[OT] Which IDE / Editor do you use?

[Manu]

On 20 September 2013 22:15, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 04:56:29PM +1000, Manu wrote:
> > On 20 September 2013 14:23, Nick Sabalausky <
> > SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:11:51 +1000
> > > Manu <turkeyman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 20 September 2013 00:25, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 03:04:44PM +0200, Wyatt wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > > Dolphin is pretty nice, though there are cases where Konqueror
> > > > > > still runs circles around it. For example, if you want a
> > > > > > horizontal split or more than one split.  Also, I don't think
> > > > > > Dolphin has the file size view plugin, which is nice for
> > > > > > finding hidden monsters in your ~.
> > > > >
> > > > > du ~ | sort -r -n | less
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This is exactly why linux is shit.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > :-)
> > >
> > > It's exactly why those not fluent in Linux believe Linux is shit ;)
> [...]
> > I don't think there's any good reason for that line to make so little
> > sense. If the argument is that typing more characters is too hard and
> > time consuming, I'd then raise the question as to whether typing
> > characters into a shell is the best interface in the first place...?
>
> There is no argument here, actually. The problem is really historical --
> names like 'du' or 'grep' or 'awk' meant something back in who knows
> when, but they no longer mean anything to us today (well, those of us
> not old enough *cough*). If I were to reinvent Unix today, I'd choose
> better names for these things. But think about it, if the above line
> were instead written like this:
>
>         diskUsage $HOME | sort --reverse --numeric | pager
>
> it would make so much more sense, wouldn't it? So the "nonsensical" part
> is really just in the poor choice of naming, not an inherent weakness of
> the interface.
>

I'd still argue that it is. It is how it is, and it's completely
prohibitive to casual or new users.
Where you attribute the cause is fairly irrelevant. I guess the 'inherent'
weakness is the natural tendency to abbreviate everything because too much
typing on the command line is not considered feasible.

[...]
> > I had a video card driver problem the other day. The bundled auto-update
> > app failed, and totally broke my computer.
> > I had to download kernel source, and run some scripts to compile some
> sort
> > of shim that made the video driver compatible with my kernel to get it
> > working again... absolutely astounding.
>
> Uh... you do realize that this is because Linux actually *lets* you fix
> things? If something like this happened on Windows, the only real
> solution is to nuke the system from orbit and start from ground zero
> again (i.e. reinstall). One can hardly expect that repairing a broken
> car engine should require no thought.
>

Nothing like that has EVER happened to me in a few decades of windows.
In my experience asa linux user, these sort of problems are a daily chore.

Speaking of which, I managed to totally break my computer last night /
> this morning too.


No shit. Should I be surprised? ;)


> Well, actually, it was already broken 'cos I upgraded
> udev to a version incompatible with my kernel (custom-built, so it's my
> own fault :-P),


And it didn't pop up a dialog box saying "unable to install, incompatible
with your kernel"?


> but the hardy little thing just kept going. It was
> causing subtle breakages like my printer mysteriously failing to work,
> and when I finally figured out the problem, I downloaded a new kernel
> and recompiled it.


... speechless ;)


> Only to forget that /vmlinuz was still pointing to
> the old kernel (I didn't know this until later), so when I rebooted, it
> dumped me in single-user mode with *nothing* under /dev. Since I have
> /usr linked to a different mount point, and the mount failed (it
> couldn't find /dev/sd*), I had only a barely working shell (nothing in
> /usr/bin, etc., was accessible). No internet access either (eth0
> couldn't be found -- anything requiring anything in /dev didn't work
> 'cos udev was dead).
>
> Then I figured that I needed to mknod /dev/sd* so that I can mount my
> main filesystem and at least begin to recover the system, but I didn't
> remember what major/minor numbers to use. After poking around a bit (and
> the whole point of this dreary tale is to make the point that even
> during catastrophic failure, there is *still* a way to fix things... I
> couldn't even begin to imagine what I'd do if Windows broke on me like
> this -- since the GUI wouldn't even start, there'd be no way at all to
> recover), I stumbled upon a lucky break: /proc/partitions lists
> major/minor numbers and conveniently maps them to hard drive partitions.
> A few mknod's later, my main FS was back up, and enough was functional
> that I could actually recompile the kernel.  That turned out to be
> unnecessary, though, because the mistake was in the /vmlinuz symlink,
> not in the kernel itself.
>
> Once I found that, the fix was trivial, and now I'm back in business.
> :-P
>

I rest my case.

The thing that a lot of people don't seem to realize is that even system
> utilities and upgrade apps are written by people, and therefore prone to
> stupid mistakes. Under such circumstances, what you need is the ability
> to get under the hood and fix things when they go wrong... not to have
> the hood welded shut and have only OS reinstallation as a recourse.
> Because of that, I'd still prefer Linux with all its quirks than Windows
> with all of its perfections, because on Linux I at least have a fighting
> chance to fix stuff that breaks (as they inevitably will, regardless of
> OS), whereas on Windows the only real recourse is the big red button.
>

I think the main difference is quality-assurance. Windows software is more
likely to be released only after it's reasonably proven that it works.

I might also challenge the continual assertion that Windows is completely
welded shut. The internals of windows are well understood.
It's possible for someone to be just as much of a windows nerd as a linux
nerd, it's all there if you want to dig through it. Most of the stuff under
the hood in windows is also in plain-text or registry keys, all of which
are easily accessible to anyone who knows what they're doing.
The distinction is though, that windows has successfully offered an os that
WORKS, thereby relieving end-users of that burden if they're not interested.

I'm not a mechanic, and I shouldn't have to be to drive a car.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20130921/5653d95c/attachment.html>