Linux: where 5GB is < 726MB
dfs
http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
sniff, sniff, sniff
Unbelievable
Snit
7/11/05 9:33 PM:
Must say... that is broken...
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
rapskat
> "dfs" <d...@nospam.com> stated in post BKHAe.3565$5R1....@fe07.lga on
> 7/11/05 9:33 PM:
>
>> and 28% full sorts before 4% full.
>>
>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
>>
>> sniff, sniff, sniff
>>
>> Unbelievable
>>
>>
> Must say... that is broken...
What, your brain for agreeing with an idiot?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/51597445@N00/25382245/
--
rapskat - 01:15:08 up 3 days, 47 min, 2 users, load average: 0.39, 0.33, 0.29
"We have to work on our reputation for security in the
marketplace."
- Jim Allchin, Microsoft
amosf
> and 28% full sorts before 4% full.
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
Sorts by % here fine...
> sniff, sniff, sniff
>
> Unbelievable
My guess is that dfs is unemployed and bored if he has the time for finding
trivialities in an OS he doesn't even use... Or perhaps he is only employed
in this trolling by MS, but they only pay chicken feed for that...
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
Tim Smith
Uhm...you've found a bug (it appears), but not the one you think. 28%
full should be ahead of 4% full there, because you aren't sorting on the
percent full column. You are sorting on the disk free column.
The bug that appears in your screen shot is that the sort on disk free
looks to be non-numerical.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
rapskat <rap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
> >>
> >> sniff, sniff, sniff
> >>
> >> Unbelievable
> >>
> >>
> > Must say... that is broken...
>
> What, your brain for agreeing with an idiot?
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/51597445@N00/25382245/
Take a careful look at DFS's screenshot. It shows a clear bug. It's
not the bug DFS thinks it shows, though.
--
--Tim Smith
Snit
reply_in_group-B69...@news1.west.earthlink.net on 7/11/05
11:42 PM:
rapskat sees nothing "broken" about that screen shot... which tells you
plenty about rapskat.
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
John Bailo
First of all I have to ask if he even sorted it before taking that snapshot.
I'm using KDiskFree v0.5 on my Suse 9.3 and it works just as expected.
What is more, DFS claims to have skills to code at the level where he could
fix such a problem. Why doesn't he get the code and present the bug at
that level if he really wants to *show* us -- instead of the dog and
pony /screenshot/ show.
C'mon DFS -- step up the the plate.
--
Texeme Textcasting Technology
http://www.texeme.com
rapskat
You're right. Though technically that would be a bug in the QT widget set
that kdf uses. If the amount free were displayed in bytes instead of in
human readable format, it wouldn't appear.
Perhaps no one noticed as most people would tend to sort by percentage
full, and not amount free.
If it makes any difference, this is the result of a numeric sort on
free space from the output of df...
rapskat@argus [~]$> df -h | sort -nk 4
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/hde1 37G 33G 4.1G 89% /mnt/drive2
/dev/hda2 9.2G 4.4G 4.4G 51% /usr
/dev/hdg1 112G 105G 7.2G 94% /mnt/drive3
tmpfs 10M 2.8M 7.3M 28% /dev
/dev/hda1 9.4G 503M 8.9G 6% /
/dev/hda4 18G 495M 17G 3% /var
/dev/hdb1 37G 15G 20G 43% /home
tmpfs 507M 4.0K 507M 1% /dev/shm
Without the '-h', this is the result....
rapskat@argus [~]$> df | sort -nk 4
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
tmpfs 10240 2824 7416 28% /dev
tmpfs 518288 4 518284 1% /dev/shm
/dev/hde1 38566824 34301384 4265440 89% /mnt/drive2
/dev/hda2 9614148 4605408 4520364 51% /usr
/dev/hdg1 117161008 109631632 7529376 94% /mnt/drive3
/dev/hda1 9767184 514756 9252428 6% /
/dev/hda4 18745916 506708 17286956 3% /var
/dev/hdb1 38464340 15685432 20825004 43% /home
So it would seem the only way to do this reliably would be to convert the
bytes to human readable format after the sort was completed.
--
rapskat - 02:56:59 up 3 days, 2:29, 2 users, load average: 0.12, 0.25, 0.27
Don't allow your kids to become desensitized to violence.
Beat them harder each day.
Snit
pan.2005.07.12....@rapskat.com on 7/12/05 12:08 AM:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 06:41:12 +0000, Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> In article <BKHAe.3565$5R1....@fe07.lga>, dfs <d...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> and 28% full sorts before 4% full.
>>>
>>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
>>>
>>> sniff, sniff, sniff
>>>
>>> Unbelievable
>>
>> Uhm...you've found a bug (it appears), but not the one you think. 28%
>> full should be ahead of 4% full there, because you aren't sorting on the
>> percent full column. You are sorting on the disk free column.
>>
>> The bug that appears in your screen shot is that the sort on disk free
>> looks to be non-numerical.
>
> You're right. Though technically that would be a bug in the QT widget set
> that kdf uses. If the amount free were displayed in bytes instead of in
> human readable format, it wouldn't appear.
>
> Perhaps no one noticed as most people would tend to sort by percentage
> full, and not amount free.
<snip />
So now you agree with me that it is "broken".
Good to see you catch up.
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
rapskat
>> You're right. Though technically that would be a bug in the QT widget set
>> that kdf uses. If the amount free were displayed in bytes instead of in
>> human readable format, it wouldn't appear.
>>
>> Perhaps no one noticed as most people would tend to sort by percentage
>> full, and not amount free.
>
> <snip />
>
> So now you agree with me that it is "broken".
No, I agreed with Tim that it's a "bug", and a very minor one. It's
obviously not "broken", since it's working.
> Good to see you catch up.
I'd have to slow down to catch up to you.
--
rapskat - 03:23:28 up 3 days, 2:55, 2 users, load average: 0.01, 0.16, 0.25
We're upping our productivity with Linux - so up yours!
robert
Here's a quick hack for it:
robert@laptop~$ cat dfsort
#!/bin/sh
df -h | sed -e 's/G/,000,000,000/g' | sed -e 's/M/,000,000/g' |sort -nk4 |sed -e 's/,000,000,000/G/g' | sed -e 's/,000,000/M/g'
robert@laptop~$
robert@laptop~$ df -h |sort -nk4
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/hda1 19G 7.7G 11G 42% /windows/C
/dev/hda3 18G 18G 342M 99% /
tmpfs 473M 0 473M 0% /dev/shm
robert@laptop~$ ./dfsort
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/hda3 18G 18G 342M 99% /
tmpfs 473M 0 473M 0% /dev/shm
/dev/hda1 19G 7.7G 11G 42% /windows/C
robert@laptop~$
Snit
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:16:44 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>>> You're right. Though technically that would be a bug in the QT widget set
>>> that kdf uses. If the amount free were displayed in bytes instead of in
>>> human readable format, it wouldn't appear.
>>>
>>> Perhaps no one noticed as most people would tend to sort by percentage
>>> full, and not amount free.
>>
>> <snip />
>>
>> So now you agree with me that it is "broken".
>
> No, I agreed with Tim that it's a "bug", and a very minor one. It's
> obviously not "broken", since it's working.
So bugs, to you, are not broken? Just what do you think a bug is?
an unintentional fault, generally in program logic, that may make a
system fail or behave in unexpected ways, and, in any case, causes
actions that neither the programmer nor the user planned
Sounds broken to me!
>> Good to see you catch up.
>
> I'd have to slow down to catch up to you.
You can toss insults around - good for you.
Still, good to see you finally figured out that the image was broken, even
if you are not able to admit to it... yet.
Some day, I hope, you will be able to admit to such simple things...
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Snit
on 7/12/05 12:40 AM:
Aha... a way to fix what is broken. :)
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
Or rather, that it's sorting on the first digit, a bug, agreed. Amusing
thath dfs got it wrong though, more evidence of his lack opf brains, If
any were needed...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC03qad90bcYOAWPYRAk9EAJ412zJdRmcx+F2oqf+R3QyY3DIegwCfcm7Y
4vYpZ7oQesOpkH9mJF8B4f0=
=tabM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Life imitates art, but does it have to imitate satire?
B Gruff
Not unbelievable at all, that's fascinating stuff DFS.
Tried similar on my SuSE 9.1, with similar results.
Will try it on 9.3 as soon as I install it, and see if it's fixed yet.
What does Windows make of it, by the way?
Bill
Rob Hughes
Which version? KDiskFree from 3.4.1 (current stable version) from kde-redhat
and KUbuntu sorts correctly. But if you look closely, you'll notice that
kdf is doing a standard numerical sort. I've seen that behavior in a number
of programs on all platforms. It's a simple mistake, and apparently, easy
to fix.... because it's fixed.
DFS... still posting non-issues, even resorting to posting fixed bugs.
sniff, sniff, sniff
Unbelievable
Rob Hughes
>> The bug that appears in your screen shot is that the sort on disk free
>> looks to be non-numerical.
>
Looks to me to be more a case of simply sorting on the first digit, where
1<anything> is always lower than 5<anything>.
Anyway, what version are you on? I checked 3.4.1 on two distributions, and
they both sort correctly.
Peter Jensen
Hash: SHA1
dfs wrote:
> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
Not a sorting bug that I can recreate here with either KDE3.3 or 3.4.
Must have been fixed for quite some time. You do seem to have a special
gift for finding all these trivial and long-fixed bugs. You must devote
a lot of time to finding them all.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC06Ccd1ZThqotgfgRApx1AKCxVp/yhUwhmpLNEwncgxGm85VV8gCeLWJJ
TEvHb8Feoywycp9ekXAl5Bc=
=2i/z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
Your society will be sought by people of taste and refinement.
Jesse F. Hughes
> rapskat is alleged to have said in comp.os.linux.advocacy:
>
>>> The bug that appears in your screen shot is that the sort on disk free
>>> looks to be non-numerical.
>>
> Looks to me to be more a case of simply sorting on the first digit, where
> 1<anything> is always lower than 5<anything>.
But that is non-numerical.
--
"And yes, I will be darkening the doors of some of you, sooner than you
think, even if it is going to be a couple of years, and when you look
in my eyes on that last day of work at your school, then maybe you'll
understand mathematics." -- James S. Harris on Judgment Day
Linønut
That picture isn't sorted by anything.
And what kind of moron has a 6-gig / and a 790-meg /boot?
My god, you are behaving idiotically.
--
Tux rox!
William Poaster
Richardson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 06:41:12 GMT,
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> In article <BKHAe.3565$5R1....@fe07.lga>, dfs <d...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> and 28% full sorts before 4% full.
>>>
>>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
>>>
>>> sniff, sniff, sniff
>>>
>>> Unbelievable
>>
>> Uhm...you've found a bug (it appears), but not the one you think. 28%
>> full should be ahead of 4% full there, because you aren't sorting on the
>> percent full column. You are sorting on the disk free column.
>>
>> The bug that appears in your screen shot is that the sort on disk free
>> looks to be non-numerical.
>>
>
>
> Or rather, that it's sorting on the first digit, a bug, agreed. Amusing
> thath dfs got it wrong though, more evidence of his lack of brains, If
> any were needed...
Also demonstrates once *again*, that he's NO idea what he's looking at,
nor what he's talking about. Nothing nwe there, then..
--
Jumping into Windows is like giving yourself
a self-inflicted gunshot wound."
-- Dustin Sauter, enterprise
systems engineer at Wells Fargo.
Linønut
Ah, the bar graph was clipped off when I looked at it. But I see no
bug there, so please explain. The bar graph is showing usage in
percent, not absolute size.
I keep looking, but I see no bug.
Please clarify, Tim, DFS.
--
Tux rox!
Linønut
> "Tim Smith" <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> stated in post
> reply_in_group-B69...@news1.west.earthlink.net on 7/11/05
> 11:42 PM:
>
>> In article <pan.2005.07.12....@rapskat.com>,
>> rapskat <rap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
>>>>>
>>>>> sniff, sniff, sniff
>>>>>
>>>>> Unbelievable
>>>>>
>>>> Must say... that is broken...
>>>
>>> What, your brain for agreeing with an idiot?
>>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/51597445@N00/25382245/
>>
>> Take a careful look at DFS's screenshot. It shows a clear bug. It's
>> not the bug DFS thinks it shows, though.
>
> rapskat sees nothing "broken" about that screen shot... which tells you
> plenty about rapskat.
I have to confess, I don't see it either. Why don't you, Tim, and DFS
explain clearly what you see.
I sure don't see it.
--
Tux rox!
Linønut
Ahhh, now I see it.
--
Tux rox!
Linønut
> "robert" <ro...@wheel.invalid> stated in post WZ-dnetfQ_9...@ctc.net
> on 7/12/05 12:40 AM:
>
>>
>> Here's a quick hack for it:
>>
>> robert@laptop~$ cat dfsort
>> #!/bin/sh
>> df -h | sed -e 's/G/,000,000,000/g' | sed -e 's/M/,000,000/g' |sort -nk4 |sed
>> -e 's/,000,000,000/G/g' | sed -e 's/,000,000/M/g'
>> robert@laptop~$
>>
>> robert@laptop~$ df -h |sort -nk4
>> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
>> /dev/hda1 19G 7.7G 11G 42% /windows/C
>> /dev/hda3 18G 18G 342M 99% /
>> tmpfs 473M 0 473M 0% /dev/shm
>> robert@laptop~$ ./dfsort
>> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
>> /dev/hda3 18G 18G 342M 99% /
>> tmpfs 473M 0 473M 0% /dev/shm
>> /dev/hda1 19G 7.7G 11G 42% /windows/C
>> robert@laptop~$
>>
> Aha... a way to fix what is broken. :)
How is that a fix for anything? It's a completely different tool.
--
Tux rox!
Linønut
> dfs wrote:
>
>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
>
> Not a sorting bug that I can recreate here with either KDE3.3 or 3.4.
> Must have been fixed for quite some time. You do seem to have a special
> gift for finding all these trivial and long-fixed bugs. You must devote
> a lot of time to finding them all.
He selflessly gives of his time to advance the cause of Free software.
Richard Stallman would be proud.
--
Tux rox!
Snit
_ZqdnTp6rrI...@comcast.com on 7/12/05 5:11 AM:
Fair enough... the original is still broken.
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
Snit
The shot shows a program sorting, in theory, by free space... look carefully
(or not so carefully, really) at that column - it is not.
robert
> "robert" <ro...@wheel.invalid> stated in post WZ-dnetfQ_9...@ctc.net
> on 7/12/05 12:40 AM:
>
>> rapskat <rap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> So it would seem the only way to do this reliably would be to convert the
>>> bytes to human readable format after the sort was completed.
>>>
>>
>> Here's a quick hack for it:
>>
>> robert@laptop~$ cat dfsort
>> #!/bin/sh
>> df -h | sed -e 's/G/,000,000,000/g' | sed -e 's/M/,000,000/g' |sort -nk4 |sed
>> -e 's/,000,000,000/G/g' | sed -e 's/,000,000/M/g'
>> robert@laptop~$
>>
>> robert@laptop~$ df -h |sort -nk4
>> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
>> /dev/hda1 19G 7.7G 11G 42% /windows/C
>> /dev/hda3 18G 18G 342M 99% /
>> tmpfs 473M 0 473M 0% /dev/shm
>> robert@laptop~$ ./dfsort
>> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
>> /dev/hda3 18G 18G 342M 99% /
>> tmpfs 473M 0 473M 0% /dev/shm
>> /dev/hda1 19G 7.7G 11G 42% /windows/C
>> robert@laptop~$
>>
> Aha... a way to fix what is broken. :)
>
Nothing's "broken". "sort" is sorting numeric on *strings* such
as "7.3M" and "4.1G", not on a size value such as X Gigabytes, so it is
correct to put "4.1G" before "7.3M".
from sort(1):
" -n, --numeric-sort
compare according to string numerical value"
"sort" doesn't know or care where the text that is being sorted comes
from. The fact that it comes from df output is irrelevant.
Anyway, the following is a bit more robust than my previous script:
#!/bin/sh
df -h | \
sed -e 's/\.\([0-9]\)G/,\100,000,000/g' | \
sed -e 's/\([0-9]\)G/\1,000,000,000/g' | \
sed -e 's/\.\([0-9]\)M/,\100,000/g' | \
sed -e 's/\([0-9]\)M/\1,000,000/g' | \
sed -e 's/\.\([0-9]\)K/,\100/g' | \
sed -e 's/\([0-9]\)K/\1,000/g' | \
sort -nk4 | \
sed -e 's/\([0-9]\),\([1-9]\)00,000,000/\1\.\2G/g' | \
sed -e 's/\([0-9]\),000,000,000/\1G/g' | \
sed -e 's/\([0-9]\),\([1-9]\)00,000/\1\.\2M/g' | \
sed -e 's/\([0-9]\),000,000/\1M/g' | \
sed -e 's/\(.\),\([1-9]\)00/\1\.\2K/g' | \
sed -e 's/\([0-9]\),000/\1K/g'
Snit
on 7/12/05 7:41 AM:
Now *that* is broken! Very broken... an absurd!
<snip />
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
robert
> "robert" <ro...@wheel.invalid> stated in post dc2dncV4dN8...@ctc.net
>>
>> Nothing's "broken". "sort" is sorting numeric on *strings* such
>> as "7.3M" and "4.1G", not on a size value such as X Gigabytes, so it is
>> correct to put "4.1G" before "7.3M".
>
> Now *that* is broken! Very broken... an absurd!
>
I agree that KDiskFree is not "doing the right thing".
But please explain how the "sort" utility is broken.
"SORT(1) User Commands SORT(1)
NAME
sort - sort lines of text files"
Snit
on 7/12/05 8:16 AM:
> Snit <SN...@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
>> "robert" <ro...@wheel.invalid> stated in post dc2dncV4dN8...@ctc.net
>>>
>>> Nothing's "broken". "sort" is sorting numeric on *strings* such
>>> as "7.3M" and "4.1G", not on a size value such as X Gigabytes, so it is
>>> correct to put "4.1G" before "7.3M".
>>
>> Now *that* is broken! Very broken... an absurd!
>>
>
> I agree that KDiskFree is not "doing the right thing".
> But please explain how the "sort" utility is broken.
Look at the screen shot... the column is not labeled "sort", it is labeled
"Free". I am not suggesting that it once worked and now does not (and hence
has become "broken") I am saying it is not doing the right thing and is
broken in the sense of thisisbroken.com.
The "Free" column does not sort by the Free amount. That, clearly, is
broken.
If you want to debate terms with me, I suppose that is your right - but we
both agree that the program is not "doing the right thing". I call that
broken.
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
robert
> "robert" <ro...@wheel.invalid> stated in post xpydneJQqI9...@ctc.net
> on 7/12/05 8:16 AM:
>
>> Snit <SN...@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
>>> "robert" <ro...@wheel.invalid> stated in post dc2dncV4dN8...@ctc.net
>>>>
>>>> Nothing's "broken". "sort" is sorting numeric on *strings* such
>>>> as "7.3M" and "4.1G", not on a size value such as X Gigabytes, so it is
>>>> correct to put "4.1G" before "7.3M".
>>>
>>> Now *that* is broken! Very broken... an absurd!
>>>
>>
>> I agree that KDiskFree is not "doing the right thing".
>> But please explain how the "sort" utility is broken.
>
> Look at the screen shot... the column is not labeled "sort", it is labeled
> "Free". I am not suggesting that it once worked and now does not (and hence
> has become "broken") I am saying it is not doing the right thing and is
> broken in the sense of thisisbroken.com.
>
> The "Free" column does not sort by the Free amount. That, clearly, is
> broken.
>
> If you want to debate terms with me, I suppose that is your right - but we
> both agree that the program is not "doing the right thing". I call that
> broken.
>
Like I said, I agree that KDiskFree is broken in this respect.
But your comment:
"Now that is broken! Very broken... an absurd!"
referred to the functionality of the commandline sort utility.
There's nothing wrong with sort. If KDiskFree is making use of
sort's raw output without first massaging it with some intermediate
script like the one I posted, that might explain what is happening.
Snit
on 7/12/05 8:46 AM:
> Snit <SN...@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
>> "robert" <ro...@wheel.invalid> stated in post xpydneJQqI9...@ctc.net
>> on 7/12/05 8:16 AM:
>>
>>> Snit <SN...@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
>>>> "robert" <ro...@wheel.invalid> stated in post dc2dncV4dN8...@ctc.net
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing's "broken". "sort" is sorting numeric on *strings* such
>>>>> as "7.3M" and "4.1G", not on a size value such as X Gigabytes, so it is
>>>>> correct to put "4.1G" before "7.3M".
>>>>
>>>> Now *that* is broken! Very broken... an absurd!
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree that KDiskFree is not "doing the right thing".
>>> But please explain how the "sort" utility is broken.
>>
>> Look at the screen shot... the column is not labeled "sort", it is labeled
>> "Free". I am not suggesting that it once worked and now does not (and hence
>> has become "broken") I am saying it is not doing the right thing and is
>> broken in the sense of thisisbroken.com.
>>
>> The "Free" column does not sort by the Free amount. That, clearly, is
>> broken.
>>
>> If you want to debate terms with me, I suppose that is your right - but we
>> both agree that the program is not "doing the right thing". I call that
>> broken.
>>
>
> Like I said, I agree that KDiskFree is broken in this respect.
Then we have reached basic agreement...
> But your comment:
>
> "Now that is broken! Very broken... an absurd!"
>
> referred to the functionality of the commandline sort utility.
No. That refers to the program in the screenshot... and we have agreed it
is broken. The fact that the column in question sorts on something other
than what it claims to (and something of questionable value) is broken.
Does that clear my view up for you?
> There's nothing wrong with sort. If KDiskFree is making use of
> sort's raw output without first massaging it with some intermediate
> script like the one I posted, that might explain what is happening.
It may very well explain what is broken about the program - and, if so, you
even suggested a potential fix.
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
The Ghost In The Machine
<d...@nospam.com>
wrote
on Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:33:33 -0400
<BKHAe.3565$5R1....@fe07.lga>:
> and 28% full sorts before 4% full.
>
>
> sniff, sniff, sniff
>
> Unbelievable
>
>
Nice try, though there *is* a bug; the Free column is
apparently missorting itself (as others have already
pointed out). The proper order would be:
81.6 GB
9.3 GB
7.9 GB
7.5 GB
5.3 GB
1009.3 MB
775.6 MB
726.1 MB
0 B
The actual sort is lexicographic and is clearly wrong. This is a
bug in KDiskFree, which is probably part of KDE's core utilities
set or some such.
Which version is it?
If you want to sort on the Full column, click on it, and I'm hopeful
that in that case the sort is properly done but it is quite
possible the lexicographic sort bug is there, as well.
(The KDE icons are also mildly interesting. What theme are you using?)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
a workaround maybe, but it's too late in any case, this rather trivial
bug, is already fixed in KDE, at least by 3.4.1, which is what I have
here.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC0/lmd90bcYOAWPYRAh3WAKCORU8+JtLS1e53r/Ma8L9slecC1wCggpGz
8mRX/R9YdScup9VWbQ5NEmg=
=rLJi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If you can't laugh at yourself, someone else is going to do it for you,
and you're not going to enjoy it nearly as much.
John Bailo
> Nice try, though there *is* a bug; the Free column is
Have you identified the bug in the code, made the fix and reported it
back to the KDE team?
DFS
> dfs wrote something like:
>
>> and 28% full sorts before 4% full.
>>
>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
>
Not here.
I'm using v0.5.
>> sniff, sniff, sniff
>>
>> Unbelievable
>
> My guess is that dfs is unemployed and bored if he has the time for
> finding trivialities in an OS he doesn't even use... Or perhaps he is
> only employed in this trolling by MS, but they only pay chicken feed
> for that...
Your response is another example why Linux, and Linux advocates, often
shouldn't be taken seriously. Another stupid flaw in another stupid OSS app
is revealed and you call it trivial and try to insult me. Or maybe you're
so used to OSS crapware that you really don't care.
Either way, the joke's on you and Linux. Not on me.
DFS
>>
>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
>>
>>
>> Unbelievable
>
> Uhm...you've found a bug (it appears), but not the one you think. 28%
> full should be ahead of 4% full there, because you aren't sorting on
> the percent full column. You are sorting on the disk free column.
I know what I'm sorting on.
> The bug that appears in your screen shot is that the sort on disk free
> looks to be non-numerical.
The Full% doesn't sort right, either.
I didn't show two screen shots - only the Free sort. I figured some cola
nuts would figure it out for themselves.
DFS
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>> In article <BKHAe.3565$5R1....@fe07.lga>, dfs <d...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> and 28% full sorts before 4% full.
>>>
>>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
>>>
>>> sniff, sniff, sniff
>>>
>>> Unbelievable
>>
>> Uhm...you've found a bug (it appears), but not the one you think.
>> 28% full should be ahead of 4% full there, because you aren't
>> sorting on the percent full column. You are sorting on the disk
>> free column.
>>
>> free looks to be non-numerical.
>>
>
>
> brains, If any were needed...
I didn't get anything wrong. I just didn't show a separate screenshot for
the Full% mis-sort. I figured some cola idiots could discern it for
themselves.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFC03qad90bcYOAWPYRAk9EAJ412zJdRmcx+F2oqf+R3QyY3DIegwCfcm7Y
> 4vYpZ7oQesOpkH9mJF8B4f0=
> =tabM
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Bailo
> Not here.
>
> I'm using v0.5.
I don't have as many mounts as you ( only two really ) so I concede,
it's a bug.
> Your response is another example why Linux, and Linux advocates, often
> shouldn't be taken seriously. Another stupid flaw in another stupid OSS app
> is revealed and you call it trivial and try to insult me. Or maybe you're
> so used to OSS crapware that you really don't care.
No, I really do care.
But you consistently and unabashedly fail to understand the process by
which Open Source is created. You are casting it in the Microsoft
mode, which is: if it's a bug: complain loudly and mau-mau to the Powers
That Be in the hopes that it might be fixed.
Rigth now, instead of complaining you could be /fixing/ the bug. You
could *never* do that with Disk Manager or MMC.
> Either way, the joke's on you and Linux. Not on me.
We have bigger fish to fry.
Later, punk.
John Bailo
>
> I didn't get anything wrong. I just didn't show a separate screenshot for
> the Full% mis-sort. I figured some cola idiots could discern it for
> themselves.
You seem to have a lot of time on your hands.
Did the market for VB6/Access programmers go down the tubes?
If so, why don't you get the source and pinpoint the bug and come back
and impress us.
DFS
> On Tuesday 12 July 2005 05:33 dfs wrote:
>
>> and 28% full sorts before 4% full.
>>
>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
>>
>> sniff, sniff, sniff
>>
>> Unbelievable
>
> Tried similar on my SuSE 9.1, with similar results.
> Will try it on 9.3 as soon as I install it, and see if it's fixed yet.
>
> What does Windows make of it, by the way?
Windows, at least Windows Explorer, _always_ gets stuff like this right.
This sorting is the most basic of the basic file management utilities.
But as you can see, nothing is too basic for OSS to screw up.
And you cola nuts wonder why I call it slopware?
Just as pathetic as the crappy software are the ridiculous responses I get
on cola, where various dummies call me an idiot when I reveal the bad code.
There's a reason you're called "advocates."
DFS
> dfs is alleged to have said in comp.os.linux.advocacy:
>
>> and 28% full sorts before 4% full.
>>
>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
>>
>> sniff, sniff, sniff
>>
>> Unbelievable
>
> kde-redhat and KUbuntu sorts correctly. But if you look closely,
> you'll notice that kdf is doing a standard numerical sort. I've seen
> that behavior in a number of programs on all platforms. It's a simple
> mistake, and apparently, easy to fix.... because it's fixed.
>
> DFS... still posting non-issues, even resorting to posting fixed bugs.
Figures you'd linimize the issue, which is a classic weak-minded "advocacy"
tactic: if Linux/OSS screws up something, pretend it's not important, or
nobody uses it.
That KDiskFree version I showed (v0.5) was included with KDE 3.3.2, which
was included with Mandriva LE 2005, which was released.April 14, 2005.
So they fixed it sometime in the last few months. Hello? The app has been
in use since 1999.
Do I have update and upgrade every app every day to get working Linux
programs?
Linux: truly a fix or repair daily OS
> sniff, sniff, sniff
>
> Unbelievable
It's probably too late now, but you need to get a personality and
imagination all your own.
DFS
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
>
> Not a sorting bug that I can recreate here with either KDE3.3 or 3.4.
> Must have been fixed for quite some time.
"fixed for quite some time"? I don't think so. That KDiskFree version I
showed (v0.5) was included with KDE 3.3.2, which was included with Mandriva
LE 2005, which was released.April 14, 2005. Though I did install LE 2005
via upgrading, and maybe KDiskFree wasn't upgraded along with KDE.
Either way, it's a great example of the kind of crappy code found in Linux:
single developer, no testing. How could anyone put their name on something
like that?
> You do seem to have a
> special gift for finding all these trivial and long-fixed bugs. You
> must devote a lot of time to finding them all.
I don't look for them. I'm just digging around trying various apps and
expecting them to work.
Linux: don't expect too much.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFC06Ccd1ZThqotgfgRApx1AKCxVp/yhUwhmpLNEwncgxGm85VV8gCeLWJJ
> TEvHb8Feoywycp9ekXAl5Bc=
> =2i/z
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
DFS
> dfs poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>> and 28% full sorts before 4% full.
>>
>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
>>
>> sniff, sniff, sniff
>>
>> Unbelievable
>
Take a closer look, fool. See the triangle next to the 'Free' header?
> And what kind of moron has a 6-gig / and a 790-meg /boot?
>
> My god, you are behaving idiotically.
Good advocate! Dismiss the slopware problem and insult the user.
My, my. Look how well cola has you trained.
DFS
> <d...@nospam.com>
> wrote
> on Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:33:33 -0400
> <BKHAe.3565$5R1....@fe07.lga>:
>> and 28% full sorts before 4% full.
>>
>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
>>
>> sniff, sniff, sniff
>>
>> Unbelievable
>>
>>
>
> Nice try,
When you say "nice try" you mean it's a KDE bug and not a Linux bug? Of
course. Sharp eye! Linux is just the kernel. Good advocate! (but when
the KDE or other OSS apps excel at something, all of a sudden they're used
as an example of Linux' superiority, and lumped into a glorious ball of
Linux goodness).
> though there *is* a bug; the Free column is
> apparently missorting itself (as others have already
> pointed out). The proper order would be:
>
> 81.6 GB
> 9.3 GB
> 7.9 GB
> 7.5 GB
> 5.3 GB
> 1009.3 MB
> 775.6 MB
> 726.1 MB
> 0 B
>
> The actual sort is lexicographic and is clearly wrong. This is a
> bug in KDiskFree, which is probably part of KDE's core utilities
> set or some such.
Yes. KDiskFree is as old as 1999 I think. I can't imagine that bug has
been in place for 5-6 years. But then again, this is OSS.
> Which version is it?
v0.5.
> If you want to sort on the Full column, click on it, and I'm hopeful
> that in that case the sort is properly done but it is quite
> possible the lexicographic sort bug is there, as well.
My Free, Full, and Usage columns all sort incorrectly. Apparently it's been
fixed sometime since KDE 3.3.2.
> (The KDE icons are also mildly interesting. What theme are you
> using?)
Do you mean the icons within KDiskFree, or the window theme?
I believe I'm using the default theme (Plastik maybe?) that installs with
Mandrake 10.1 (which I then upgraded to Mandriva LE 2005).
DFS
Now you see it, but now I don't see where you apologize for the insults you
directed at me.
cola: we're assholes.
The Ghost In The Machine
<jab...@texeme.com>
wrote
on Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:36:55 -0700
<42D40DC7...@texeme.com>:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> Nice try, though there *is* a bug; the Free column is
>
> Have you identified the bug in the code, made the fix and reported it
> back to the KDE team?
I've identified it at the user level, obviously. This isn't
difficult; many others have already preceded me.
To properly fix it will require some work and additional validation
(it may have been fixed already, rendering all this moot); once
I've localized where the table is built (and presumably where
the sort is specified), I am hoping the fix isn't difficult.
However, I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of table-building
code in KDE applications. (In Java, one uses JTable.)
I cannot be entirely certain as my "big" machine is currently powered
off, but at present my Portage tree indicates I have 3.4.1.; I'll
have to see when I get home whether the KDiskFree tool I have there
(if I have it) exhibits similar behavior to dfs's.
There is also a Gnome equivalent: gtkdiskfree. Version 1.9.3 sorts
the items correctly.
>
>> apparently missorting itself (as others have already
>> pointed out). The proper order would be:
>>
>> 81.6 GB
>> 9.3 GB
>> 7.9 GB
>> 7.5 GB
>> 5.3 GB
>> 1009.3 MB
>> 775.6 MB
>> 726.1 MB
>> 0 B
>>
>> The actual sort is lexicographic and is clearly wrong. This is a
>> bug in KDiskFree, which is probably part of KDE's core utilities
>> set or some such.
>>
>> Which version is it?
>>
>> If you want to sort on the Full column, click on it, and I'm hopeful
>> that in that case the sort is properly done but it is quite
>> possible the lexicographic sort bug is there, as well.
>>
>> (The KDE icons are also mildly interesting. What theme are you using?)
>>
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
except that the version of kfd (3.4.1) that is present on my box, shows
no such bug.
Perhaps you should upgrade, to the bugfixed version.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC1Bsud90bcYOAWPYRAi0GAJ9Y+S5/KdCwarsqfgdzR7g6E5CWlACfWEmL
OSkM8x8jW1YJKeWcuoRzAis=
=stZD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Chaos, panic, & disorder - my work here is done
DFS
> To properly fix it will require some work and additional validation
> (it may have been fixed already, rendering all this moot); once
> I've localized where the table is built (and presumably where
> the sort is specified), I am hoping the fix isn't difficult.
> However, I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of table-building
> code in KDE applications. (In Java, one uses JTable.)
I think KDiskFree uses a partition "table" built upon app load by the
KwikDisk utility.
DFS
> except that the version of kfd (3.4.1) that is present on my box,
> shows no such bug.
So they fixed it. But as near as I can tell, it was in place since 1999.
> Perhaps you should upgrade, to the bugfixed version.
Yes I should. I like KDE, but stuff like KDiskFree sorting isn't
encouraging.
In fact, I'm going to try and compile 3.4.1 from source and try to make it
the default wm, but also leave 3.3.2 in place on the login session screen
(if that can be done).
robert
> B Gruff wrote:
>>
>> What does Windows make of it, by the way?
>
> Windows, at least Windows Explorer, _always_ gets stuff like this right.
> This sorting is the most basic of the basic file management utilities.
>
Such as the way the XP GUI search utility reports the size of everything
in "KB", even when it's "0 KB" ? That makes sorting on "size" quite easy.
steve
> Peter Jensen wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> dfs wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
>>
>> Not a sorting bug that I can recreate here with either KDE3.3 or 3.4.
>> Must have been fixed for quite some time.
>
> "fixed for quite some time"? I don't think so. That KDiskFree version I
> showed (v0.5) was included with KDE 3.3.2, which was included with
> Mandriva LE 2005, which was released.April 14, 2005. Though I did install
> LE 2005 via upgrading, and maybe KDiskFree wasn't upgraded along with KDE.
>
> Either way, it's a great example of the kind of crappy code found in
> Linux: single developer, no testing. How could anyone put their name on
> something like that?
>
Blue screen doing TCP/IP printing, not only do people put their name to
it, they charge for it.
DFS
It does, since Explorer still sorts them correctly on size. Create text
files
onebyte.txt
twobyte.txt
threebyte.txt
fourbyte.txt
fivebyte.txt
and put the corresponding # of characters in the files, and they will all
show up as 0KB in size, but will be sorted correctly when you click on the
Size column.
Right click on Properties and it will report the actual bytes.
Windows: doing it right.
DFS
Is there or is there not a huge difference between the complexity of TCP/IP
printing and accounting for all the various combinations of network devices
and printers and drivers, and the exceedingly simple task of reporting how
much data is on a partition?
btw, how well, if at all, does Linux handle that TCP/IP printing issue?
Linux: do one task, and do it poorly
Snit
74adq2-...@grendel.myth on 7/12/05 10:09 AM:
>> It may very well explain what is broken about the program - and, if so, you
>> even suggested a potential fix.
>>
>>
>
>
> a workaround maybe, but it's too late in any case, this rather trivial
> bug, is already fixed in KDE, at least by 3.4.1, which is what I have
> here.
Well then it is not broken in the newest release. No argument here.
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
robert
> robert wrote:
>> DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>>> B Gruff wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> What does Windows make of it, by the way?
>>>
>>> Windows, at least Windows Explorer, _always_ gets stuff like this
>>> right. This sorting is the most basic of the basic file management
>>> utilities.
>>>
>>
>> Such as the way the XP GUI search utility reports the size of
>> everything in "KB", even when it's "0 KB" ? That makes sorting on
>> "size" quite easy.
>
> It does, since Explorer still sorts them correctly on size. Create text
> files
>
> onebyte.txt
> twobyte.txt
> threebyte.txt
> fourbyte.txt
> fivebyte.txt
>
> and put the corresponding # of characters in the files, and they will all
> show up as 0KB in size, but will be sorted correctly when you click on the
> Size column.
>
I'll take your word for it, since I can't be bothered to reboot into
doze again right now.
Too bad it's so BROKEN that it doesn't display the correct file size.
Typical Windoze slopware. Every small file is 0 KB. I suppose the
philosophy is not to micromanage individual bytes when they're in the
business of wasting *gigs* for the upgrade treadmill.
GNU sort, on the other hand, both sorts correctly on file size *and*
displays the correct file size, down to the single byte level:
robert@laptop~/sortbytes$ ls -l |sort -k4
total 20
-rw-r--r-- 1 robert users 1 2005-07-12 16:59 onebyte
-rw-r--r-- 1 robert users 2 2005-07-12 16:59 twobyte
-rw-r--r-- 1 robert users 3 2005-07-12 16:59 threebyte
-rw-r--r-- 1 robert users 4 2005-07-12 16:59 fourbyte
-rw-r--r-- 1 robert users 5 2005-07-12 16:59 fivebyte
robert@laptop~/sortbytes$
> Right click on Properties and it will report the actual bytes.
>
> Windows: doing it right.
>
Windows: Yet another mouse click for every little thing.
Peter Jensen
Hash: SHA1
DFS wrote:
>>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
>>
>> Not a sorting bug that I can recreate here with either KDE3.3 or 3.4.
>> Must have been fixed for quite some time.
>
> "fixed for quite some time"? I don't think so. That KDiskFree
> version I showed (v0.5) was included with KDE 3.3.2, which was
> included with Mandriva LE 2005, which was released.April 14, 2005.
> Though I did install LE 2005 via upgrading, and maybe KDiskFree wasn't
> upgraded along with KDE.
Well, I have the versions you tried, yet mine sorts correctly. The
problem seems confined to your system.
> Either way, it's a great example of the kind of crappy code found in
> Linux: single developer, no testing. How could anyone put their name
> on something like that?
Yet only you can reproduce the error. It might be that there is nothing
wrong with KDiskFree, but the problem lies in a buggy sorting widget.
In that case the bug might be in the KDE libraries or even in the
version of QT that you happen to have, it's hard to tell without going
through the source (which I'm not about to do for something as trivial
as this). Stuff like that is notoriously difficult to fully test for,
as it might work perfectly on every developers machine, but fail on your
(apparently error-prone) install.
Of course, there is just as big a possibility that you faked the whole
thing. I definitely wouldn't put it past you. For the record, here is
how it looks on my system:
http://pekaje.homeip.net/KDiskFree-Sorting.png
Notice how it properly sorts by actual size, instead of alphabetically?
Even though we have the exact same version ...
>> You do seem to have a special gift for finding all these trivial and
>> long-fixed bugs. You must devote a lot of time to finding them all.
>
> I don't look for them. I'm just digging around trying various apps
> and expecting them to work.
Bullshit. You have but one agenda here, and it's getting pretty
obvious. Perhaps if you didn't go *looking* for trouble all the time,
you might actually find out that there isn't anything worth mentioning.
What do you get out of putting down the efforts of thousands of
volunteers? Nobody is forcing you to use it, yet you trawl through it
looking for the tiniest flaws. And when you do find something (even
something that's trivial and not reproducible by anyone but you), you
use it as an excuse for calling all of Linux "slopware".
You know what, you're just too pathetic to take even remotely seriously.
It takes a very small person to belittle voluntary work. Particularly
when that work helps millions every day.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC1DRvd1ZThqotgfgRAjzuAJ9iMKcqcnFtc6+xp8QX5lAaeagp+wCePA2f
6qzmiCQUsDqMuXaTvERsnrQ=
=lVke
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
Go to a movie tonight. Darkness becomes you.
amosf
Works fine here on % (as usual). I think you are full of it.
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
amosf
> amosf wrote:
>> dfs wrote something like:
>>
>>> and 28% full sorts before 4% full.
>>>
>>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
>>
>> Sorts by % here fine...
>
> Not here.
>
> I'm using v0.5.
The SAME VERSION sorts fine by % here. You are just full of it as usual.
>> My guess is that dfs is unemployed and bored if he has the time for
>> finding trivialities in an OS he doesn't even use... Or perhaps he is
>> only employed in this trolling by MS, but they only pay chicken feed
>> for that...
>
> Your response is another example why Linux, and Linux advocates, often
> shouldn't be taken seriously. Another stupid flaw in another stupid OSS
> app
> is revealed and you call it trivial and try to insult me. Or maybe you're
> so used to OSS crapware that you really don't care.
>
> Either way, the joke's on you and Linux. Not on me.
You still seem to have a lot of free time on your hands :)
amosf
> Rob Hughes wrote:
>> dfs is alleged to have said in comp.os.linux.advocacy:
>>
>>> and 28% full sorts before 4% full.
>>>
>>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
>>>
>>> sniff, sniff, sniff
>>>
>>> Unbelievable
>>
>> Which version? KDiskFree from 3.4.1 (current stable version) from
>> kde-redhat and KUbuntu sorts correctly. But if you look closely,
>> you'll notice that kdf is doing a standard numerical sort. I've seen
>> that behavior in a number of programs on all platforms. It's a simple
>> mistake, and apparently, easy to fix.... because it's fixed.
>>
>> DFS... still posting non-issues, even resorting to posting fixed bugs.
>
> Figures you'd linimize the issue, which is a classic weak-minded
> "advocacy" tactic: if Linux/OSS screws up something, pretend it's not
> important, or nobody uses it.
>
> That KDiskFree version I showed (v0.5) was included with KDE 3.3.2, which
> was included with Mandriva LE 2005, which was released.April 14, 2005.
>
> So they fixed it sometime in the last few months. Hello? The app has
> been in use since 1999.
Does anyone actually use it? Anyway, it does seem to sort on % just fine.
The odd sorting on the other columns is incorrect as stated by others. That
may have been the way the author wanted it to sort, I don't know. I
wouldn't have done it that way, but it takes all types.
You can really find thos critical linux bugs DFS - Great work :)
DFS
Get your own word.
> Every small file is 0 KB.
I wonder if that's still the case if you choose tiny clusters when you
format the drive? My Windows partitions are generally defined with 4K
clusters. (just tested: created an NTFS volume with 512 byte clusters and
it still reported the file sizes as 0KB. Oh well.)
Have a lot of 27-byte files on your system, do you?
> I suppose the
> philosophy is not to micromanage individual bytes when they're in the
> business of wasting *gigs* for the upgrade treadmill.
That's the cynical, nasty, cola-type viewpoint. The MS philosophy is
probably try to satisfy everyone with a happy medium (KB), and give them
options when enough beta testers have requested them.
> GNU sort, on the other hand, both sorts correctly on file size *and*
> displays the correct file size, down to the single byte level:
>
> robert@laptop~/sortbytes$ ls -l |sort -k4
> total 20
> -rw-r--r-- 1 robert users 1 2005-07-12 16:59 onebyte
> -rw-r--r-- 1 robert users 2 2005-07-12 16:59 twobyte
> -rw-r--r-- 1 robert users 3 2005-07-12 16:59 threebyte
> -rw-r--r-- 1 robert users 4 2005-07-12 16:59 fourbyte
> -rw-r--r-- 1 robert users 5 2005-07-12 16:59 fivebyte
> robert@laptop~/sortbytes$
I bet you didn't know this: Windows command line does as well.
Microsoft Windows [Version 5.2.3790]
(C) Copyright 1985-2003 Microsoft Corp.
L:\>dir *.txt | sort
0 Dir(s) 3,752,349,696 bytes free
6 File(s) 21 bytes
Directory of L:\
Volume in drive L is LinuxVM
Volume Serial Number is 40D6-7744
07/12/2005 04:35 PM 1 onebyte.txt
07/12/2005 04:35 PM 2 twobyte.txt
07/12/2005 04:36 PM 3 threebyte.txt
07/12/2005 04:36 PM 4 fourbyte.txt
07/12/2005 04:37 PM 5 fivebyte.txt
07/12/2005 04:40 PM 6 sixbyte.txt
I would like an Explorer option to show in KB/MB/GB, or just KB. I'll
request it, but won't hold my breath.
>> Right click on Properties and it will report the actual bytes.
>>
>> Windows: doing it right.
>
> Windows: Yet another mouse click for every little thing.
Linux: some apps sort numbers by numbers, some apps sort numbers by strings.
Fix it yourself if you don't like it.
DFS
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> DFS wrote:
>
>>>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
>>>
>>> Not a sorting bug that I can recreate here with either KDE3.3 or
>>> 3.4. Must have been fixed for quite some time.
>>
>> "fixed for quite some time"? I don't think so. That KDiskFree
>> version I showed (v0.5) was included with KDE 3.3.2, which was
>> included with Mandriva LE 2005, which was released.April 14, 2005.
>> Though I did install LE 2005 via upgrading, and maybe KDiskFree
>> wasn't upgraded along with KDE.
>
> Well, I have the versions you tried, yet mine sorts correctly. The
> problem seems confined to your system.
>
>> Either way, it's a great example of the kind of crappy code found in
>> Linux: single developer, no testing. How could anyone put their name
>> on something like that?
>
> Yet only you can reproduce the error.
Oh bullshit. Others here have reported the same thing, in this thread.
Open your eyes.
> It might be that there is
> nothing wrong with KDiskFree, but the problem lies in a buggy sorting
> widget. In that case the bug might be in the KDE libraries or even in
> the version of QT that you happen to have, it's hard to tell without
> going through the source (which I'm not about to do for something as
> trivial as this).
In the scheme of things it is trivial, but as a revelation of how bad some
OSS code really is, it's invaluable.
rpmdrake also can't figure out sorting - from one click to the next the
'show packages alphabetically' option won't list them alphabetically.
You'll see packages beginning with L, then A, then Z, then C, etc.
And you consider that OK?
> Stuff like that is notoriously difficult to fully
> test for, as it might work perfectly on every developers machine, but
> fail on your (apparently error-prone) install.
Fair enough, if that was the case. It's not. Other cola nuts using other
distros have reported the same error.
You can find it reported as far back as 2000 in the KDiskFree bug report
page.
http://bugs.kde.org/simple_search.cgi?id=KDiskFree+sorting
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6584
FWIW, most of my Linux installs have come from the DVDs included with Linux
Format magazine (which I buy most months at $15.99 per).
I don't have Linux running now, but I think KDiskFree relies on the data
retrieved by KwikDisk.
> Of course, there is just as big a possibility that you faked the whole
> thing. I definitely wouldn't put it past you.
That's at least 3 or 4 of you cola morons who claim I fake these bugs. How
pitiful that you're all willing to hammer away on Windows, but deny Linux
bugs to the point that you have to claim people fake them.
> For the record, here
> is how it looks on my system:
>
> http://pekaje.homeip.net/KDiskFree-Sorting.png
>
> Notice how it properly sorts by actual size, instead of
> alphabetically? Even though we have the exact same version ...
OK. Yours looks fine. Mine doesn't sort correctly, for whatever reason.
Neither do some others'.
>>> You do seem to have a special gift for finding all these trivial and
>>> long-fixed bugs. You must devote a lot of time to finding them all.
>>
>> I don't look for them. I'm just digging around trying various apps
>> and expecting them to work.
>
> Bullshit. You have but one agenda here, and it's getting pretty
> obvious.
You're quick, aren't you?
> Perhaps if you didn't go *looking* for trouble all the time,
> you might actually find out that there isn't anything worth
> mentioning.
By your standards, no bugs would ever be reported. Go look at the KDE bug
database sometime and see the "trivial" stuff people report. What I show is
not any worse than lots of others' reports.
> What do you get out of putting down the efforts of
> thousands of volunteers?
The same sense of malicious satisfaction you nasty cola hypocrite liars get
out of putting down the efforts of Bill Gates and MS and Windows and MVPs
and closed-source vendors and programs and programmers.
> Nobody is forcing you to use it, yet you
> trawl through it looking for the tiniest flaws.
You're way wrong if you think I report every tiny flaw I see in Linux
software.
> And when you do find
> something (even something that's trivial and not reproducible by
> anyone but you), you use it as an excuse for calling all of Linux
> "slopware".
Nothing is reproducible only by me. As for trivial, that's up to the user.
> You know what, you're just too pathetic to take even remotely
> seriously. It takes a very small person to belittle voluntary work.
Is that your hypocrisy bursting out? You judge CSS vs OSS software by
different standards, and expect less of OSS because it's created by
"volunteers"? That's what it sounds like to me.
Besides which, some amount of OSS is maintained by paid developers, and most
of KDE I believe is maintained by paid Trolltech staff. So what's your
excuse for it now?
> Particularly when that work helps millions every day.
Doesn't mean they shouldn't get it right, nor should it be immune from
criticism. In fact, most cola regs claim volunteer software is better than
closed source. But most of it isn't.
Imagine some medical-related OSS app using the same sort/display algorithm
KDiskFree uses. Now imagine yourself depending on that code to monitor and
report and record your vital signs.
DFS
> DFS wrote something like:
>
>> amosf wrote:
>>> dfs wrote something like:
>>>
>>>> and 28% full sorts before 4% full.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
>>>
>>> Sorts by % here fine...
>>
>> Not here.
>>
>> I'm using v0.5.
>
> The SAME VERSION sorts fine by % here. You are just full of it as
> usual.
I'm not full of it. I showed you the screenprint. Others in this thread
have reported it as well. And you'll find it going back 5 years at
http://bugs.kde.org/simple_search.cgi?id=KDiskFree+sorting
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6584
So, get bent amosf. (pretend there's a piece of ascii art right here of me
giving you the finger).
>>> My guess is that dfs is unemployed and bored if he has the time for
>>> finding trivialities in an OS he doesn't even use... Or perhaps he
>>> is only employed in this trolling by MS, but they only pay chicken
>>> feed for that...
>>
>> Your response is another example why Linux, and Linux advocates,
>> often shouldn't be taken seriously. Another stupid flaw in another
>> stupid OSS app
>> is revealed and you call it trivial and try to insult me. Or maybe
>> you're so used to OSS crapware that you really don't care.
>>
>> Either way, the joke's on you and Linux. Not on me.
>
> You still seem to have a lot of free time on your hands :)
Actually it's not free time, it's time I free up (there's a difference),
usually by shifting from billable and sleeptime.
Either way, I waste too much of it smacking down cola and slopware. I'm
obsessed. I admit it. And I like to argue.
John Bailo
>
> Actually it's not free time, it's time I free up (there's a difference),
> usually by shifting from billable and sleeptime.
>
> Either way, I waste too much of it smacking down cola and slopware. I'm
> obsessed. I admit it. And I like to argue.
Great.
Use your energy for something productive.
Fix the KDE bug and report back in the next year or two when you are
able to.
DFS
> DFS wrote something like:
>
>> Rob Hughes wrote:
>>> dfs is alleged to have said in comp.os.linux.advocacy:
>>>
>>>> and 28% full sorts before 4% full.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
>>>>
>>>> sniff, sniff, sniff
>>>>
>>>> Unbelievable
>>>
>>> Which version? KDiskFree from 3.4.1 (current stable version) from
>>> kde-redhat and KUbuntu sorts correctly. But if you look closely,
>>> you'll notice that kdf is doing a standard numerical sort. I've seen
>>> that behavior in a number of programs on all platforms. It's a
>>> simple mistake, and apparently, easy to fix.... because it's fixed.
>>>
>>> DFS... still posting non-issues, even resorting to posting fixed
>>> bugs.
>>
>> Figures you'd linimize the issue, which is a classic weak-minded
>> "advocacy" tactic: if Linux/OSS screws up something, pretend it's not
>> important, or nobody uses it.
>>
>> That KDiskFree version I showed (v0.5) was included with KDE 3.3.2,
>> which was included with Mandriva LE 2005, which was released.April
>> 14, 2005.
>>
>> So they fixed it sometime in the last few months. Hello? The app
>> has been in use since 1999.
>
> Does anyone actually use it?
heh... that's the $64,000 Linux question.
> Anyway, it does seem to sort on % just
> fine. The odd sorting on the other columns is incorrect as stated by
> others. That may have been the way the author wanted it to sort, I
> don't know. I wouldn't have done it that way, but it takes all types.
Sorting numbers on their string representation? I don't think so.
> You can really find thos critical linux bugs DFS - Great work :)
For f*cks sake, boy, in the other reply you claimed I was "full of it". Now
it's a bug only because others reported it?
But thanks for the compliment. I know you meant it.
robert
> robert wrote:
>>
>> I'll take your word for it, since I can't be bothered to reboot into
>> doze again right now.
>>
>> Too bad it's so BROKEN that it doesn't display the correct file size.
>> Typical Windoze slopware.
>
> Get your own word.
>
Sorry. Next time I use the word "slopware", I'll cite your posts.
>
>> Every small file is 0 KB.
>
> I wonder if that's still the case if you choose tiny clusters when you
> format the drive? My Windows partitions are generally defined with 4K
> clusters. (just tested: created an NTFS volume with 512 byte clusters and
> it still reported the file sizes as 0KB. Oh well.)
>
> Have a lot of 27-byte files on your system, do you?
>
>
I have 316 files of exactly 27 bytes on this system.
>
>> I suppose the
>> philosophy is not to micromanage individual bytes when they're in the
>> business of wasting *gigs* for the upgrade treadmill.
>
> That's the cynical, nasty, cola-type viewpoint. The MS philosophy is
> probably try to satisfy everyone with a happy medium (KB), and give them
> options when enough beta testers have requested them.
>
They're probably sorting on the text of that field and it
would screw up their sort if they mixed in GB, MB, and Bytes.
I knew DOS had a command line. I didn't know windows had one.
I remember laughing at my NT 4 machine's "MSDOS" icon for the
NT command shell.
>
> I would like an Explorer option to show in KB/MB/GB, or just KB. I'll
> request it, but won't hold my breath.
>
I thought you were a programmer. Why don't you write a plugin?
>
>
>>> Right click on Properties and it will report the actual bytes.
>>>
>>> Windows: doing it right.
>>
>> Windows: Yet another mouse click for every little thing.
>
> Linux: some apps sort numbers by numbers, some apps sort numbers by strings.
> Fix it yourself if you don't like it.
>
Windows: If it ain't patched, don't break it.
DFS
> DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>> robert wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I'll take your word for it, since I can't be bothered to reboot into
>>> doze again right now.
>>>
>>> Too bad it's so BROKEN that it doesn't display the correct file
>>> size. Typical Windoze slopware.
>>
>> Get your own word.
>>
>
> Sorry. Next time I use the word "slopware", I'll cite your posts.
Not necessary - as long as you understand only one OS truly deserves that
moniker.
>>> Every small file is 0 KB.
>>
>> I wonder if that's still the case if you choose tiny clusters when
>> you format the drive? My Windows partitions are generally defined
>> with 4K clusters. (just tested: created an NTFS volume with 512
>> byte clusters and it still reported the file sizes as 0KB. Oh well.)
>>
>> Have a lot of 27-byte files on your system, do you?
>
> I have 316 files of exactly 27 bytes on this system.
ha... what do all those wonderful tiny files do? They must be little config
files for all the (cr)apps on your box.
> They're probably sorting on the text of that field and it
> would screw up their sort if they mixed in GB, MB, and Bytes.
You're probably (definitely) wrong.
9KB files sort before 10KB files (in Windows Explorer - but not in Linux
KDiskFree, where a number is not a number).
> I knew DOS had a command line. I didn't know windows had one.
> I remember laughing at my NT 4 machine's "MSDOS" icon for the
> NT command shell.
That was back when Windows had 90% market share. Then it really took off.
>> I would like an Explorer option to show in KB/MB/GB, or just KB.
>> I'll request it, but won't hold my breath.
>
> I thought you were a programmer. Why don't you write a plugin?
I wouldn't waste my time unless there was a pot of gold at the end.
>>>> Right click on Properties and it will report the actual bytes.
>>>>
>>>> Windows: doing it right.
>>>
>>> Windows: Yet another mouse click for every little thing.
>>
>> Linux: some apps sort numbers by numbers, some apps sort numbers by
>> strings. Fix it yourself if you don't like it.
>
> Windows: If it ain't patched, don't break it.
Linux: Ready. Set. Patch. Wait! Wait! Unpatch, unpatch, there's
breaaaaakkkaaaagggggeeee!
Larry Qualig
"DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote in message
news:LkXAe.27582$zA.1...@fe04.lga...
>
> I wonder if that's still the case if you choose tiny clusters when you
> format the drive? My Windows partitions are generally defined with 4K
> clusters. (just tested: created an NTFS volume with 512 byte clusters and
> it still reported the file sizes as 0KB. Oh well.)
>
> Have a lot of 27-byte files on your system, do you?
>
I'm not a NTFS expert but I am fairly sure that NTFS will store small files
(like these 27-byte files) directly in the master file table (MFT). This
allows the file content to be stored right with the directory entry. The
nice thing about this approach is that you don't waste an entire 4k (or
whatever) disk sector to store a few bytes of data.
robert
> robert wrote:
>> DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>>> robert wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll take your word for it, since I can't be bothered to reboot into
>>>> doze again right now.
>>>>
>>>> Too bad it's so BROKEN that it doesn't display the correct file
>>>> size. Typical Windoze slopware.
>>>
>>> Get your own word.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry. Next time I use the word "slopware", I'll cite your posts.
>
> Not necessary - as long as you understand only one OS truly deserves that
> moniker.
>
Oh yes. That is true.
>
>
>>>> Every small file is 0 KB.
>>>
>>> I wonder if that's still the case if you choose tiny clusters when
>>> you format the drive? My Windows partitions are generally defined
>>> with 4K clusters. (just tested: created an NTFS volume with 512
>>> byte clusters and it still reported the file sizes as 0KB. Oh well.)
>>>
>>> Have a lot of 27-byte files on your system, do you?
>>
>> I have 316 files of exactly 27 bytes on this system.
>
> ha... what do all those wonderful tiny files do? They must be little config
> files for all the (cr)apps on your box.
>
Beats me. I figured you must have had a reason for asking.
>
>> They're probably sorting on the text of that field and it
>> would screw up their sort if they mixed in GB, MB, and Bytes.
>
> You're probably (definitely) wrong.
>
> 9KB files sort before 10KB files (in Windows Explorer - but not in Linux
> KDiskFree, where a number is not a number).
>
Prove it. Let's see some screenshots, boy.
You can put up all your Right-Click->Properties results as separate pngs,
if that makes it any easier, LOL.
>
>
>> I knew DOS had a command line. I didn't know windows had one.
>> I remember laughing at my NT 4 machine's "MSDOS" icon for the
>> NT command shell.
>
> That was back when Windows had 90% market share. Then it really took off.
>
And it was all downhill from there.
>
>
>>> I would like an Explorer option to show in KB/MB/GB, or just KB.
>>> I'll request it, but won't hold my breath.
>>
>> I thought you were a programmer. Why don't you write a plugin?
>
> I wouldn't waste my time unless there was a pot of gold at the end.
>
Typical Windoze pothead.
>
>
>>>>> Right click on Properties and it will report the actual bytes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Windows: doing it right.
>>>>
>>>> Windows: Yet another mouse click for every little thing.
>>>
>>> Linux: some apps sort numbers by numbers, some apps sort numbers by
>>> strings. Fix it yourself if you don't like it.
>>
>> Windows: If it ain't patched, don't break it.
>
> Linux: Ready. Set. Patch. Wait! Wait! Unpatch, unpatch, there's
> breaaaaakkkaaaagggggeeee!
>
Windows: Ready. Set. BSOD.
Tim Smith
Rob Hughes <r...@robhughes.com> wrote:
> >> The bug that appears in your screen shot is that the sort on disk free
> >> looks to be non-numerical.
> >
> 1<anything> is always lower than 5<anything>.
Yes, that's what I mean by non-numerical. It appears to be sorting them
as ASCII strings, and in ASCII the digits happen to have the same order
that they do numerically.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
robert <ro...@wheel.invalid> wrote:
> I'll take your word for it, since I can't be bothered to reboot into
> doze again right now.
>
> Too bad it's so BROKEN that it doesn't display the correct file size.
> Typical Windoze slopware. Every small file is 0 KB. I suppose the
> philosophy is not to micromanage individual bytes when they're in the
> business of wasting *gigs* for the upgrade treadmill.
>
> GNU sort, on the other hand, both sorts correctly on file size *and*
> displays the correct file size, down to the single byte level:
>
> robert@laptop~/sortbytes$ ls -l |sort -k4
> total 20
> -rw-r--r-- 1 robert users 1 2005-07-12 16:59 onebyte
> -rw-r--r-- 1 robert users 2 2005-07-12 16:59 twobyte
> -rw-r--r-- 1 robert users 3 2005-07-12 16:59 threebyte
> -rw-r--r-- 1 robert users 4 2005-07-12 16:59 fourbyte
> -rw-r--r-- 1 robert users 5 2005-07-12 16:59 fivebyte
> robert@laptop~/sortbytes$
"DIR" from a command prompt on Windows will show byte sizes, too.
BTW, all 5 of your files are actually the same size on the disk.
--
--Tim Smith
Peter Jensen
Hash: SHA1
DFS wrote:
>> Yet only you can reproduce the error.
>
> Oh bullshit. Others here have reported the same thing, in this
> thread.
OK, fine, now explain why the same version works here, then. Must be
something your particular distribution does. I'm leaning towards a
buggy version of QT. No KDiskFree code has changed significantly for
quite some time.
>> It might be that there is nothing wrong with KDiskFree, but the
>> problem lies in a buggy sorting widget. In that case the bug might be
>> in the KDE libraries or even in the version of QT that you happen to
>> have, it's hard to tell without going through the source (which I'm
>> not about to do for something as trivial as this).
>
> In the scheme of things it is trivial, but as a revelation of how bad
> some OSS code really is, it's invaluable.
Yet this trivial stuff is all you can find. How about showing us
something that might actually be critical to anyone other than the most
pedantic of people. Oh, you can't. Well, if you want to compare minor
annoyances between most CSS and OSS software, I'm afraid you will lose.
Those minor bugs (like the almost eternal begin bug) just tend to stick
around *far* longer in CSS. Particularly when the vendor has no
competition.
> rpmdrake also can't figure out sorting - from one click to the next
> the 'show packages alphabetically' option won't list them
> alphabetically. You'll see packages beginning with L, then A, then Z,
> then C, etc.
>
> And you consider that OK?
I don't consider it at all. I'm running Gentoo here, so it's not like I
have any need for rpmdrake. And don't go crying distro shuffle, you
know perfectly well that I don't use rpmdrake. Or at least you would
know if you have paid the slightest bit of attention.
>> Stuff like that is notoriously difficult to fully test for, as it
>> might work perfectly on every developers machine, but fail on your
>> (apparently error-prone) install.
>
> Fair enough, if that was the case. It's not. Other cola nuts using
> other distros have reported the same error.
Could be that they're also using a broken library. All I know is that
KDiskFree itself is not broken. The problem lies elsewhere. And this
is not something I would blame the KDiskFree developer for, because it
probably worked perfectly on his machine. Welcome to the world of
software development.
> You can find it reported as far back as 2000 in the KDiskFree bug
> report page.
> http://bugs.kde.org/simple_search.cgi?id=KDiskFree+sorting
That does not show what you think it shows.
> http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6584
I dug around further and what I found leads me to think that it's indeed
the fault of something deeper down than KDiskFree itself. It's quite
tricky to track down, as it works for most people.
> FWIW, most of my Linux installs have come from the DVDs included with
> Linux Format magazine (which I buy most months at $15.99 per).
>
> I don't have Linux running now, but I think KDiskFree relies on the
> data retrieved by KwikDisk.
Doubtful. KDiskFree is the "big app", KwikDisk is just a tray
application.
>> Of course, there is just as big a possibility that you faked the
>> whole thing. I definitely wouldn't put it past you.
>
> That's at least 3 or 4 of you cola morons who claim I fake these bugs.
Hard to think otherwise when the exact same version works perfectly here
and on many other systems. You should know that COLA has seen its share
of faked evidence from your side of the fence, over the years.
> How pitiful that you're all willing to hammer away on Windows, but
> deny Linux bugs to the point that you have to claim people fake them.
I never said you did, but I have to consider the possibility.
Particularly with circumstances being what they are. I think you're
both technically and ethically capable of doing it, so I saw no reason
to exclude the possibility.
>> For the record, here is how it looks on my system:
>>
>> http://pekaje.homeip.net/KDiskFree-Sorting.png
>>
>> Notice how it properly sorts by actual size, instead of
>> alphabetically? Even though we have the exact same version ...
>
> OK. Yours looks fine. Mine doesn't sort correctly, for whatever
> reason. Neither do some others'.
Not much the developers can do about it without being able to reproduce
the bug, though.
>> Bullshit. You have but one agenda here, and it's getting pretty
>> obvious.
>
> You're quick, aren't you?
Your agenda has been clear from day one, though you've gotten more
pathetic over time.
>> Perhaps if you didn't go *looking* for trouble all the time, you
>> might actually find out that there isn't anything worth mentioning.
>
> By your standards, no bugs would ever be reported.
You're wrong. I'm all for reporting minor as well as major errors, but
then I do it at the proper sites, instead of bitching about it in an
advocacy group. I also provide a solution if it's trivial or important
enough.
> Go look at the KDE bug database sometime and see the "trivial" stuff
> people report. What I show is not any worse than lots of others'
> reports.
Yet you have not reported it there, but instead whine about it here.
You're clearly not interested in actually getting the problem fixed.
You don't deserve the privilege of using Linux, IMHO.
>> What do you get out of putting down the efforts of thousands of
>> volunteers?
>
> The same sense of malicious satisfaction you nasty cola hypocrite
> liars get out of putting down the efforts of Bill Gates and MS and
> Windows and MVPs and closed-source vendors and programs and
> programmers.
I have nothing against most CSS vendors, developers, or applications. I
actually use quite a bit of it myself. However, BG and MS deserve my
contempt for the way they do business. They produce inferior products,
yet charge way too much for it (something they can only do by virtue of
their illegal monopoly).
At any rate, it's not really something you can compare. Let's try an
analogy, shall we? Say MS is a fancy restaurant. They get paid very
well for the food they prepare. However, would you not be slightly
annoyed to discover that what they're actually serving tasted like crap?
Would it also not annoy you to find out that you need to pay them, even
when you cook the meal yourself at home? You would in fact be quite
justified to trash them.
Now, what you do is more along the lines of complaining that the food
served at the soup kitchen isn't gourmet quality, even though you didn't
pay for it and claim to not even need it. Of course a real person would
never do that, as it's completely and utterly disrespectful of the
kitchen volunteers. What you fail to realize is that you're not any
better.
>> Nobody is forcing you to use it, yet you trawl through it looking for
>> the tiniest flaws.
>
> You're way wrong if you think I report every tiny flaw I see in Linux
> software.
OK, so presumably this was the worst you could find. Damn, we're doing
*fine* if a minor sorting bug in a seldom used application is the worst
you can bitch about.
>> You know what, you're just too pathetic to take even remotely
>> seriously. It takes a very small person to belittle voluntary work.
>
> Is that your hypocrisy bursting out? You judge CSS vs OSS software by
> different standards, and expect less of OSS because it's created by
> "volunteers"? That's what it sounds like to me.
Truth be told, I've actually come to expect *more* quality from OSS,
because I've gotten used to *getting* more. Unfortunately, CSS tends to
come out looking worse because of this.
> Besides which, some amount of OSS is maintained by paid developers,
> and most of KDE I believe is maintained by paid Trolltech staff. So
> what's your excuse for it now?
Unless you can back up that statement, I'd have to say flawed premise.
Trolltech maintain QT, which KDE uses, but that's about it. Besides,
you badmouth all of Linux (all software included), and I can assure you
that most of it has no corporate financial backing.
>> Particularly when that work helps millions every day.
>
> Doesn't mean they shouldn't get it right, nor should it be immune from
> criticism. In fact, most cola regs claim volunteer software is better
> than closed source. But most of it isn't.
Well in that case you should encourage as many people as you can to try
it out. If it's truly so bad, they'll never stay. Trouble with that
plan is of course that Linux isn't really as bad as you make it out to
be. In fact, it's quite a good alternative. That's why you have to
spread your lies and misinformation, to scare people away.
> Imagine some medical-related OSS app using the same sort/display
> algorithm KDiskFree uses. Now imagine yourself depending on that code
> to monitor and report and record your vital signs.
Wow, you're really grasping at straws here. That you even wrote it
makes me question your software development skills, not to say your
intelligence. Any response other than "that would never happen" would
be lending credibility to the statement, so I won't go into any more
detail now. I will, however, be laughing at you because of that one for
quite some time ...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC1GYSd1ZThqotgfgRAsB/AJ9b1MVN79gK7VYY6LrcQuAYkDLTAwCgthYi
uNXK5cpY43E+/PVrSCXRyqU=
=re2g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
There's no point in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes.
-- Dr. Who
Rob Hughes
> Rob Hughes wrote:
>> dfs is alleged to have said in comp.os.linux.advocacy:
>>
>>> and 28% full sorts before 4% full.
>>>
>>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
>>>
>>> sniff, sniff, sniff
>>>
>>> Unbelievable
>>
>> Which version? KDiskFree from 3.4.1 (current stable version) from
>> kde-redhat and KUbuntu sorts correctly. But if you look closely,
>> you'll notice that kdf is doing a standard numerical sort. I've seen
>> that behavior in a number of programs on all platforms. It's a simple
>> mistake, and apparently, easy to fix.... because it's fixed.
>>
>> DFS... still posting non-issues, even resorting to posting fixed bugs.
>
> Figures you'd linimize the issue, which is a classic weak-minded
"advocacy"
> tactic: if Linux/OSS screws up something, pretend it's not important, or
> nobody uses it.
First, just so we're on equal footing, here's the history of the bug report
that you seem to be claiming some claim won't be released:
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40954
Now, yes, yes, I already know you're going to argue that this is proof that
it takes longer to fix bugs in OSS than in window. Fine, make it. But
remember, this appears to have been fixed in my testing and according to
the dev. Perhaps what you should really do is notify your vendor, as maybe
they need to do something, rather than blaming the KDE dev team.
Further, there's plenty of things that I think are important, no matter how
many people use them. That's really not the issue. The issue is that it's
already fixed in the main branch so far as I can determine, and is
therefore, apparently, a non-issue in the main branch. What's important is
the severity of the bug and whether it's a security issue, pretty much in
that order. Performance, how many it affects, and usability come after
that. And pretty simply, those are the criteria I use to determine how bad
I think a bug is. So really, this falls pretty far down there, unless it
can be shown that a lot of people use both this app and this feature.
But it is also just possible that it could be system specific. The kdf
maintainer wasn't able to replicate it. I wasn't able to replicate it on
two distributions on three systems. You and one or two others here were.
Maybe, just maybe, all of you could post something to the bug report and
find out what's really happening. Who knows? I'll be damned shocked if you
actually do though.
At least I have a mind. A strong argument could be made that you do not, or
at least not one of your own. I mean really, attacking the messenger around
here gets you nothing. But then, around here, you have nothing, most
certainly not respect, to lose. Oh, and if you didn't notice, I rarely
"advocate". I mostly just call bullshit when I see it posted. The term
"always" would apply in your case.
> That KDiskFree version I showed (v0.5) was included with KDE 3.3.2, which
> was included with Mandriva LE 2005, which was released.April 14, 2005.
And? You found a bug. Congratu-fuggin-lations. Be proud. It's a rare breed
of "person" who searches out bugs in software they claim to hate.
"Obsessed" is, I believe, the term most often used. Right bleedin' nutters
is what I'd call it.
> So they fixed it sometime in the last few months. Hello? The app has
been
> in use since 1999.
Since I don't really use the sort, I can't say how long it was broken. First
report was in 2002.
And, uhm, hello? Are you always this much of an asshat? Oh, wait, I already
know the answer to that one.
>
> Do I have update and upgrade every app every day to get working Linux
> programs?
That's hardly a "mission critical" app. But you're desperate to find a
fault, any fault, no matter how small so you can try to claim it's a huge,
show stopping, absolute reason not to use linux. And in case you didn't
notice, and I'm sure you didn't considering the subject matter, one of the
tenants followed by many OSS authors/projects is "release early, release
often". Since no one is forcing you to use any OSS products, please, feel
free to return to the dankness of whatever vendor's products you feel to be
superior and leave us poor, ig'nernt loonix pippuls alone. M'kay?
> Linux: truly a fix or repair daily OS
Or just one patch? Perhaps even updating to the current version, which is
3.4.1 and was released several months ago? Unlike windows patches, OSS
patches actually fix things without breaking more than they fix, so you
needn't be afraid of installing them.
>
>> sniff, sniff, sniff
>>
>> Unbelievable
>
> It's probably too late now, but you need to get a personality and
> imagination all your own.
Or you could try to learn to tell when you're being openly mocked. That
means I was openly mocking you in that last bit you quoted, just in case
you still don't understand. And that bit means I'm continuing to openly
mock you, which I point out because I know you have comprehension problems.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
DFS
> In your case it was merely an observation that you were
> complaining about the wrong column being missorted,
> judging from your pic, though the bug probably hits both.
I wasn't complaining about the wrong column being missorted. I was
complaining about both columns missorting. But I only posted a screenshot
about the first one - the Free column.
>> Yes. KDiskFree is as old as 1999 I think. I can't imagine that bug
>> has been in place for 5-6 years. But then again, this is OSS.
>
> The bug has been in there since KDE's inception, presumably.
>
> (I can't say; I'm a Gnomester.)
Not Enlightenmented, eh?
>>> Which version is it?
>>
>> v0.5.
>
> Then you may be badly in need of an upgrade, though it's not clear
> whether you're referring to the KDE version (current ver is
> 3.4.1) or to the KDiskFree version.
I believe KDiskFree 0.5 is the current version.
> Now contrast this bug with
>
> http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1776935,00.asp
>
> (a lament on IE 7's [*] non-support of all things CSS2).
>
> Which one's more important to the world at large?
Since IE still has around 90% market share, the MS non-committal IE 7.0
support of CSS2, of course. I'm sure MS has their reasons - they say
something about the CSS2 standard being flawed.
> [*] assuming that "IE7" makes any sense as a moniker at all, since
> it is now bundled in with the OS.
That article says it will be a standalone browser.
> It will be interesting to see if I can get IE7 for my Win98 box.
Did I mention it's 2005 already, and you might want to upgrade? Why not
move to Win2K at least? You can find it really cheaply on
www.pricewatch.com or ebay.
DFS
> DFS is alleged to have said in comp.os.linux.advocacy:
>
>> Rob Hughes wrote:
>>> dfs is alleged to have said in comp.os.linux.advocacy:
>>>
>>>> and 28% full sorts before 4% full.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
>>>>
>>>> sniff, sniff, sniff
>>>>
>>>> Unbelievable
>>>
>>> Which version? KDiskFree from 3.4.1 (current stable version) from
>>> kde-redhat and KUbuntu sorts correctly. But if you look closely,
>>> you'll notice that kdf is doing a standard numerical sort. I've seen
>>> that behavior in a number of programs on all platforms. It's a
>>> simple mistake, and apparently, easy to fix.... because it's fixed.
>>>
>>> DFS... still posting non-issues, even resorting to posting fixed
>>> bugs.
>>
>> Figures you'd linimize the issue, which is a classic weak-minded
>> "advocacy" tactic: if Linux/OSS screws up something, pretend it's
>> not important, or nobody uses it.
>
> First, just so we're on equal footing, here's the history of the bug
> report that you seem to be claiming some claim won't be released:
>
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40954
>
> Now, yes, yes, I already know you're going to argue that this is
> proof that it takes longer to fix bugs in OSS than in window. Fine,
> make it.
Why shouldn't I? One of the shrill and constant refrains on cola is time
for MS to fix bugs.
> But remember, this appears to have been fixed in my testing
> and according to the dev. Perhaps what you should really do is notify
> your vendor, as maybe they need to do something, rather than blaming
> the KDE dev team.
That's a new one: don't blame the developers.
> Further, there's plenty of things that I think are important, no
> matter how many people use them. That's really not the issue. The
> issue is that it's already fixed in the main branch so far as I can
> determine, and is therefore, apparently, a non-issue in the main
> branch. What's important is the severity of the bug and whether it's
> a security issue, pretty much in that order. Performance, how many it
> affects, and usability come after that. And pretty simply, those are
> the criteria I use to determine how bad I think a bug is. So really,
> this falls pretty far down there, unless it can be shown that a lot
> of people use both this app and this feature.
I didn't make any judgements as to its severity or importance - and it
probably is trivial. Like the OE 'begin ' bug.
> But it is also just possible that it could be system specific. The kdf
> maintainer wasn't able to replicate it. I wasn't able to replicate it
> on two distributions on three systems. You and one or two others here
> were. Maybe, just maybe, all of you could post something to the bug
> report and find out what's really happening. Who knows? I'll be
> damned shocked if you actually do though.
Later on I'll boot into Linux and check out my library versions and report
it with some details. Then will you get a personality?
> At least I have a mind. A strong argument could be made that you do
> not, or at least not one of your own. I mean really, attacking the
> messenger around here gets you nothing.
I've been telling the cola bozos that for months.
> But then, around here, you
> have nothing, most certainly not respect, to lose.
cola doesn't respect me? That hurts [1].
> Oh, and if you
> didn't notice, I rarely "advocate". I mostly just call bullshit when
> I see it posted. The term "always" would apply in your case.
So at least I'm consistent.
>> That KDiskFree version I showed (v0.5) was included with KDE 3.3.2,
>> which was included with Mandriva LE 2005, which was released.April
>> 14, 2005.
>
> And? You found a bug. Congratu-fuggin-lations. Be proud. It's a rare
> breed of "person" who searches out bugs in software they claim to
> hate.
I don't hate it. Some is kind of fun to use. I get bored with Windows.
And MS desperately needs competition, so believe it or not I frequently buy
expensive Linux mags and books. I haven't bought any boxed distros since
Suse 7.1 Pro, but one day I might. First I need a good reason. If there
was a good Linux db-client tool with a file-based dbms (like Access), I
definitely would.
Linux Format was raving about Suse 9.3 Pro - to the point where they call it
the first ever "must buy" Linux distro.
> "Obsessed" is, I believe, the term most often used. Right
> bleedin' nutters is what I'd call it.
You're probably right. I'll have to ask myself.
>> So they fixed it sometime in the last few months. Hello? The app
>> has been in use since 1999.
>
> Since I don't really use the sort, I can't say how long it was
> broken. First report was in 2002.
>
> And, uhm, hello? Are you always this much of an asshat? Oh, wait, I
> already know the answer to that one.
I am - on cola anyway. Something about the lying and hypocrisy gets to me.
>> Do I have update and upgrade every app every day to get working Linux
>> programs?
>
> That's hardly a "mission critical" app. But you're desperate to find a
> fault, any fault, no matter how small so you can try to claim it's a
> huge, show stopping, absolute reason not to use linux. And in case
> you didn't notice, and I'm sure you didn't considering the subject
> matter, one of the tenants followed by many OSS authors/projects is
> "release early, release often".
There's a 3rd part to that. Do you know what it is?
> Since no one is forcing you to use
> any OSS products, please, feel free to return to the dankness of
> whatever vendor's products you feel to be superior and leave us poor,
> ig'nernt loonix pippuls alone. M'kay?
No.
>> Linux: truly a fix or repair daily OS
>
> Or just one patch? Perhaps even updating to the current version,
> which is 3.4.1 and was released several months ago?
Several months! XP was released nearly 4 years ago, and stands the test of
time.
I'm going to make an effort to compile KDE 3.4.x from source, and see if I
can add it to the session list in the login manager. I'll be right proud of
myself if I can accomplish that.
> Unlike windows patches, OSS
> patches actually fix things without breaking more than they fix, so
> you needn't be afraid of installing them.
You really shouldn't open yourself to such abuse:
http://seclists.org/linux-kernel/2000/Sep/3000.html
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0402.2/1287.html
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/linux/linux-kernel/2002-52/0382.html
http://seer.support.veritas.com/docs/272255.htm
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2003-April/007567.html
http://oss.sgi.com/archives/linux-xfs/2003-06/msg00318.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/1999-11n/msg00545.html
http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2000-June/019375.html
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2001-June/015638.html
http://lunar-linux.org/pipermail/lunar-bugs/2003-December/002029.html
http://ngc891.blogdns.net/index.php?2004/10/22/20-linux-269-bk6-breaks-nvidia-driver-again
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-bugs/2003/11/04/0003.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-security/2003/03/msg00354.html
>>> sniff, sniff, sniff
>>>
>>> Unbelievable
>>
>> It's probably too late now, but you need to get a personality and
>> imagination all your own.
>
> Or you could try to learn to tell when you're being openly mocked.
I can, but it's more interesting when you openly mock me with your own
words. That way I can tell you're a real person and not a bot. I was
having doubts.
> That means I was openly mocking you in that last bit you quoted, just
> in case you still don't understand. And that bit means I'm continuing
> to openly mock you, which I point out because I know you have
> comprehension problems. Wash, rinse, repeat.
When does it end?
[1] ok, I was lying. It stings [2].
[2] ok, I'm still lying. It doesn't bother me [3]
[3] in the least
DFS
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> DFS wrote:
>
>>> Yet only you can reproduce the error.
>>
>> Oh bullshit. Others here have reported the same thing, in this
>> thread.
>
> OK, fine, now explain why the same version works here, then.
If I could explain it I would have. Then you would have called me a liar
for that too, if I misplaced a comma or got a library version wrong.
That's how cola nutcases work. When they can't argue the problem isn't
Linux, they attack the messenger.
> Must be something your particular distribution does. I'm leaning towards
a
> buggy version of QT. No KDiskFree code has changed significantly for
> quite some time.
The bug's been reported twice this year, so the developer will probably take
a look at it. Or you might.
>>> It might be that there is nothing wrong with KDiskFree, but the
>>> problem lies in a buggy sorting widget. In that case the bug might
>>> be in the KDE libraries or even in the version of QT that you
>>> happen to have, it's hard to tell without going through the source
>>> (which I'm not about to do for something as trivial as this).
>>
>> In the scheme of things it is trivial, but as a revelation of how bad
>> some OSS code really is, it's invaluable.
>
> Yet this trivial stuff is all you can find. How about showing us
> something that might actually be critical to anyone other than the
> most pedantic of people.
Just because you find it trivial doesn't mean everyone does.
> Oh, you can't. Well, if you want to
> compare minor annoyances between most CSS and OSS software, I'm
> afraid you will lose. Those minor bugs (like the almost eternal begin
> bug) just tend to stick around *far* longer in CSS. Particularly
> when the vendor has no competition.
I hope you have something besides the 'begin ' bug.
>> rpmdrake also can't figure out sorting - from one click to the next
>> the 'show packages alphabetically' option won't list them
>> alphabetically. You'll see packages beginning with L, then A, then
>> Z, then C, etc.
>>
>> And you consider that OK?
>
> I don't consider it at all.
And so you think it's trivial.
> I'm running Gentoo here, so it's not
> like I have any need for rpmdrake. And don't go crying distro
> shuffle, you know perfectly well that I don't use rpmdrake. Or at
> least you would know if you have paid the slightest bit of attention.
I really can't be bothered to remember which distro(s) each cola reg uses.
>>> Stuff like that is notoriously difficult to fully test for, as it
>>> might work perfectly on every developers machine, but fail on your
>>> (apparently error-prone) install.
>>
>> Fair enough, if that was the case. It's not. Other cola nuts using
>> other distros have reported the same error.
>
> Could be that they're also using a broken library. All I know is that
> KDiskFree itself is not broken. The problem lies elsewhere. And this
> is not something I would blame the KDiskFree developer for, because it
> probably worked perfectly on his machine. Welcome to the world of
> software development.
It was reported 5 years ago, and you think by now they could have fixed it -
everywhere. But it still pops up; someone reported it 5 months ago.
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40954
=============================================================
------- Additional Comment #5 From Peter 2005-02-11 06:16 -------
Created an attachment (id=9553)
screen capture of KDiskFree window
The last bug report on the issue of incorrect size sort in v.05 of KDiskFree
is
dated 2002. Although marked Resolved this bug is very much alive!
The attached image (still) illustrates size sort is wrong
========================================================
And I notice Rob Hughes reported it today at the same location - thanks to
me.
DFS: helping Linux one slopware report at a time.
>> You can find it reported as far back as 2000 in the KDiskFree bug
>> report page.
>> http://bugs.kde.org/simple_search.cgi?id=KDiskFree+sorting
>
> That does not show what you think it shows.
Of course it does. It shows all the KDiskFree bugs relating to 'sorting'
>> http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6584
>
> I dug around further and what I found leads me to think that it's
> indeed the fault of something deeper down than KDiskFree itself.
> It's quite tricky to track down, as it works for most people.
>> FWIW, most of my Linux installs have come from the DVDs included with
>> Linux Format magazine (which I buy most months at $15.99 per).
>>
>> I don't have Linux running now, but I think KDiskFree relies on the
>> data retrieved by KwikDisk.
>
> Doubtful. KDiskFree is the "big app", KwikDisk is just a tray
> application.
I downloaded the source from here
http://www.edu.uni-klu.ac.at/~mkropfbe/kde.html#KDiskFree%20and%20KwikDisk
and looked at it.
* I think these are the Qt widget items involved (from kdfwidget.h)
KTabListBox *tabList;
DiskList diskList;
* This (from disklist.cpp) seems to be the routine that adds the Free, Used%
and Usage columns to the listbox.
if ( (olddisk->mounted()) && (!disk->mounted()) ) {
disk->setKBSize(olddisk->kBSize());
disk->setKBUsed(olddisk->kBUsed());
disk->setKBAvail(olddisk->kBAvail());
}
Those 3 setKB* functions take int arguments, and they're formatted as
strings for screen output in another routine in disks.cpp:
QString DiskEntry::prettyPrint(int kBValue) const
{
QString weight;
float val=(float)kBValue; // size in KiloByte
//always go up to MegaByte
val=val/1024;
weight="MB";
if (val>999.0) { //GigaByte
val=val/1024;
weight="GB";
}//if
QString ret;
if (val>100.0) // e.g. 504MB
ret.sprintf("%3.0f%s",val,(const char *)weight);
else
if (val>10.0) // e.g. 54.7MB
ret.sprintf("%3.1f%s",val,(const char *)weight);
else // e.g. 1.44KB
ret.sprintf("%3.2f%s",val,(const char *)weight);
return ret;
}
I don't know enough Qt or C++ to be of much help.
>>> Of course, there is just as big a possibility that you faked the
>>> whole thing. I definitely wouldn't put it past you.
>>
>> That's at least 3 or 4 of you cola morons who claim I fake these
>> bugs.
>
> Hard to think otherwise when the exact same version works perfectly
> here and on many other systems.
Of course, 'cause Linux always works.
Your attitude is exactly the wrong attitude any software developer (like you
claim to be) should have. I would never, ever accuse my clients, or anyone
else, of faking a bug because I can't reproduce it.
> You should know that COLA has seen
> its share of faked evidence from your side of the fence, over the
> years.
Including fake screenshots? Where? When? Who?
>> How pitiful that you're all willing to hammer away on Windows, but
>> deny Linux bugs to the point that you have to claim people fake them.
>
> I never said you did, but I have to consider the possibility.
> Particularly with circumstances being what they are. I think you're
> both technically and ethically capable of doing it, so I saw no reason
> to exclude the possibility.
Which is why you're a "great" Linux "advocate": it can't be the software,
the user must be lying.
>>> For the record, here is how it looks on my system:
>>>
>>> http://pekaje.homeip.net/KDiskFree-Sorting.png
>>>
>>> Notice how it properly sorts by actual size, instead of
>>> alphabetically? Even though we have the exact same version ...
>>
>> OK. Yours looks fine. Mine doesn't sort correctly, for whatever
>> reason. Neither do some others'.
>
> Not much the developers can do about it without being able to
> reproduce the bug, though.
Why can't they reproduce it? The bug reports say the distro, version, etc.
>>> Bullshit. You have but one agenda here, and it's getting pretty
>>> obvious.
>>
>> You're quick, aren't you?
>
> Your agenda has been clear from day one, though you've gotten more
> pathetic over time.
I've worked hard at it, too.
>>> Perhaps if you didn't go *looking* for trouble all the time, you
>>> might actually find out that there isn't anything worth mentioning.
>>
>> By your standards, no bugs would ever be reported.
>
> You're wrong. I'm all for reporting minor as well as major errors,
> but then I do it at the proper sites, instead of bitching about it in
> an advocacy group. I also provide a solution if it's trivial or
> important enough.
First you tell me I won't find anything worth mentioning. Then you say you
report minor errors.
Which is which?
>> Go look at the KDE bug database sometime and see the "trivial" stuff
>> people report. What I show is not any worse than lots of others'
>> reports.
>
> Yet you have not reported it there, but instead whine about it here.
I don't whine. I gloat. I jeer.
And Kier says I sneer.
> You're clearly not interested in actually getting the problem fixed.
> You don't deserve the privilege of using Linux, IMHO.
I happen to agree with you: I don't deserve Linux.
>>> What do you get out of putting down the efforts of thousands of
>>> volunteers?
>>
>> The same sense of malicious satisfaction you nasty cola hypocrite
>> liars get out of putting down the efforts of Bill Gates and MS and
>> Windows and MVPs and closed-source vendors and programs and
>> programmers.
>
> I have nothing against most CSS vendors, developers, or applications.
> I actually use quite a bit of it myself. However, BG and MS deserve
> my contempt for the way they do business. They produce inferior
> products, yet charge way too much for it (something they can only do
> by virtue of their illegal monopoly).
Ridiculous. Nobody is forced to buy their products. Everyone could stay at
Win2K, Office 2000, etc for a decade if they wished. One of my larger
clients just switched from Win95 to XP two years ago.
> At any rate, it's not really something you can compare. Let's try an
> analogy, shall we? Say MS is a fancy restaurant. They get paid very
> well for the food they prepare. However, would you not be slightly
> annoyed to discover that what they're actually serving tasted like
> crap? Would it also not annoy you to find out that you need to pay
> them, even when you cook the meal yourself at home? You would in
> fact be quite justified to trash them.
>
> Now, what you do is more along the lines of complaining that the food
> served at the soup kitchen isn't gourmet quality, even though you
> didn't pay for it and claim to not even need it. Of course a real
> person would never do that, as it's completely and utterly
> disrespectful of the kitchen volunteers. What you fail to realize is
> that you're not any better.
I like that analogy: using Linux is like eating at a soup kitchen.
LMAO!!! It's about time you told the truth.
>>> Nobody is forcing you to use it, yet you trawl through it looking
>>> for the tiniest flaws.
>>
>> You're way wrong if you think I report every tiny flaw I see in Linux
>> software.
>
> OK, so presumably this was the worst you could find. Damn, we're
> doing *fine* if a minor sorting bug in a seldom used application is
> the worst you can bitch about.
Like I said, I don't look for the bugs - they just jump out at me like I'm
running through a swarm of locusts.
>>> You know what, you're just too pathetic to take even remotely
>>> seriously. It takes a very small person to belittle voluntary work.
>>
>> Is that your hypocrisy bursting out? You judge CSS vs OSS software
>> by different standards, and expect less of OSS because it's created
>> by "volunteers"? That's what it sounds like to me.
>
> Truth be told, I've actually come to expect *more* quality from OSS,
> because I've gotten used to *getting* more. Unfortunately, CSS tends
> to come out looking worse because of this.
What *more* quality do you get? Which apps?
>> Besides which, some amount of OSS is maintained by paid developers,
>> and most of KDE I believe is maintained by paid Trolltech staff. So
>> what's your excuse for it now?
>
> Unless you can back up that statement, I'd have to say flawed premise.
> Trolltech maintain QT, which KDE uses, but that's about it.
Read the Linux Format June 2005 interview with Matthias Ettrich. Trolltech
backs KDE heavily with corporate sponsorships and at least part-time
employees.
> Besides,
> you badmouth all of Linux (all software included), and I can assure
> you that most of it has no corporate financial backing.
Not true. I only badmouth the slopware.
>>> Particularly when that work helps millions every day.
>>
>> Doesn't mean they shouldn't get it right, nor should it be immune
>> from criticism. In fact, most cola regs claim volunteer software is
>> better than closed source. But most of it isn't.
>
> Well in that case you should encourage as many people as you can to
> try it out. If it's truly so bad, they'll never stay. Trouble with
> that plan is of course that Linux isn't really as bad as you make it
> out to be. In fact, it's quite a good alternative.
Yes, some parts are. Other parts aren't.
> That's why you have to spread your
> lies and misinformation, to scare people away.
I don't lie or misinform. And if a few bug reports scares them away from
Linux, they shouldn't use Windows either.
>> Imagine some medical-related OSS app using the same sort/display
>> algorithm KDiskFree uses. Now imagine yourself depending on that
>> code to monitor and report and record your vital signs.
>
> Wow, you're really grasping at straws here. That you even wrote it
> makes me question your software development skills, not to say your
> intelligence. Any response other than "that would never happen" would
> be lending credibility to the statement, so I won't go into any more
> detail now.
Of course it would never happen - yet much worse (up to and including
software-related deaths) does:
http://www.baselinemag.com/article2/0,1540,1543590,00.asp
Get real. Get educated.
> I will, however, be laughing at you because of that one for quite some
time ...
Cool. But the joke's on you.
The Ghost In The Machine
<nospam@dfs_.com>
wrote
on Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:31:07 -0400
<%TUAe.4846$5R1....@fe07.lga>:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> <d...@nospam.com>
>> wrote
>> on Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:33:33 -0400
>> <BKHAe.3565$5R1....@fe07.lga>:
>>> and 28% full sorts before 4% full.
>>>
>>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
>>>
>>> sniff, sniff, sniff
>>>
>>> Unbelievable
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> When you say "nice try" you mean it's a KDE bug and
> not a Linux bug? Of course. Sharp eye! Linux is
> just the kernel. Good advocate! (but when the KDE
> or other OSS apps excel at something, all of a sudden
> they're used as an example of Linux' superiority, and
> lumped into a glorious ball of Linux goodness).
In your case it was merely an observation that you were
complaining about the wrong column being missorted,
judging from your pic, though the bug probably hits both.
>
>
>
>> though there *is* a bug; the Free column is
>> apparently missorting itself (as others have already
>> pointed out). The proper order would be:
>>
>> 81.6 GB
>> 9.3 GB
>> 7.9 GB
>> 7.5 GB
>> 5.3 GB
>> 1009.3 MB
>> 775.6 MB
>> 726.1 MB
>> 0 B
>>
>> The actual sort is lexicographic and is clearly wrong. This is a
>> bug in KDiskFree, which is probably part of KDE's core utilities
>> set or some such.
>
> Yes. KDiskFree is as old as 1999 I think. I can't imagine that bug has
> been in place for 5-6 years. But then again, this is OSS.
The bug has been in there since KDE's inception, presumably.
(I can't say; I'm a Gnomester.)
>
>
>> Which version is it?
>
> v0.5.
Then you may be badly in need of an upgrade, though it's not clear
whether you're referring to the KDE version (current ver is
3.4.1) or to the KDiskFree version.
>
>
>
>> If you want to sort on the Full column, click on it, and I'm hopeful
>> that in that case the sort is properly done but it is quite
>> possible the lexicographic sort bug is there, as well.
>
> My Free, Full, and Usage columns all sort incorrectly. Apparently
> it's been fixed sometime since KDE 3.3.2.
Unverified at this time, mostly because I don't have KDE on
this particular box.
>
>
>> (The KDE icons are also mildly interesting. What theme are you
>> using?)
>
> Do you mean the icons within KDiskFree, or the window theme?
The ones on your bottom panel were the ones to which I was alluding.
>
> I believe I'm using the default theme (Plastik maybe?) that installs with
> Mandrake 10.1 (which I then upgraded to Mandriva LE 2005).
>
OK.
Now contrast this bug with
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1776935,00.asp
(a lament on IE 7's [*] non-support of all things CSS2).
Which one's more important to the world at large?
[*] assuming that "IE7" makes any sense as a moniker at all, since
it is now bundled in with the OS. It will be interesting to
see if I can get IE7 for my Win98 box.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
The Ghost In The Machine
<reply_i...@mouse-potato.com>
wrote
on Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:32:12 GMT
<reply_in_group-729...@news1.west.earthlink.net>:
Digits, yes. Numbers, no. :-)
robert
So then we can generalize that GUI solutions are normally broken compared
to their commandline counterparts.
> BTW, all 5 of your files are actually the same size on the disk.
>
Irrelevant. I'm interested marble count, not bag capacity.
rapskat
>>>> Which version is it?
>>>
>>> v0.5.
>>
>> Then you may be badly in need of an upgrade, though it's not clear
>> whether you're referring to the KDE version (current ver is
>> 3.4.1) or to the KDiskFree version.
>
> I believe KDiskFree 0.5 is the current version.
Funny, I have the same version and yet I don't have this bug, why do you
suppose that is?
rapskat@argus [~]$> kdf --version
Qt: 3.3.4
KDE: 3.4.0
KDiskFree: v0.5
http://www.flickr.com/photos/51597445@N00/25382245/
--
rapskat - 02:53:07 up 4 days, 2:25, 4 users, load average: 0.16, 0.21, 0.25
"Maybe is an Ambivalent Yet Beguiling Enigma"
Jesse F. Hughes
>> robert@laptop~/sortbytes$ ls -l |sort -k4
>> total 20
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 robert users 1 2005-07-12 16:59 onebyte
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 robert users 2 2005-07-12 16:59 twobyte
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 robert users 3 2005-07-12 16:59 threebyte
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 robert users 4 2005-07-12 16:59 fourbyte
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 robert users 5 2005-07-12 16:59 fivebyte
>> robert@laptop~/sortbytes$
>
> "DIR" from a command prompt on Windows will show byte sizes, too.
>
> BTW, all 5 of your files are actually the same size on the disk.
Not on mine. I use one-byte clusters so that I can efficiently use
*all* of the hard disk.
Anything else is just wasteful.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"I'm ruler", said Yertle, "of all that I see.
But I don't see enough. That's the trouble with me."
-- Yertle the Turtle, by Dr. Suess
William Poaster
Ghost In The Machine wrote:
<snip>
> [*] assuming that "IE7" makes any sense as a moniker at all, since
> it is now bundled in with the OS. It will be interesting to
> see if I can get IE7 for my Win98 box.
IIRC, CNet reported that IE7 will require Windows XP. So if it will
*only* be available for Win XP, thus *if* people want to continue using
IE, it's another way of M$ forcing people to upgrade their OS.
Now, someone tell me again, how IE is free? Oh, yes, so it is....as long
as you fork out for a new OS.
http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-6142-0.html?forumID=77&threadID=91023&messageID=1028244
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2005Mar/gee20050303029405.htm
--
Jumping into Windows is like giving yourself
a self-inflicted gunshot wound."
-- Dustin Sauter, enterprise
systems engineer at Wells Fargo.
Linønut
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:19:10 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> I believe KDiskFree 0.5 is the current version.
>
> Funny, I have the same version and yet I don't have this bug, why do you
> suppose that is?
>
> rapskat@argus [~]$> kdf --version
> Qt: 3.3.4
> KDE: 3.4.0
> KDiskFree: v0.5
DFS forgot to compile in the libnumericsort.so module dependency.
--
Tux rox!
Rob Hughes
> Rob Hughes wrote:
>
>> But remember, this appears to have been fixed in my testing
>> and according to the dev. Perhaps what you should really do is notify
>> your vendor, as maybe they need to do something, rather than blaming
>> the KDE dev team.
>
> That's a new one: don't blame the developers.
The distributor would also be a developer. So if in fact this is fixed in
the main tree, you can hardly blame that person, can you? Well, you can.
Hell, *you* could blame the sun for darkness.
>
>> But it is also just possible that it could be system specific. The kdf
>> maintainer wasn't able to replicate it. I wasn't able to replicate it
>> on two distributions on three systems. You and one or two others here
>> were. Maybe, just maybe, all of you could post something to the bug
>> report and find out what's really happening. Who knows? I'll be
>> damned shocked if you actually do though.
>
> Later on I'll boot into Linux and check out my library versions and report
> it with some details. Then will you get a personality?
If you'll go away, I'll promise to get a personality. Since I already have
one, the promise costs me nothing. Unfortunately for you, I don't think
there's even a name for what afflicts you.
>
>> At least I have a mind. A strong argument could be made that you do
>> not, or at least not one of your own. I mean really, attacking the
>> messenger around here gets you nothing.
>
> I've been telling the cola bozos that for months.
Oh, but we made an exception for you. To quote Heinlen, "some people's toes
just need to be stepped on". You would definitely fit that category.
> >
>> But then, around here, you
>> have nothing, most certainly not respect, to lose.
>
> cola doesn't respect me? That hurts [1].
>
Not enough, apparently[1].
>
>> Oh, and if you
>> didn't notice, I rarely "advocate". I mostly just call bullshit when
>> I see it posted. The term "always" would apply in your case.
>
> So at least I'm consistent.
>
No, you're highly inconsistent. Or "unstable" to use a slightly less polite
term.
>
>> "Obsessed" is, I believe, the term most often used. Right
>> bleedin' nutters is what I'd call it.
>
> You're probably right. I'll have to ask myself.
How about you go do that? Have a nice long conversation with yourself. Then,
at least, you'll have finally found someone who gives a damn about what you
have to say.
>
>
>>> So they fixed it sometime in the last few months. Hello? The app
>>> has been in use since 1999.
>>
>> Since I don't really use the sort, I can't say how long it was
>> broken. First report was in 2002.
>>
>> And, uhm, hello? Are you always this much of an asshat? Oh, wait, I
>> already know the answer to that one.
>
> I am - on cola anyway. Something about the lying and hypocrisy gets to
me.
All I can say is life behind your eyes must really suck. I mean, how do you
stand yourself? Do you rant into the mirror at yourself?
>
>>> Do I have update and upgrade every app every day to get working Linux
>>> programs?
>>
>> That's hardly a "mission critical" app. But you're desperate to find a
>> fault, any fault, no matter how small so you can try to claim it's a
>> huge, show stopping, absolute reason not to use linux. And in case
>> you didn't notice, and I'm sure you didn't considering the subject
>> matter, one of the tenants followed by many OSS authors/projects is
>> "release early, release often".
>
> There's a 3rd part to that. Do you know what it is?
>
Yes. Still better than the alternative, which is release rarely, release
late, never patch if you can spin it as anything other than a bug, and
ignore your customers until they start leaving in droves.
>
>> Since no one is forcing you to use
>> any OSS products, please, feel free to return to the dankness of
>> whatever vendor's products you feel to be superior and leave us poor,
>> ig'nernt loonix pippuls alone. M'kay?
>
> No.
Aw damn, I figured you'd say that. It says a lot about a person that they
would continue to stay where it's very obvious they aren't wanted.
>
>
>>> Linux: truly a fix or repair daily OS
>>
>> Or just one patch? Perhaps even updating to the current version,
>> which is 3.4.1 and was released several months ago?
>
> Several months! XP was released nearly 4 years ago, and stands the test
of
> time.
No bugs there[2].... O_o[3]
>
> I'm going to make an effort to compile KDE 3.4.x from source, and see if I
> can add it to the session list in the login manager. I'll be right proud
of
> myself if I can accomplish that.
>
I'd be amazed if you could manage to type "make". I'd also be amazed at how
dumb that is, since the only real reason to compile from source is if
you're running LFS, are doing dev work, or have a need for some specific
patch that's not available in the current stable tree.
>
>> Unlike windows patches, OSS
>> patches actually fix things without breaking more than they fix, so
>> you needn't be afraid of installing them.
>
> You really shouldn't open yourself to such abuse:
>
> http://seclists.org/linux-kernel/2000/Sep/3000.html
> http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0402.2/1287.html
> http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/linux/linux-kernel/2002-52/0382.html
> http://seer.support.veritas.com/docs/272255.htm
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2003-April/007567.html
> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/linux-xfs/2003-06/msg00318.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/1999-11n/msg00545.html
> http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2000-June/019375.html
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2001-June/015638.html
> http://lunar-linux.org/pipermail/lunar-bugs/2003-December/002029.html
>
>
http://ngc891.blogdns.net/index.php?2004/10/22/20-linux-269-bk6-breaks-nvidia-driver-again
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-bugs/2003/11/04/0003.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-security/2003/03/msg00354.html
>
Hmmm.... Results 1 - 10 of about 694,000 for windows +patch +broke. (0.14
seconds)
That's really not a place you want to go. Hell, just SP2 alone was a horror
for many, as is nearly every SP and many, if not most, patches: Results 1 -
10 of about 109,000 for windows +sp2 +broke. (0.15 seconds)
>>
>> Or you could try to learn to tell when you're being openly mocked.
>
> I can, but it's more interesting when you openly mock me with your own
> words. That way I can tell you're a real person and not a bot. I was
> having doubts.
I have no doubts that you're less than a wo/man. You aren't quite bright
enough to be a bot, though.
>
>> That means I was openly mocking you in that last bit you quoted, just
>> in case you still don't understand. And that bit means I'm continuing
>> to openly mock you, which I point out because I know you have
>> comprehension problems. Wash, rinse, repeat.
>
> When does it end?
>
That's left as an exercise for the reader[4].
>
> [1] ok, I was lying. It stings [2].
> [2] ok, I'm still lying. It doesn't bother me [3]
> [3] in the least
[1] But 10 amps at 200KV might do it for you. I know if nothing else, we'd
all enjoy watching you try it.
[2] That's sarcasm. I point that out because, again, of your admitted
comprehension problems.
[3] Things that make you boggle.
[4] I'm pretty well bored with you now. You have no new lines, still no
imagination, and still nothing happening behind the eyes (except elevator
music).[5]
[5] Meaning I have to get back to real work now, as much fun as watching you
squirm while claiming victory can be[6].
[6] Behavior which reminds me of SCOG, rather.
chrisv
>DFS is alleged to have said in comp.os.linux.advocacy:
Boy, people love to feed this troll. What, a half-dozen different
people in this thread alone, with multiple feedings each? Amazing...
B Gruff
>> What does Windows make of it, by the way?
>
> Windows, at least Windows Explorer, always gets stuff like this
> right. This sorting is the most basic of the basic file management
> utilities.
(sigh)
Yes, and Konqueror gets the files correct as well. In fact, it gives
the size to the byte.
I thought that you were talking about the space used in each
partition?
Does Windows Explorer list that now?
I didn't know that.
Could you explain to me how to show it?
Sorry so basic a question - it's just that I've never noticed the
facility.
- or perhaps it comes in some other utility?
Bill
rapskat
A fat troll is a happy troll!
That's why COLA is like a nirvana for trolls. They come here and can get
spoiled rotten with attention, even trolls from other groups have started
the migration to this group with the promise of greener pastures and
rolling hills.
Though really the line that defines a troll in this group is pretty thin
anymore. It could be said that merely by posting in COLA, one is a troll,
kind of like how when a spectator jumps into the fray, they are no longer
a spectator, but a participant.
COLA is like Fight Club for usenet. ☺
--
rapskat - 13:05:56 up 4 days, 12:38, 5 users, load average: 0.00, 0.09, 0.12
"From a Sun Microsystems bug report (#4102680):
'Workaround: don't pound on the mouse like a wild monkey.'"
amosf
Not really. Most users would go to the CLI for this, or just sort on %
You still have a knack for trivial items.
What does the MS tool for this look like anyway?
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
amosf
> amosf wrote:
>> DFS wrote something like:
>>
>>> amosf wrote:
>>>> dfs wrote something like:
>>>>
>>>>> and 28% full sorts before 4% full.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
>>>>
>>>> Sorts by % here fine...
>>>
>>> Not here.
>>>
>>> I'm using v0.5.
>>
>> The SAME VERSION sorts fine by % here. You are just full of it as
>> usual.
>
> I'm not full of it. I showed you the screenprint. Others in this thread
> have reported it as well. And you'll find it going back 5 years at
>
> http://bugs.kde.org/simple_search.cgi?id=KDiskFree+sorting
> http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6584
>
> So, get bent amosf. (pretend there's a piece of ascii art right here of
> me giving you the finger).
Sorts fine by % here. You caim it doesn't there, but didn't even show a
screenshot.
>>>> My guess is that dfs is unemployed and bored if he has the time for
>>>> finding trivialities in an OS he doesn't even use... Or perhaps he
>>>> is only employed in this trolling by MS, but they only pay chicken
>>>> feed for that...
>>>
>>> Your response is another example why Linux, and Linux advocates,
>>> often shouldn't be taken seriously. Another stupid flaw in another
>>> stupid OSS app
>>> is revealed and you call it trivial and try to insult me. Or maybe
>>> you're so used to OSS crapware that you really don't care.
>>>
>>> Either way, the joke's on you and Linux. Not on me.
>>
>> You still seem to have a lot of free time on your hands :)
>
> Actually it's not free time, it's time I free up (there's a difference),
> usually by shifting from billable and sleeptime.
>
> Either way, I waste too much of it smacking down cola and slopware. I'm
> obsessed. I admit it. And I like to argue.
You just aren't very good at it. If you do have a job then you don't have
much of a life. And you do it for such trivial things. I'm here because I
DO use linux as the main OS and have an interest in it. Then I think about
what you do. It would be like me using crappy ass windows OS's - especially
the crappy old ones like ME, and finding trivial (or with ME, more serious)
bugs all day to post on a windows forum for the argumant value.
That's really quite sad. I feel ill just thinking about it. I think I prefer
using my OS of choice and not trolling the other OS forums.
You'd have to be pretty fucked up to do what you do for 'fun'. Maybe you can
get therapy for this obsessed behaviour?
DFS
> DFS wrote something like:
>> So, get bent amosf. (pretend there's a piece of ascii art right
>> here of me giving you the finger).
>
> Sorts fine by % here. You caim it doesn't there, but didn't even show
> a screenshot.
The Full% column showed the same behavior: 28% sorts before 4%. Remember,
it's OSS.
>> Either way, I waste too much of it smacking down cola and slopware.
>> I'm obsessed. I admit it. And I like to argue.
>
> You just aren't very good at it.
Yet night after night you respond to my posts? Sounds like you need to a)
quit lying, or b) find yourself some better entertainment.
> If you do have a job then you don't have much of a life.
Eating, sleeping, working, little TV, little cola, time with the wife,
eating out, golf here and there, play with my dog, etc.
What else do you want from me: the life of a dog trainer?
> And you do it for such trivial things. I'm here
> because I DO use linux as the main OS and have an interest in it.
I'm also interested in Linux and OSS.
> Then I think about what you do. It would be like me using crappy ass
> windows OS's - especially the crappy old ones like ME, and finding
> trivial (or with ME, more serious) bugs all day to post on a windows
> forum for the argumant value.
So you're comparing the best, most current Linux distros against Windows ME,
and calling them crappy by comparison. Even I would give Mandrake LE 2005
an edge over ME (discounting apps and games)
btw, argumant = argument
> That's really quite sad. I feel ill just thinking about it. I think I
> prefer using my OS of choice and not trolling the other OS forums.
I don't troll.
> You'd have to be pretty fucked up to do what you do for 'fun'. Maybe
> you can get therapy for this obsessed behaviour?
Not necessary. It's a harmless waste of time. Much like your life.
amosf
> amosf wrote:
>> DFS wrote something like:
>
>>> So, get bent amosf. (pretend there's a piece of ascii art right
>>> here of me giving you the finger).
>>
>> Sorts fine by % here. You caim it doesn't there, but didn't even show
>> a screenshot.
>
> The Full% column showed the same behavior: 28% sorts before 4%. Remember,
> it's OSS.
It works here. What can I say. You call that a typical linux excuse. I call
it the truth.
>>> Either way, I waste too much of it smacking down cola and slopware.
>>> I'm obsessed. I admit it. And I like to argue.
>>
>> You just aren't very good at it.
>
> Yet night after night you respond to my posts? Sounds like you need to a)
> quit lying, or b) find yourself some better entertainment.
But it's my job. That's the difference. In the OSS world jobs are chosen by
the individual that wants to contribute and they take a job that they are
able to do. One on my linux jobs is advocacy. Another is support. I do
these things as I am a linux user and supporter. You do it as you are
obsessed and like to argue. So you see, I'm not a freeloader. I have to
work for this :)
I do lots of thing for entertainment, and this can be entertaining at times.
I can also watch TV while doing this, of course, as it hardly takes a lot
of thought process and concentration. I also get a bit of free travel
around the country as part of the sport I'm in, and that's a good outing
and social event.
I don't lie much, tho my opinions differ from your's
>> If you do have a job then you don't have much of a life.
>
> Eating, sleeping, working, little TV, little cola, time with the wife,
> eating out, golf here and there, play with my dog, etc.
>
> What else do you want from me: the life of a dog trainer?
I only train dogs in my spare time. Also as a comunity sevice. I think you
have trouble coming to terms with the idea that people do things for free
sometimes as a benifit to the community.
>> And you do it for such trivial things. I'm here
>> because I DO use linux as the main OS and have an interest in it.
>
> I'm also interested in Linux and OSS.
Only for the troll value tho.
>> Then I think about what you do. It would be like me using crappy ass
>> windows OS's - especially the crappy old ones like ME, and finding
>> trivial (or with ME, more serious) bugs all day to post on a windows
>> forum for the argumant value.
>
> So you're comparing the best, most current Linux distros against Windows
> ME,
> and calling them crappy by comparison. Even I would give Mandrake LE 2005
> an edge over ME (discounting apps and games)
The point there is that you were spouting bugs in the old mandrake beta
release. That's almost as bad as using ME as an example of windows bugs.
> btw, argumant = argument
Oh my GOD! A tiepoe!
>> That's really quite sad. I feel ill just thinking about it. I think I
>> prefer using my OS of choice and not trolling the other OS forums.
>
> I don't troll.
A lie and a troll all in one. Cool.
>> You'd have to be pretty fucked up to do what you do for 'fun'. Maybe
>> you can get therapy for this obsessed behaviour?
>
> Not necessary. It's a harmless waste of time. Much like your life.
Projecting?
DFS
> DFS wrote something like:
>
>> amosf wrote:
>>> DFS wrote something like:
>>
>>>> So, get bent amosf. (pretend there's a piece of ascii art right
>>>> here of me giving you the finger).
>>>
>>> Sorts fine by % here. You caim it doesn't there, but didn't even
>>> show a screenshot.
>>
>> The Full% column showed the same behavior: 28% sorts before 4%.
>> Remember, it's OSS.
>
> It works here. What can I say. You call that a typical linux excuse.
> I call it the truth.
I believe you. You don't believe me.
I'm right. You're wrong.
>>>> Either way, I waste too much of it smacking down cola and slopware.
>>>> I'm obsessed. I admit it. And I like to argue.
>>>
>>> You just aren't very good at it.
>>
>> Yet night after night you respond to my posts? Sounds like you need
>> to a) quit lying, or b) find yourself some better entertainment.
>
> But it's my job.
Well then, I have to say you're really not very good at your job. Kier and
Liam Slider and Kelsey Bjarnason (when he shows up) and Ray Ingles and
Linonut: those are Linux advocates.
I'd be surprised if 1 in 10 of your posts advocates Linux.
> That's the difference. In the OSS world jobs are
> chosen by the individual that wants to contribute and they take a job
> that they are able to do. One on my linux jobs is advocacy. Another
> is support. I do these things as I am a linux user and supporter.
Where do you offer Linux support?
> You
> do it as you are obsessed and like to argue. So you see, I'm not a
> freeloader. I have to work for this :)
So, you're not very good at it, and you don't work very hard at it, and you
don't get paid for it. See the parallels with OSS developers?
> I do lots of thing for entertainment, and this can be entertaining at
> times. I can also watch TV while doing this, of course, as it hardly
> takes a lot of thought process and concentration. I also get a bit of
> free travel around the country as part of the sport I'm in, and
> that's a good outing and social event.
Sounds like a good job - waterboy for a rugby team?
> I don't lie much, tho my opinions differ from your's
Well, if you're telling me I'm not very good at smacking down cola bozos and
arguing, but you keep coming back for more, then you are lying.
>>> If you do have a job then you don't have much of a life.
>>
>> Eating, sleeping, working, little TV, little cola, time with the
>> wife, eating out, golf here and there, play with my dog, etc.
>>
>> What else do you want from me: the life of a dog trainer?
>
> I only train dogs in my spare time. Also as a comunity sevice. I
> think you have trouble coming to terms with the idea that people do
> things for free sometimes as a benifit to the community.
Good for them. I generally don't.
>>> And you do it for such trivial things. I'm here
>>> because I DO use linux as the main OS and have an interest in it.
>>
>> I'm also interested in Linux and OSS.
>
> Only for the troll value tho.
I don't troll. I'll post whether I get responses or not.
>>> Then I think about what you do. It would be like me using crappy ass
>>> windows OS's - especially the crappy old ones like ME, and finding
>>> trivial (or with ME, more serious) bugs all day to post on a windows
>>> forum for the argumant value.
>>
>> So you're comparing the best, most current Linux distros against
>> Windows ME,
>> and calling them crappy by comparison. Even I would give Mandrake
>> LE 2005 an edge over ME (discounting apps and games)
>
> The point there is that you were spouting bugs in the old mandrake
> beta release.
Most Linux distros are beta releases - even if they don't call them that.
> That's almost as bad as using ME as an example of windows bugs.
The average Linux distro could only dream of being as bug-free as Windows
ME.
>> btw, argumant = argument
>
> Oh my GOD! A tiepoe!
I was hoping to start an argument over the spelling of argument.
>>> That's really quite sad. I feel ill just thinking about it. I think
>>> I prefer using my OS of choice and not trolling the other OS forums.
>>
>> I don't troll.
>
> A lie and a troll all in one. Cool.
I don't lie and I don't troll - though I do meet some of the definitions of
trolls. http://www.binaries.net/articles/usenet_trolls.htm So do many of
the so-called "advocates" here.
>>> You'd have to be pretty fucked up to do what you do for 'fun'. Maybe
>>> you can get therapy for this obsessed behaviour?
>>
>> Not necessary. It's a harmless waste of time. Much like your life.
>
> Projecting?
Insulting.
amosf
> amosf wrote:
>> It works here. What can I say. You call that a typical linux excuse.
>> I call it the truth.
>
> I believe you. You don't believe me.
>
> I'm right. You're wrong.
You have a long record of bullshit here.
>> But it's my job.
>
> Well then, I have to say you're really not very good at your job. Kier
> and Liam Slider and Kelsey Bjarnason (when he shows up) and Ray Ingles and
> Linonut: those are Linux advocates.
>
> I'd be surprised if 1 in 10 of your posts advocates Linux.
Cola is not the only place I post. Not much advocacy goes on here due to the
troll activity. I took on troll fusing duty.
>> That's the difference. In the OSS world jobs are
>> chosen by the individual that wants to contribute and they take a job
>> that they are able to do. One on my linux jobs is advocacy. Another
>> is support. I do these things as I am a linux user and supporter.
>
> Where do you offer Linux support?
All over the internet and in the real world.
>> You
>> do it as you are obsessed and like to argue. So you see, I'm not a
>> freeloader. I have to work for this :)
>
> So, you're not very good at it, and you don't work very hard at it, and
> you
> don't get paid for it. See the parallels with OSS developers?
I barter for it and work fairly hard at it. I also do dog training for
'free'.
It supports the local club and I get a lot out of it in return as and
sporting and social activity. After a few years of this, I now get free
flights around the country amongst other things. Cool.
>> I do lots of thing for entertainment, and this can be entertaining at
>> times. I can also watch TV while doing this, of course, as it hardly
>> takes a lot of thought process and concentration. I also get a bit of
>> free travel around the country as part of the sport I'm in, and
>> that's a good outing and social event.
>
> Sounds like a good job - waterboy for a rugby team?
Hmm. If it had free flights it sounds good. I also judge, so I get nice
meals
as well as the travel. It's not the job mind you. That's just the
recreational sport I do.
>> I don't lie much, tho my opinions differ from your's
>
> Well, if you're telling me I'm not very good at smacking down cola bozos
> and arguing, but you keep coming back for more, then you are lying.
You don't seem good at 'smacking down'. What you are really bad at is
finding
a decent bug. You seem to have given yourself the bug finding troll job, but
you just find trivial crap bugs. Pretty sad really. I only flick to cola now
and then while going through various other linux and dog related forums. I
post very quickly here, hence the tiepoes. Maybe you do the same since you
have such crappy bug trolls.
>> I only train dogs in my spare time. Also as a comunity sevice. I
>> think you have trouble coming to terms with the idea that people do
>> things for free sometimes as a benifit to the community.
>
> Good for them. I generally don't.
Assholes generally don't care for the community they live in or offer much
in comunity support. Notice the spelling errors? Notice how I don't care
since I am typing at speed?
>> Only for the troll value tho.
>
> I don't troll. I'll post whether I get responses or not.
You do nothing but troll on cola. And lie. The above statement is a lie, for
example. Or maybe a deeloosian. oops.
>> The point there is that you were spouting bugs in the old mandrake
>> beta release.
>
> Most Linux distros are beta releases - even if they don't call them that.
Especially the beta releases.
>> That's almost as bad as using ME as an example of windows bugs.
>
> The average Linux distro could only dream of being as bug-free as Windows
> ME.
Tee hee. I used ME. It actually wasn't that bad after you gave it a
lobotomy.
>>> btw, argumant = argument
>>
>> Oh my GOD! A tiepoe!
>
> I was hoping to start an argument over the spelling of argument.
Of course you were. You are a troll.
>>>> That's really quite sad. I feel ill just thinking about it. I think
>>>> I prefer using my OS of choice and not trolling the other OS forums.
>>>
>>> I don't troll.
>>
>> A lie and a troll all in one. Cool.
>
> I don't lie and I don't troll - though I do meet some of the definitions
> of
> trolls. http://www.binaries.net/articles/usenet_trolls.htm So do many of
> the so-called "advocates" here.
It's a linux forum, so it's hard for an advocate to actually troll here. Can
be done, of course. You tend to lie and troll in most posts.
>>>> You'd have to be pretty fucked up to do what you do for 'fun'. Maybe
>>>> you can get therapy for this obsessed behaviour?
>>>
>>> Not necessary. It's a harmless waste of time. Much like your life.
>>
>> Projecting?
>
> Insulting.
Poorly? If you were any good at it I suppose I would have to filter your
posts :)
Tukla Ratte
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John Bailo
> <jab...@texeme.com>
> wrote
> on Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:36:55 -0700
> <42D40DC7...@texeme.com>:
> > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >
> >> Nice try, though there *is* a bug; the Free column is
> >
> > Have you identified the bug in the code, made the fix and reported it
> > back to the KDE team?
>
> I've identified it at the user level, obviously. This isn't
> difficult; many others have already preceded me.
>
> To properly fix it will require some work and additional validation
> (it may have been fixed already, rendering all this moot);
It sorts properly in KDE 3.4.1 under Gentoo.
< snip >
--
Tukla, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism
There are too many stupid people and nobody to eat them.
- Carlos Mencia
The Ghost In The Machine
<tukla...@tukla.net>
wrote
on 14 Jul 2005 15:06:40 -0500
<87d5plw...@stitch.tukla.net>:
> The Ghost In The Machine <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> writes:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John Bailo
>> <jab...@texeme.com>
>> wrote
>> on Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:36:55 -0700
>> <42D40DC7...@texeme.com>:
>> > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> >
>> >> Nice try, though there *is* a bug; the Free column is
>> >
>> > Have you identified the bug in the code, made the fix and reported it
>> > back to the KDE team?
>>
>> I've identified it at the user level, obviously. This isn't
>> difficult; many others have already preceded me.
>>
>> To properly fix it will require some work and additional validation
>> (it may have been fixed already, rendering all this moot);
>
> It sorts properly in KDE 3.4.1 under Gentoo.
>
> < snip >
>
Somehow, this does not surprise me in the least. :-)
Tim Smith
Linųnut <linųn...@bone.com> wrote:
> I have to confess, I don't see it either. Why don't you, Tim, and DFS
> explain clearly what you see.
>
> I sure don't see it.
Take another look at DFS's screenshot. Note that the "Free" column has
the triangle that indicates the display is sorted on that column. Here
is the order of the items in that column:
0 B
1,009.3 MB
5.3 GB
726.1 MB
7.5 GB
775.6 MB
7.9 GB
81.6 GB
9.3 GB
The order should be this:
0 B
726.1 MB
775.6 MB
1,009.3 MB
5.3 GB
7.5 GB
7.9 GB
9.3 GB
81.6 GB
They are sorting on the ASCII strings in that column, rather than on the
numerical value of the free space.
--
--Tim Smith
steve
> steve wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:15:44 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Jensen wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> dfs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfslinux/KDiskFree_sorting.png
>>>>
>>>> Not a sorting bug that I can recreate here with either KDE3.3 or 3.4.
>>>> Must have been fixed for quite some time.
>>>
>>> "fixed for quite some time"? I don't think so. That KDiskFree version
>>> I showed (v0.5) was included with KDE 3.3.2, which was included with
>>> Mandriva LE 2005, which was released.April 14, 2005. Though I did
>>> install LE 2005 via upgrading, and maybe KDiskFree wasn't upgraded
>>> along with KDE.
>>>
>>> Either way, it's a great example of the kind of crappy code found in
>>> Linux: single developer, no testing. How could anyone put their name
>>> on something like that?
>>
>> Blue screen doing TCP/IP printing, not only do people put their name to
>> it, they charge for it.
>
> Is there or is there not a huge difference between the complexity of
> TCP/IP printing and accounting for all the various combinations of network
> devices and printers and drivers, and the exceedingly simple task of
> reporting how much data is on a partition?
Many computing tasks are more complex, yet how many complex tasks should
kill the OS. TCP/IP printing should not bring down an entire OS it should
be simply in userspace.
> btw, how well, if at all, does Linux handle that TCP/IP printing issue?
Very well thats, I can even print from windows PCs. TCP/IP scanning only
seems to work Linux -> Linux (although BSD should work), I can't find
anything about network scanning in Windows.
> Linux: do one task, and do it poorly
And it is your mission in life to find that one task, the rest work well.