the way in GUI mode, and his machine was at his house and I was at my house, and YAST was in full gui mode. That looked neat having YAST on a RedHat box. I took a screen shot I have somewhere. allen
-- Jerry Feldman
Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 17:54 -0500, Doug McGarrett wrote:
At 12:05 AM 11/8/2005 -0500, Steven T. Hatton wrote:
Content-Disposition: inline
/snip/
I guess if SUSE mangles support for KDE that I'll just find something else to use as a desktop OS on my Dell.. maybe Kubuntu or something. I certainly won't be using Gnome.
*shrug*
You have described every experience I have ever had with GNOME. The KDE OTOH, is rock solid. Sure, some things go bonkers from time to time, but I'm usually running the bleeding edge bits, or even my own builds. I hope Novell execs aren't stup^h^h^h^h thinking they can get a better deal by cutting TrollTech out of the picture. The best remember, that knife cuts both ways.
/snip/
According to a recent news release that I read on the net, here, Novell will cut KDE out and use Gnome only, and I, too, will be gone.
(Yes, I'm in XP now--having trouble with the network "card"--part of MOBO.)
You have not read everything on this issue. On the OSS list it was stated by a SuSE employee that KDE will still be intact just not the default. Just as gnome is now intact but not the default. You can still override the install to default to KDE. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998
* Ken Schneider
You have not read everything on this issue. On the OSS list it was stated by a SuSE employee that KDE will still be intact just not the default. Just as gnome is now intact but not the default. You can still override the install to default to KDE.
And, IIANM, to put this into perspective, the gnome default will only be for SLSE and NLD, ie: the commercial products. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
On Monday 07 November 2005 23:40, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
I'll just find something else to use as a desktop OS on my Dell.. maybe Kubuntu or something.
I've been trying MEPIS on my spare computer. It's Debian-based, which I am not accustomed to, but I have already made great progress using Synaptic. And it is a great-looking KDE desktop. http://www.mepis.com/ Bryan ******************************************************** Powered by SuSE Linux 9.2 Professional KDE 3.3.0 KMail 1.7.1 This is a Microsoft-free computer Bryan S. Tyson bryantyson@earthlink.net ********************************************************
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 23:22 -0500, Steven T. Hatton wrote:
I've used SuSE Linux since 5.1. At that time neither the KDE nor GNOME existed. I have never seen a GNOME install that I liked. That may be due, in part, to the fact that I know the KDE much better than the GNOME. But I suspect there is more to it than that. From what I've seen, the widgets like the file browser are simply inferior to what the KDE provides. The KDE is, in my mind, what now defines SuSE. For Novell to switch to GNOME would take away one of the most important aspects that makes SuSE great.
I suspect this has something to do with Mono. They probably think they can achieve greater compatability with the Monopolistic software company's products that way.
Only since 7.0 myself. I use Gnome for email because running under KDE is too slow on this PII with only 256mb memory. For file management I prefer KDE in spite of all the jokes at the local linux group. In any case its nice to have the choice of window managers, try that with Monopoly$oft. -- _______ _______ _______ __ / ____\ \ / / ____|_ _\ \ / / | | \ \ /\ / / (___ | | \ \ / / | | \ \/ \/ / \___ \ | | \ \/ / | |____ \ /\ / ____) |_| |_ \ / \_____| \/ \/ |_____/|_____| \/
[Snip huge figlet sig] Oh good, that monstrosity's back. Carl: please read http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/M/McQuary-limit.html and adjust your sig accordingly -- James Ogley james@usr-local-bin.org Packages for SUSE: http://usr-local-bin.org/rpms Make Poverty History: http://makepovertyhistory.org
* James Ogley
[Snip huge figlet sig]
Oh good, that monstrosity's back.
Carl: please read http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/M/McQuary-limit.html and adjust your sig accordingly
Thanks James, but it's a waste. He's been asked many times previous. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
participants (48)
-
Allen
-
Anders Johansson
-
Andre Truter
-
Ben Rosenberg
-
Bjorn Tore Sund
-
boricua
-
Bruce Marshall
-
Bryan Tyson
-
C. Brouerius van Nidek
-
Carl William Spitzer IV
-
Carlos E. R.
-
Chadley Wilson
-
Curtis Rey
-
Dave Howorth
-
devosc
-
Doug McGarrett
-
Greg Freemyer
-
Hans Witvliet
-
Ian Marlier
-
James Knott
-
James Ogley
-
Jerry Feldman
-
Joe Morris (NTM)
-
Jos van Kan
-
Kaare Rasmussen
-
Kai Ponte
-
Ken Schneider
-
Lonn Dugan
-
Mike
-
Mike McMullin
-
Nick Zentena
-
Patrick Shanahan
-
Paul Cartwright
-
Paul W. Abrahams
-
Peter Nikolic
-
Philipp Thomas
-
Randall R Schulz
-
Roger Oberholtzer
-
rudolf
-
Sid Boyce
-
Simon Roberts
-
Steven T. Hatton
-
suse_gasjr4wd@mac.com
-
Susemail
-
Synthetic Cartoonz
-
Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk
-
Terry Eck
-
Tommy Lee McCutcheon