[OT] Which IDE / Editor do you use?

Nick Sabalausky SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com
Sat Sep 21 02:05:41 PDT 2013


On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 11:04:10 +1000
Manu <turkeyman at gmail.com> wrote:

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

So? Does everything have to be targeted at new/casual users? Can't
experienced users have stuff that's made for them? Who ever said
command lines are still intended for everybody? Keep in mind, a
programmer is NOT a casual or new user. But in any case, please don't
mistake "Windows vs Linux" as a "one size fits all" topic, because you
seem to be steering things that way.

Rant: Seems to be a big trend in computing these days. Everything is all
about catering to Average Joe Numbskull and Little Miss Facebook, and to
hell anyone who has more advanced experience and needs where "usable
by anyone's grandmother" is the least of their concerns.

Average Joes need their tools, sure, but so do the rest of us.

You do realize that in the time you've spent taking a friendly OS
discussion and single-handedly trying[1] to turn it into yet another
ill-informed OS flamewar (congratulations, btw) you could have already
learned quite a bit about using a unix command line?

[1] Don't deny it. Your intent to bait was obvious a few posts back, but
due to your good standing here I've been giving you a chance.


> [...]
> > > 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.
> 

I've had stuff like that happen on Windows. Not on my own system within
the last few years, but over "a few decades"? Oh hell yea.

OTOH, I don't think I've had such trouble with Linux in at least as
long. I think 2002 was probably the last time.


> Speaking of which, I managed to totally break my computer last night /
> > this morning too.
> 
> 
> No shit. Should I be surprised? ;)
> 
[...]
> 
> > 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 ;)
> 
> 
[...]
> 
> I rest my case.
> 

Ok, now I know you're just trying to troll. But I've never seen you
troll before so you should know better.

He made it perfectly clear he had been messing around with his own
internals. *Plus* you know perfectly well messing around with Windows
internals can also lead to problems requiring expert-skill recovery
techniques, so really, you *know* that you know better, so cut the
shit.

Yes, Linux sucks. And guess what? So does Windows. I use both, by
choice. End of story.

> 
> 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.
> 

Like Debian.

And if you bring up some broken Linux distro, I'll bring up WinME, and
then we'll all have added a whole lot of usefulness to the discussion ;)


> I'm not a mechanic, and I shouldn't have to be to drive a car.
> 

Strawman, in too many ways to be worth listing.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list