[opensuse] Re: user-system vs. suse's system
Anton Aylward wrote:
I don't see a reason why we shouldn't have a tree for stuff that is specific to Suse.
I told the perl maintainer ages ago, that if they couldn't deal with the system perl being upgraded, then maybe they should have a dist-perl that is needed for crippled packages that can't be recompiled (like standard perl packages, as in CPAN), that can be recompiled for a new perl. The maintainer basically said that the system perl was for opensuse, and users were not suppose to upgrade it, even for bug-fixes that didn't change the call-API. I even contacted the perl devs who confirmed that minor version changes (5.20.0, 5.20.1, 5.20.2) in perl were "guaranteed" not to change the API, and modules for one minor version should "just work" in other minor versions. However, they don't on opensuse, because version numbers are hard coded into modules and perl causing wide spread breakage when perl is upgraded. If they had the modules build to allow recompilation as other perl-cpan modules, it wouldn't be an issue in most cases -- even when major versions changed. But trying to get some to change is like pulling teeth. Similar issue is the dependency hell, in many or most cases created by hard-linking libraries rather than doing run-time dynamic loading. Gvim has been that way (don't know about latest gvim). On windows (and on my machine at one point (not sure about now unless I test it!)), gvim tries to load python.so, perl.so, etc... and dynamically activates its ability to call those libs if they are present -- Versus -- opensuse just rolling over and dying. I usually tried to keep gvim on root, to help fix problems, but without /usr, (where all the interps were), it wouldn't start. Thing is, I needed gvim as an editor -- not as a script-host. Yet due to bad-SW-build practices, it wasn't usable. :-( A LOT of Opensuse products could be made alot more resilient by using run-time lib-loading and dynamic configuration. It's not a new idea. SGI did it 15-20 years ago, and dynamic GUI configuration was done based on available features on **Plato** back in the 70's! Do we ever learn? A large number of today's programmers didn't come out of a Computer Science curriculum and were self taught. While they know the most important and most needed stuff to stay employed, they usually don't care about "history" and thus are doomed to repeat mistakes and problems solved 40-50 years ago. :-( Thus SW doesn't really progress (and I've seen signs of it going *backward*). While CS used to design computer programs to be "user-friendly", now, because most programmers can't be bothered to learn how to do that, the demand is that *users*, be computer-adapted. Plegh. Even Gates idea of 3D desktop paradigms, intro'd as Vista and Win7 rolled out, have back-stepped, as Win10 went for a 1980's GUI. Everything is being dumbed down so users can be more easily controlled and doled out hand-helds w/all their info in the cloud that they pay monthly for -- w/no privacy. Lovely. I like the Win7 Aero, but it's not even an option above Win7. Bill G was so happy demonstrating some of its early features, and now...its being all rearchitected to run on the lowest end hardware. Plegh! ... I think I've gone off on tangents again....*sigh* -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 27/12/16 03:21, L A Walsh wrote:
It's not a new idea. SGI did it 15-20 years ago, and dynamic GUI configuration was done based on available features on **Plato** back in the 70's!
Do we ever learn? A large number of today's programmers didn't come out of a Computer Science curriculum and were self taught. While they know the most important and most needed stuff to stay employed, they usually don't care about "history" and thus are doomed to repeat mistakes and problems solved 40-50 years ago. :-(
A lot of yester-year's programmers didn't come out of a Comp-Sci course either - my first boss was a Maths graduate (I don't think they had Comp-Sci back then :-). I'm a Science graduate. My first computer was the company mini with 256K ram for an entire office of 20 or more people :-)
Thus SW doesn't really progress (and I've seen signs of it going *backward*).
Driven by "oohhh shiny ...." - not helped by Comp Sci !!! I'm well known as being very anti-relational (well, actually, anti first-normal-form) because I simply apply elementary maths to the 12 rules and discover that they are neither complete, nor consistent, and in fact are highly self-contradictory. No wonder modern databases are a nightmare to maintain. (My favourite challenge. Please STORE a list in an FNF database. Not model it, store it. Oh - and while you're at it, DON'T muddle data and meta-data in the same table. Have fun, it's impossible ... :-)
While CS used to design computer programs to be "user-friendly", now, because most programmers can't be bothered to learn how to do that, the demand is that *users*, be computer-adapted. Plegh.
The problem there is that the definition of "computer adapted" keeps on changing, and people can't adapt that fast :-( here endeth the follow-on rant :-) Cheers, Wol -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 12/29/2016 03:38 AM, Wols Lists wrote:
On 27/12/16 03:21, L A Walsh wrote:
It's not a new idea. SGI did it 15-20 years ago, and dynamic GUI configuration was done based on available features on **Plato** back in the 70's!
Do we ever learn? A large number of today's programmers didn't come out of a Computer Science curriculum and were self taught. While they know the most important and most needed stuff to stay employed, they usually don't care about "history" and thus are doomed to repeat mistakes and problems solved 40-50 years ago. :-(
Well, yes, and no. Some of them deal with fantastic algorithms that CompSci courses would never teach (and perhaps even first year university maths courses wouldn't either). Some games draw on slamming around quaternions - complex numbers in three dimensions as something that arithmetically easier to deal with though (sometimes very large) matricies and appropriate algorithms than when the first person shooter "swivels his head/pov" than doing by vectors. They may not know Knuth and yes, many of their problems could be simplified with a state machine or the 'swiss army knife' of a good parser (say a minimal one generated by Bison ... sorry, Yacc) but they didn't grow up with *NIX and regular expressions. But hey, do CompSci courses do that? However there are other programmers who DO study these things, even if they are self taught. many wiki engines, for example, live and die by regular expressions. many compiler designers are more savvy about what works in parsers and code geenrators that is ever taught in CompSci. BTDT.
A lot of yester-year's programmers didn't come out of a Comp-Sci course either - my first boss was a Maths graduate (I don't think they had Comp-Sci back then :-). I'm a Science graduate.
Many sciences are a lot heavier on maths - maths that does something - than maths or CompSci can be. Science course are always about something tangible and tangible, expressible problems, problems that often need computers to solve or help solve. Be it control of experiments, data capture, statistical analysis. And a lot of this is really 'engineering' which is about getting things done (see the 'pick two out of three' version) now rather than being mathematically perfect and having the absolutely optimal algorithms 'correctly' coded. "First to market', 'budget', 'customer acceptance': things that like that. The we have the whole FOSS movement. As John keeps pointing out, its about the people who decide to take action that are the ones that make the decision.
My first computer was the company mini with 256K ram for an entire office of 20 or more people :-)
*sigh* Monty Python - Four Yorkshiremen - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo But what the heck! Because of local topogrpahy, hill and dale, If I walk along the grid layout of the roads its up hill and down dale and up another hill, so yes, I go anywhere and I end up walking uphill (some of the time) in both directions. And today, it will be in the snow :-) I'm glad I have shoes and feet :-)
The problem there is that the definition of "computer adapted" keeps on changing, and people can't adapt that fast :-(
here endeth the follow-on rant :-)
You think so? -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Anton Aylward wrote:
On 12/29/2016 03:38 AM, Wols Lists wrote:
On 27/12/16 03:21, L A Walsh wrote:
It's not a new idea. SGI did it 15-20 years ago, and dynamic GUI configuration was done based on available features on **Plato** back in the 70's!
Do we ever learn? A large number of today's programmers didn't come out of a Computer Science curriculum and were self taught. While they know the most important and most needed stuff to stay employed, they usually don't care about "history" and thus are doomed to repeat mistakes and problems solved 40-50 years ago. :-(
Well, yes, and no. Some of them deal with fantastic algorithms that CompSci courses would never teach (and perhaps even first year university maths courses wouldn't either). ...
They may not know Knuth and yes, many of their problems could be simplified with a state machine or the 'swiss army knife' of a good parser (say a minimal one generated by Bison ... sorry, Yacc) but they didn't grow up with *NIX and regular expressions. But hey, do CompSci courses do that?
If you are in a Computer Science curriculum, and not taking Computer Science 101. A first or pre-edition of the "Dragon book" was a textbook in a 200-level compiler course... Some of the courses are 300 and 400 level courses with some being foundational for masters and Ph.D work (at least at U. of Illinois, where they had (have?) 2 different CS degrees: one in engineering (where I went), and one in the math/liberal arts school. In the late 70's they had a networked campus and a nationally networked learning network (Plato), that was created and based there on CDC mainframes. Now they have the supercomputer center and who knows what else. The graduate students were all on networked unix (in the late 70s!) while the undergrads did things mostly on mainframes and in the ethernet networked "micro lab" of Z80's.
Many compiler designers are more savvy about what works in parsers and code geenrators that is ever taught in CompSci. BTDT.
--- Depends on the School and curriculum.
A lot of yester-year's programmers didn't come out of a Comp-Sci course either - my first boss was a Maths graduate (I don't think they had Comp-Sci back then :-). I'm a Science graduate.
--- Everyone in Engineering and Science pretty much came out of fields that didn't exist 50-100 years ago...
And a lot of this is really 'engineering' which is about getting things done (see the 'pick two out of three' version) now rather than being mathematically perfect and having the absolutely optimal algorithms 'correctly' coded. "First to market', 'budget', 'customer acceptance': things that like that.
--- Which is why programs have lots of bugs and security is non-existent.
The we have the whole FOSS movement. As John keeps pointing out, its about the people who decide to take action that are the ones that make the decision.
--- Dictators are like that, as was Paul in the Christian Bible, who wrote much of the new testament and changed Christianity's direction forever. WWII-war-leaders were famous for taking action -- often with popular support in their nations. While there are examples of those who just "did things" like early unix inventors, the examples of negative outcomes seem to be more visible than positive outcomes.
The problem there is that the definition of "computer adapted" keeps on changing, and people can't adapt that fast :-(
here endeth the follow-on rant :-)
You think so?
--- That wasn't my line... :-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 29/12/16 14:04, Anton Aylward wrote:
My first computer was the company mini with 256K ram for an entire
office of 20 or more people :-)
*sigh* Monty Python - Four Yorkshiremen - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo
I didn't mean it that way ... :-) But it taught me that if I used resources recklessly, it impacted on everyone else. Nowadays, the youngsters seem to assume that computer power and ram is near-enough infinite and who cares if your algorithm is grossly inefficient ... Whereas if you come from an era where you regularly hit the buffers of what was available, you tend to write tight code without thinking. My Windows PC a (good) few years back had THREE office suites, WordPerfect, MS Office, and Open Office. And all three of them had this habit of pre-loading large chunks into ram on the assumption that I was going to use them. When in reality I rarely used any of them, but they all used up resource I could ill afford to spare. If all my programs assume infinite resources ... well if you divide your computer by infinite demand you get a hung system ... :-) (sounds like my linux system when it boots :-) Cheers, Wol -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
participants (3)
-
Anton Aylward -
L A Walsh -
Wols Lists