Unix is too hard.
Karen Hill
Unix is too hard. Why is that? The Unix versions I listed above were
installed by my friend on my computer and yet I wasn't able to connect
to the internet. My friend is a computer Wiz and he couldn't figure
out how to get my computer on the internet. In fact all the
secretaries at work have my friend work on their computers and he is
thinking of going back to college to get his MCSE.
I do have to admit that I tried OpenOffice and liked it a lot. The
export to PDF feature is really nice and the quality of OpenOffice is
somewhere between MS Office 97 - MS Office 2000 minus the VBA
functionality. This makes it good for home use although at the company
I work my friend tells me OpenOffice cannot run our VBA code. So it
will not work for most workplaces. My son uses it for school since it
is free and he would rather have new Nike shoes than an office
application.
My friend is trying to get Unix to connect to the net still even
though I am telling him to put windows XP back on my PC. He tells me
that getting Unix connected to the net is one of the greatest
challenges a computer Wiz has to encounter. He tells me he is at the
point of almost making it work. He downloaded a bunch of DTrace
scripts off the internet at work and burned them on a CD. He brought
the CD home and was trying them out to see if he could DTrace to google
but he got no response. He ran this command:
dtrace www.google.com.
It didn't work! I told him to go and get his MCSE and then Unix will
be easier to understand once he has the degree. He then tried using an
Apple emacs editor to edit some hosts files following some printed
instructions he got from google. Apple emacs was too hard and it kept
on beeping and there was no way to quit so we pressed a bunch of keys
until the emacs became really buggy and gave us this message:
Debugger entered--Lisp error: (void-variable +)
I had to pull the power cord on the computer to reboot it. By this
time I had convinced my friend that MCSE degrees were offered to give
training in computers and he agreed that in order to become a "hacker"
level computer Wiz, he would have to get that degree. So he went to
put windows XP on my computer but he told me it didn't recognize the
partition. We googled solaris unix and found "ZFS" on google at work.
It said that the file system is indestructable and never goes away.
According to one website it was like this: "ZFS protects all data with
64-bit checksums that detect and correct silent data corruption." That
means it fights Windows XP and Norton Ghost when trying to get rid of
Unix.
By this time I really needed to be connected to the internet at home so
I could get email. I went to an Apple store and told them that I
needed a new computer but not an Apple Emacs because I already tried it
and had to pull the power cord to make it stop beeping. He led my to
an Apple iMac which he said was better than an Apple Emacs because it
was newer and based on OS X.
I got home and got on the internet right away with my iMac. I am so
glad I'm done with Unix. My apple gets things done like unix where
unix couldn't.
GreyCloud
> I tried Solaris 10. I tried Linux. I tried FreeBSD.
>
> Unix is too hard. Why is that? The Unix versions I listed above were
> installed by my friend on my computer and yet I wasn't able to connect
> to the internet. My friend is a computer Wiz and he couldn't figure
> out how to get my computer on the internet. In fact all the
> secretaries at work have my friend work on their computers and he is
> thinking of going back to college to get his MCSE.
Will the MCSE be printed on pink or white toilet paper?
As far as getting on the internet with Linux, your statement saying that
you can't is erroneous. Suse 10 gets you on the internet automatically
during the install phase.
<snip >
> My friend is trying to get Unix to connect to the net still even
> though I am telling him to put windows XP back on my PC. He tells me
> that getting Unix connected to the net is one of the greatest
> challenges a computer Wiz has to encounter.
Sure it is. Then how come I can and he can't?
This has to be a bad attempt at trolling.
(???)
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
Harry
Karen Hill wrote:
> I tried Solaris 10. I tried Linux. I tried FreeBSD.
>
> Unix is too hard.
Download a Knoppix CD/DVD.
Boot it up. That's. You're connected to the Internet.
If that doesn't work, try a brain transplant :)
AZ Nomad
>I tried Solaris 10. I tried Linux. I tried FreeBSD.
>Unix is too hard. Why is that? The Unix versions I listed above were
>installed by my friend on my computer and yet I wasn't able to connect
>to the internet. My friend is a computer Wiz and he couldn't figure
>out how to get my computer on the internet. In fact all the
>secretaries at work have my friend work on their computers and he is
>thinking of going back to college to get his MCSE.
It wouldn't help him as he'd fail every interview due to being a complete
idiot.
All he had to do was go to a web search site such as google, search for
"unix networking" and he'd have dozens of clearly explained guides that
anybody with a double digit IQ could understand.
Just because your friend is a complete moron is no reason to conclude
that linux or unix are difficult to set up.
You and windows deserve each other.
Thomas Maier-Komor
How amusing ;-) What you are doing is like telling everybody that you
bought yourself a helicopter and tried to fly it. Of course you were
unable to start the engine, because there were too many buttons. There
is no "Fly!" button in a helicopter, and there is no "Do what I want!"
(dwiw) command in UNIX.
To be able to work with UNIX, you have to learn some basics about it. So
get yourself a book and _read_ it. Then read the docs of the system you
want to get running. Then install the system, configure it, and if you
have a problem, come back with your question. There are a lot of helpful
people around here, but yelling loud "It is not working, fix it!" won't
help you.
BTW: getting a MCSE degree and running UNIX are two different things.
Tom
K
of time with you and comes up with reasons to keep coming by (to work
on your computer). I hope you like each other...if not...be nice.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
>
>
> I tried Solaris 10. I tried Linux. I tried FreeBSD.
>
> Unix is too hard. Why is that? The Unix versions I listed above were
> installed by my friend on my computer and yet I wasn't able to connect
> to the internet. My friend is a computer Wiz and he couldn't figure
> out how to get my computer on the internet. In fact all the
> secretaries at work have my friend work on their computers and he is
> thinking of going back to college to get his MCSE.
So...
He's a computer wiz and he wants to get an MCSE?
Why would a computer wiz want a piece of paper that tells everyone he's a
minesweeper consultant and solitaire expert?
> My friend is trying to get Unix to connect to the net still even
> though I am telling him to put windows XP back on my PC. He tells me
> that getting Unix connected to the net is one of the greatest
> challenges a computer Wiz has to encounter.
Bull shit
It's fucking automatic on almost every linux and bsd distribution going.
Even if it's dialup, the only thing that'll get in the way is the odd
winmodem that'll cause a problem, use a normal external, no problem.
> I had to pull the power cord on the computer to reboot it. By this
> time I had convinced my friend that MCSE degrees were offered to give
> training in computers and he agreed that in order to become a "hacker"
> level computer Wiz, he would have to get that degree.
Oh no, it gets better and better... MCSE is a degree now?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skeets
knoppix.
then again, my i don't use a 14.4 modem to connect, so maybe the
comparison is apple to oranges..
Jim Lee Jr.
"Karen Hill" <karen_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I tried Solaris 10. I tried Linux. I tried FreeBSD.
>
> Unix is too hard. Why is that? The Unix versions I listed above were
> installed by my friend on my computer and yet I wasn't able to connect
> to the internet. My friend is a computer Wiz and he couldn't figure
> out how to get my computer on the internet. In fact all the
> secretaries at work have my friend work on their computers and he is
> thinking of going back to college to get his MCSE.
Are you and your boyfriend that lazy and/or stupid to configure Unix to
browse the Net? "Wiz" is not a proper noun in the above sentence, and is
not to be capitalized. Only single spaces are needed between sentences.
> I do have to admit that I tried OpenOffice and liked it a lot. The
> export to PDF feature is really nice and the quality of OpenOffice is
> somewhere between MS Office 97 - MS Office 2000 minus the VBA
> functionality. This makes it good for home use although at the company
> I work my friend tells me OpenOffice cannot run our VBA code. So it
> will not work for most workplaces. My son uses it for school since it
> is free and he would rather have new Nike shoes than an office
> application.
>
> My friend is trying to get Unix to connect to the net still even
> though I am telling him to put windows XP back on my PC. He tells me
> that getting Unix connected to the net is one of the greatest
> challenges a computer Wiz has to encounter. He tells me he is at the
> point of almost making it work. He downloaded a bunch of DTrace
> scripts off the internet at work and burned them on a CD. He brought
> the CD home and was trying them out to see if he could DTrace to google
> but he got no response. He ran this command:
>
> dtrace www.google.com.
> It didn't work! I told him to go and get his MCSE and then Unix will
> be easier to understand once he has the degree. He then tried using an
> Apple emacs editor to edit some hosts files following some printed
> instructions he got from google. Apple emacs was too hard and it kept
> on beeping and there was no way to quit so we pressed a bunch of keys
> until the emacs became really buggy and gave us this message:
>
> Debugger entered--Lisp error: (void-variable +)
The propes spellings are "Google" and "eMac."
> I had to pull the power cord on the computer to reboot it. By this
> time I had convinced my friend that MCSE degrees were offered to give
> training in computers and he agreed that in order to become a "hacker"
> level computer Wiz, he would have to get that degree. So he went to
> put windows XP on my computer but he told me it didn't recognize the
> partition. We googled solaris unix and found "ZFS" on google at work.
> It said that the file system is indestructable and never goes away.
> According to one website it was like this: "ZFS protects all data with
> 64-bit checksums that detect and correct silent data corruption." That
> means it fights Windows XP and Norton Ghost when trying to get rid of
> Unix.
The correct spelling is "Windows."
> By this time I really needed to be connected to the internet at home so
> I could get email. I went to an Apple store and told them that I
> needed a new computer but not an Apple Emacs because I already tried it
> and had to pull the power cord to make it stop beeping. He led my to
> an Apple iMac which he said was better than an Apple Emacs because it
> was newer and based on OS X.
>
> I got home and got on the internet right away with my iMac. I am so
> glad I'm done with Unix. My apple gets things done like unix where
> unix couldn't.
The corrects spellings are "Apple" and Unix," proper nouns are
capitalized. Learn to proofread before posting.
--
Microsoft and Windoze: The combination that made computing dangerous.
Apple and OS X: The combination that made computing insanely great.
"VISTA" an acronym for the top five Windows problems: Viruses,
Intrusions, Spyware, Trojans and Adware.
As long as the OS was from Apple and not MS I wouldn't care
Dom
> The propes spellings ...
So much content to attack and you resort to typo laming. Fucking retard.
Dom
> glad I'm done with Unix. My apple gets things done like unix where
> unix couldn't.
Um, last time I checked...
Max Andersen
> I tried Solaris 10. I tried Linux. I tried FreeBSD.
> I got home and got on the internet right away with my iMac. I am so
> glad I'm done with Unix. My apple gets things done like unix where
> unix couldn't.
>
Relax, people. It HAS to be a joke. Let's not turn this funny joke into
a flame-war.
The best one is running OS X and not Unix, lol :
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/
Thanks for the laugh.
Sincerely
Max
Jim Lee Jr.
Dom <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
How is pointing out spelling errors attacking? Would you call your
English teachers fucking retards?
By the way, thanks for pointing out my spelling error.
Dom
Chiefly, because your critique begins with, "Are you and your boyfriend
that lazy and/or stupid..." Also, because your post does very little
--if anything-- to address the issues related in the parent message.
> Would you call your English teachers fucking retards?
If you were my English teacher, indeed I would.
Here follows another gem. Let's see if you can find both errors.
kangcool
FLAME!!!!!!!
Time to find some thing else to do people
Colin Day
> It didn't work! I told him to go and get his MCSE and then Unix will
> be easier to understand once he has the degree. He then tried using an
> Apple emacs editor to edit some hosts files following some printed
> instructions he got from google. Apple emacs was too hard and it kept
> on beeping and there was no way to quit so we pressed a bunch of keys
> until the emacs became really buggy and gave us this message:
>
> Debugger entered--Lisp error: (void-variable +)
>
Unless Apple emacs is a complete obfuscation of GNU emacs, I fail to
see what trouble you could have had. Open the file, type and save. Why
would you need the LISP debugger?
Did you try clicking on file -> exit emacs?
> I had to pull the power cord on the computer to reboot it. By this
> time I had convinced my friend that MCSE degrees were offered to give
> training in computers and he agreed that in order to become a "hacker"
> level computer Wiz, he would have to get that degree. So he went to
> put windows XP on my computer but he told me it didn't recognize the
> partition. We googled solaris unix and found "ZFS" on google at work.
> It said that the file system is indestructable and never goes away.
> According to one website it was like this: "ZFS protects all data with
> 64-bit checksums that detect and correct silent data corruption." That
> means it fights Windows XP and Norton Ghost when trying to get rid of
> Unix.
>
> By this time I really needed to be connected to the internet at home so
> I could get email. I went to an Apple store and told them that I
> needed a new computer but not an Apple Emacs because I already tried it
> and had to pull the power cord to make it stop beeping. He led my to
> an Apple iMac which he said was better than an Apple Emacs because it
> was newer and based on OS X.
>
Wow an Apple emacs? A GPLed computer? How much do they cost?
> I got home and got on the internet right away with my iMac. I am so
> glad I'm done with Unix. My apple gets things done like unix where
> unix couldn't.
>
Colin Day
zara
"Dom" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:43f3ac1c$0$13116$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> Jim Lee Jr. wrote:
>> The propes spellings ...
>
> So much content to attack and you resort to typo laming. Fucking retard.
The little cunt doesn't know jack shit about Unix. But she does know about
spelling.
becco
> I tried Solaris 10. I tried Linux. I tried FreeBSD.
<snip>
ROTFL! Thanks Karen, you made me smile! I didn't read the other answers to
your post yet, I hope your irony wasn't lost on the rest of the group.
:-))
Ciao
Marcello
Lee Sau Dan
>> My friend is trying to get Unix to connect to the net still
>> even though I am telling him to put windows XP back on my PC.
>> He tells me that getting Unix connected to the net is one of
>> the greatest challenges a computer Wiz has to encounter.
GreyCloud> Sure it is. Then how come I can and he can't?
Note: "computer" in that context means "MS Windows". ;)
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~}
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
becco
>>>> The corrects spellings are "Apple" and Unix," proper nouns are
>>>> capitalized. Learn to proofread before posting.
correctS , Unix,", and those would be 3 errors I think...but then again,
English is not my first language. What do I know?
Ciao
Marcello
Lee Sau Dan
Karen> I tried Solaris 10. I tried Linux. I tried FreeBSD.
But didn't try hard enough.
You should like saying "I've tried eating with chopsticks. I can't.
It's too hard." and ignoring the fact that even 3 years olds in Asia
can use chopsticks to eat every day.
Karen> Unix is too hard.
Yes, it's too hard for hackers to break into.
Karen> Why is that?
Your ignorance.
Karen> The Unix versions I listed above were installed by my
Karen> friend on my computer and yet I wasn't able to connect to
Karen> the internet. My friend is a computer Wiz and he couldn't
Karen> figure out how to get my computer on the internet.
A Microsoft Windows Wiz is no computer Wiz. How can a guy who is so
weak at unix be considered a computer Wiz?
Karen> In fact all the secretaries at work have my friend work on
Karen> their computers and he is thinking of going back to college
Karen> to get his MCSE.
I see. He can't even manage to get an MCSE. And you call him a
computer Wiz.
Karen> I do have to admit that I tried OpenOffice and liked it a
Karen> lot. The export to PDF feature is really nice and the
Karen> quality of OpenOffice is somewhere between MS Office 97 -
Karen> MS Office 2000 minus the VBA functionality.
I go to USA and find that most people there don't speak Chinese. So?
It's the USA's fault, right?
Karen> This makes it good for home use although at the company I
Karen> work my friend tells me OpenOffice cannot run our VBA code.
My friends in the US tell me, too, that people in the US cannot speak
Chinese. And? Is that unacceptable?
Karen> So it will not work for most workplaces.
Why not? Heard of the news about governments replacing Windows
*desktops* with Linux?
Karen> My son uses it for school since it is free and he would
Karen> rather have new Nike shoes than an office application.
Me too! And he would also use Linux instead of wasting *time* and
money on that inferior OS from Seattle.
Karen> My friend is trying to get Unix to connect to the net still
Karen> even though I am telling him to put windows XP back on my
Karen> PC. He tells me that getting Unix connected to the net is
Karen> one of the greatest challenges a computer Wiz has to
Karen> encounter.
If someone tells you calculating 169/13 is a difficult _problem_ for
him, what do you think?
Karen> He tells me he is at the point of almost making it work.
almost == not yet.
Karen> He downloaded a bunch of DTrace scripts off the internet at
Karen> work and burned them on a CD. He brought the CD home and
Karen> was trying them out to see if he could DTrace to google but
Karen> he got no response. He ran this command:
Karen> dtrace www.google.com.
Karen> It didn't work! I told him to go and get his MCSE and then
Karen> Unix will be easier to understand once he has the degree.
I don't think so. Do you think getting a doctorate degree on English
literature will make Chinese easier to understand?
Karen> He then tried using an Apple emacs editor to edit some
Karen> hosts files following some printed instructions he got from
Karen> google. Apple emacs was too hard and it kept on beeping
Karen> and there was no way to quit so we pressed a bunch of keys
Karen> until the emacs became really buggy and gave us this
Karen> message:
Karen> Debugger entered--Lisp error: (void-variable +)
If he can't manage Emacs, why is he using it? And you call him a
"computer Wiz"? Would you call a guy who can't even handle
multiplications a "mathematician"? Would you give a 3-year-old a
sharp knive to cut paper?
Karen> I had to pull the power cord on the computer to reboot it.
Karen> By this time I had convinced my friend that MCSE degrees
Karen> were offered
Can you explain why an MCSE would help him handle a Mac and Emacs?
Karen> to give training in computers
MCSE only gives training for "Microsoft products". Not "computers" in
general.
Karen> and he agreed that in order to become a "hacker" level
Karen> computer Wiz, he would have to get that degree.
Why do you call him a "computer Wiz", if he doesn't even possess the
"minimum" qualification that you that is necessary for such a title?
And how can you call a guy a "computer Wiz", if he doesn't even know
unix? Does MCSE need to pass examines on unix?
Karen> So he went to put windows XP on my computer but he told me
Karen> it didn't recognize the partition. We googled solaris unix
Karen> and found "ZFS" on google at work. It said that the file
Karen> system is indestructable and never goes away. According to
Karen> one website it was like this: "ZFS protects all data with
Karen> 64-bit checksums that detect and correct silent data
Karen> corruption." That means it fights Windows XP and Norton
Karen> Ghost when trying to get rid of Unix.
Easy with Linux. Just "dd of=/dev/hda if=/dev/zero bs=512 count=1"
and then reboot your beloved Windows installation disc.
Karen> By this time I really needed to be connected to the
Karen> internet at home so I could get email. I went to an Apple
Karen> store and told them that I needed a new computer but not an
Karen> Apple Emacs because I already tried it and had to pull the
Karen> power cord to make it stop beeping. He led my to an Apple
Karen> iMac which he said was better than an Apple Emacs because
Karen> it was newer and based on OS X.
Why are you using Emacs, again?
Rick
> I tried Solaris 10. I tried Linux. I tried FreeBSD.
>
... no, it isn't.
>
> By this time I really needed to be connected to the internet at home so I
> could get email. I went to an Apple store and told them that I needed a
> new computer but not an Apple Emacs because I already tried it and had to
> pull the power cord to make it stop beeping. He led my to an Apple iMac
> which he said was better than an Apple Emacs because it was newer and
> based on OS X.
What is an Apple Emacs?
>
> I got home and got on the internet right away with my iMac. I am so glad
> I'm done with Unix. My apple gets things done like unix where unix
> couldn't.
... un, except that OS X is based on... BSD...
Liam Slider
> I tried Solaris 10. I tried Linux. I tried FreeBSD.
>
> Unix is too hard. Why is that? The Unix versions I listed above were
> installed by my friend on my computer and yet I wasn't able to connect to
> the internet. My friend is a computer Wiz and he couldn't figure out how
> to get my computer on the internet.
1) Linux isn't Unix.
2) I've never had trouble connecting to the internet.
<snip>
> I got home and got on the internet right away with my iMac. I am so glad
> I'm done with Unix. My apple gets things done like unix where unix
> couldn't.
Funny, OSX is based on Unix these days.
Liam Slider
<snip?
>> I got home and got on the internet right away with my iMac. I am so
>> glad I'm done with Unix. My apple gets things done like unix where unix
>> couldn't.
>
> ... un, except that OS X is based on... BSD...
Actually, it's based on Darwin...which was partly derived from BSD.
Peter Köhlmann
For extremely small amounts of "based on"
But yes, it tries to emulate a unix to some extend. As long as you don't
look under the hood. Or try to edit a configuration file. Or do other stuff
taking for granted when working with unix
But otherwise, yes, this "Karen Hill" (probably a flatfish nym) has no
friggin idea what s/he/it is talking about. Could just as well have been
any Mac-user, like OxRetard for example. *The* Mac-user as everyone knows
them. Extremely dumb. Extremely obnoxious. Extremely clueless
--
Never put off till tomorrow what you can avoid all together.
rex.b...@gmail.com
Karen Hill wrote:
> I tried Solaris 10. I tried Linux. I tried FreeBSD.
>
> Unix is too hard. Why is that? The Unix versions I listed above were
> installed by my friend on my computer and yet I wasn't able to connect
> to the internet. My friend is a computer Wiz and he couldn't figure
> out how to get my computer on the internet. In fact all the
> secretaries at work have my friend work on their computers and he is
> thinking of going back to college to get his MCSE.
It sounds like your friend had little or no hands-on knowledge of Linux
or Unix. Perhaps you were using a "special" ISP - MSN? AOL?
If you were using a cable-modem, about the only "tricky" twist might
have been if your ISP was using PPOE or IPSec. In both cases, any
competent Linux user would still have been able to get it configured.
You are witholding a great deal of information - what ISP were you
trying to connect to? What versions of Linux were you using? What kind
of Internet connection were you trying to establish? It's very hard to
respond to your issues when you don't provide any information other
than that you have a "Computer Wiz" - no mention of his credentials,
his professional experience, and in particular, his experience with
Linux.
Perhaps he's a "Computer Wiz" based on his ability to get Windows
machines connected to the Internet. Does he have any Linux
certifications? These tests include a number of questions on how to
set up internet connections - with and without the GUI interface, along
with configuring routers and firewalls.
> I do have to admit that I tried OpenOffice and liked it a lot. The
> export to PDF feature is really nice and the quality of OpenOffice is
> somewhere between MS Office 97 - MS Office 2000 minus the VBA
> functionality. This makes it good for home use although at the company
> I work my friend tells me OpenOffice cannot run our VBA code. So it
> will not work for most workplaces. My son uses it for school since it
> is free and he would rather have new Nike shoes than an office
> application.
Open Office does offer scripting, you might have to do minor rewrites.
In addition, OpenOffice supports XML formatted documents (OpenDocument
format), and this means that a number of other scripting languages and
tools can be used outside of the OpenOffice editors.
> My friend is trying to get Unix to connect to the net still even
> though I am telling him to put windows XP back on my PC. He tells me
> that getting Unix connected to the net is one of the greatest
> challenges a computer Wiz has to encounter.
This tells me that your friend isn't a computer Wiz at all. He might
be a "Windows Wiz", but to qualify as a "Computer Wiz" you really need
to be able to understand AT LEAST Windows, Unix, Linux, and at least
one other operating system - such as MVS or VMS.
Your friend is a wannabe - A true "Unix Wizard" would have had no
trouble getting Unix connected to a legitimate Internet connection.
There is the remote possibility that you were trying to connect to a
"special" ISP or VPN connection.
Remember, Linux/Unix is the standard by which the Internet Protocols
and standards are measured. If Linux could not easily be configured to
your Internet connection, it's because your ISP is not following the
established standards.
> He tells me he is at the
> point of almost making it work. He downloaded a bunch of DTrace
> scripts off the internet at work and burned them on a CD. He brought
> the CD home and was trying them out to see if he could DTrace to google
> but he got no response. He ran this command:
>
> dtrace www.google.com.
Dtrace is a tool used on Solaris 10. If he was trying to run them on
Linux or Windows, of course it wouldn't work.
> It didn't work! I told him to go and get his MCSE and then Unix will
> be easier to understand once he has the degree.
In spite of the name of the certificate - Microsoft Certified Software
Engineer, this is not an engineering degree, or even close equivalent.
It is a test for a specific set of products and version of Windows,
which indicates that you have established a minimal professional
competency. Most MCSE preparation is done through "Cram Classes" which
typically take 4-6 weeks and focus entirely on the test questions for
that specific version.
An Engineering Degree typically takes 4-5 years to earn, requires
courses in math, statistics, physics, electronics, and for a BSEE,
training in multiple operating systems and programming languages. A
BSCS requires 4 years, requires courses in math, statistics, logic,
communication, and multiple operating systems and programming
languages.
There are some associates degree programs which offer degrees which are
based exclusively on Microsoft technology - usually in community
colleges - with minimal training required to get an Entry level
position - and even most of these programs include courses in
programming in Java, C or C++, as well as Basic (Visual Basic),
Javascript, and HTML.
In the hierarchy, you have
Windows Deskside Support
Windows Administrators
Unix/Linux Administrators (most skills are interchangable)
System Administrators
Associate Programmers/Techwriters
Application Programmers (User/client side only)
System Programmers (Servers)
Engineers (Server analysis, design, implementation on multiple
platforms)
Technical Specialists (Ability to solve problems in multi-server
multi-platform environments)
IT Architects (Able to design, implement, troubleshoot, and support,
as well as manage teams of specialists,
administrators,
programmers, ad engineers on multiple platforms
- including Windows, *nix, and others.).
I'm an IT Architect
The term Wizard, is generally reserved for Systems programmers who are
so proficient at Unix system programming that they can diagnose,
trouble-shoot, and generate fixes - on running systems, with an
absolute minimum of down-time. In most cases, without rebooting the
systems - often only a server restart or "kill -hup".
> He then tried using an
> Apple emacs editor to edit some hosts files following some printed
> instructions he got from google. Apple emacs was too hard and it kept
> on beeping and there was no way to quit so we pressed a bunch of keys
> until the emacs became really buggy and gave us this message:
Apple Emacs??!!?? What kind of hardware were you trying to use. Emacs
is an editor that is available on most versions of Unix, Linux, and
Windows, but it's not a "beginner's" editor. Apple Emacs would be
designed to run on a PPC - an iMac.
This clearly indicates that your gentleman friend is not really a
"Computer Wiz", he might be handy around Windows desktop machine. At
minimum, he should have had no trouble using "vi" to edit those files,
and would have been completely comfortable. Casual users don't need to
learn "vi" but "Computer Wizards" use "vi" because it's one of the few
editors which is supported on all of the UNIX platforms and easily
available on Windows.
> Debugger entered--Lisp error: (void-variable +)
Not even a clue what he was doing. He ended up in Lisp mode trying to
enter commands, and entered invalid lisp commands. Emacs has a massive
amount of power and flexibility, but it's not for "beginners".
> I had to pull the power cord on the computer to reboot it.
That is a very dumb thing to do in the UNIX world. Linux can generally
recover if you have a journaled file system and journalling is enabled
- but it's much better to shut down properly. Even Windows NT/2K/XP or
other NTFS file systems can be corrupted by "pulling the plug".
> By this
> time I had convinced my friend that MCSE degrees were offered to give
> training in computers and he agreed that in order to become a "hacker"
> level computer Wiz, he would have to get that degree.
Linux has a number of certification programs. SAIR, LPI, Red Hat, and
Novell all offer different certification tests. Did your friend have
ANY of those credentials?
> So he went to
> put windows XP on my computer but he told me it didn't recognize the
> partition.
That would be correct. Windows XP only recognizes Microsoft partition
formats, FAT, FAT32, and NTFS. Solaris and Linux use different formats
which are more reliable, recoverable, and provide better support for
the requirements of multitasking operating systems.
> We googled solaris unix and found "ZFS" on google at work.
> It said that the file system is indestructable and never goes away.
> According to one website it was like this: "ZFS protects all data with
> 64-bit checksums that detect and correct silent data corruption." That
> means it fights Windows XP and Norton Ghost when trying to get rid of
> Unix.
That is a cute trick! I've used Solaris 10 on SPArC, but not on IA-64.
Normally, you can use FDISK on Linux to re-initialize the MBR and
create fresh partitions. You should be able to use the Solaris
Partition manager as well. You should be able to run the XP installer
and tell it to do a "destructive" install if you want to get rid ef ZFS
entirely.
> By this time I really needed to be connected to the internet at home so
> I could get email. I went to an Apple store and told them that I
> needed a new computer but not an Apple Emacs because I already tried it
> and had to pull the power cord to make it stop beeping.
I'm a bit confused. You were trying to run Apple Emacs on your Solaris
10 machine?
> He led my to
> an Apple iMac which he said was better than an Apple Emacs because it
> was newer and based on OS X.
OS/X is probably a good solution for you. You wanted something that
didn't take too much administration support, didn't contain a bunch of
"special" applications, and yet wolud still run many of the
applications available on Linux (OpenOffice).
> I got home and got on the internet right away with my iMac. I am so
> glad I'm done with Unix. My apple gets things done like unix where
> unix couldn't.
Guess what! OS/X IS UNIX!!
It's packaged very well, it's preinstalled and preconfigured on Apple's
own proprietary hardware, and if you open up a "terminal" window, you
would even find your favorite unix commands. But as you can see, you
really don't need them.
PS: Don't let your "Computer Wiz" friend anywhere NEAR your iMac.
Even AFTER he has his MCSE, he won't be qualified to do anything but
trash it.
Rex Ballard
http://www.open4success.org
zara
<spi...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f1lcc3-...@ridcully.fsnet.co.uk...
I think Dom is correct - the guy probably wants to get those panties off.
Cyberwasteland
still likes using girl nyms... scary.
Sig Sauer
> I tried Solaris 10. I tried Linux. I tried FreeBSD.
>
Troll........Plonk.
Later
Sig
--
"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect."
--- Linus Torvalds
Brendan Gregg
> I tried Solaris 10. I tried Linux. I tried FreeBSD.
[...]
> My friend is trying to get Unix to connect to the net still even
> though I am telling him to put windows XP back on my PC. He tells me
> that getting Unix connected to the net is one of the greatest
> challenges a computer Wiz has to encounter. He tells me he is at the
> point of almost making it work. He downloaded a bunch of DTrace
> scripts off the internet at work and burned them on a CD. He brought
> the CD home and was trying them out to see if he could DTrace to google
> but he got no response.
Noo, what have I done!?? ;-)
Actually, there is a comment in the DTraceToolkit FAQ for situations like
this,
"1.4. Am I now a performance tuning expert?
The DTraceToolkit does not turn people into performance tuning experts
in the same way that owning a set of golf clubs won't make you a
professional golfer. Experience and understanding are necessary. The
toolkit certainly helps by fetching the data in an easy way, and also
by providing some documentation. So it is valuable, but not magical.
"
> He ran this command:
>
> dtrace www.google.com.
>
> It didn't work!
Ow.
Brendan
Roger P. Johnson
> I tried Solaris 10. I tried Linux. I tried FreeBSD.
> unix couldn't.
>
What a retard to sit there and write this piece of crap and post it.
Get a life idiot.
Larry Qualig
Yet 32 people including yourself read the post and felt the need to
respond to it. Who's laughing at who?
GreyCloud
>>>>>>"GreyCloud" == GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> writes:
>
>
>
> >> My friend is trying to get Unix to connect to the net still
> >> even though I am telling him to put windows XP back on my PC.
> >> He tells me that getting Unix connected to the net is one of
> >> the greatest challenges a computer Wiz has to encounter.
>
> GreyCloud> Sure it is. Then how come I can and he can't?
>
> Note: "computer" in that context means "MS Windows". ;)
>
Hehe... on a side note tho, I spent most of the day installing Solaris
10 x86 on a new hard drive dontated by one of the posters here. The
hard drive works great, but installing Solaris is a PITA. I finally got
everything installed, but Sun screwed up their install script with
regards to RPC. There isn't any S71rpc script in the rc2.d directory
for startup. Hence, no internet access. Where or which Sun package
this is in is beyond my means. Other than that, the Java desktop does
run quite a bit faster than Suse 10 does on the same hardware.
The CDE won't let even root use anything but gives out a cryptic DT
error message saying that I should fix up the /etc/hosts file,
/etc/src.sh, and /usr/adm/inetd.sec. I click on that OK button and
back to the login splash screen. I can get in under failsafe, but it
shows that /etc/src.sh and /usr/adm/inetd.sec are missing. I suspect
that the missing S71rpc is the culprit here.
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
GreyCloud
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Karen Hill wrote:
>
>
>>Unix is too hard. Why is that? The Unix versions I listed above were
>
>
> This smells liek a troll...
>
>
>>secretaries at work have my friend work on their computers and he is
>>thinking of going back to college to get his MCSE.
>
>
> Minefield Consultants and Solitare Experts are a waste of space.
>
>
>>My friend is trying to get Unix to connect to the net still even
>>though I am telling him to put windows XP back on my PC. He tells me
>>that getting Unix connected to the net is one of the greatest
>>challenges a computer Wiz has to encounter. He tells me he is at the
>
>
> Your friend is obviously clueless. Ideal MCSE material.
>
>
>>the CD home and was trying them out to see if he could DTrace to google
>>but he got no response. He ran this command:
>>
>>dtrace www.google.com.
>>
>>It didn't work! I told him to go and get his MCSE and then Unix will
>>be easier to understand once he has the degree. He then tried using an
>
>
> An MCSE is NOT a degree. NOt in any sense of the word.
>
>
>>put windows XP on my computer but he told me it didn't recognize the
>>partition. We googled solaris unix and found "ZFS" on google at work.
>>It said that the file system is indestructable and never goes away.
>
>
> OK. YOu're a troll. PUre and simple.
>
>
>>I got home and got on the internet right away with my iMac. I am so
>>glad I'm done with Unix. My apple gets things done like unix where
>>unix couldn't.
>
>
> Hah. MacOS is based on UNIX!
>
Hehe... is sure isn't. :-)
BTW, where does one hunt down on the install CDs of Solaris 10 for the
startup script S71rpc? Once I find it, how do I install it?
It seems that this may be the culprit that gives out the cryptic CDE DT
login error box and won't let you touch anything else.
The real funny thing is that you can login to the Java Desktop. Note
that I haven't created any user accounts yet and have no internet access
from the Solaris part.
GreyCloud
Makes ya wonder if this isn't EggTroll. Those were always funny troll
posts. :-))
I wonder what happened to EggTroll??
GreyCloud
Hehehe... actually it was a comical post in many ways.
Seeing that solaris was mentioned, I finally installed Solaris 10 on
that new hard drive. This is one messed up install program that I've
run into here, and takes a bit of thinking. But I did get it installed,
but no networking available. It'll take a bit of time to ferret out the
details tho. The Java desktop runs just a bit faster than KDE suse does
and the display is quite a bit sharper. The installer gives you a
choice between Xsun and Xorg server, and I chose the Xsun server.
Whoever
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, GreyCloud wrote:
>
> Hehe... on a side note tho, I spent most of the day installing Solaris
> 10 x86 on a new hard drive dontated by one of the posters here. The
> hard drive works great, but installing Solaris is a PITA. I finally got
> everything installed, but Sun screwed up their install script with
> regards to RPC. There isn't any S71rpc script in the rc2.d directory
> for startup. Hence, no internet access. Where or which Sun package
> this is in is beyond my means. Other than that, the Java desktop does
> run quite a bit faster than Suse 10 does on the same hardware.
>
> The CDE won't let even root use anything but gives out a cryptic DT
> error message saying that I should fix up the /etc/hosts file,
> /etc/src.sh, and /usr/adm/inetd.sec. I click on that OK button and
> back to the login splash screen. I can get in under failsafe, but it
> shows that /etc/src.sh and /usr/adm/inetd.sec are missing. I suspect
> that the missing S71rpc is the culprit here.
Well, I install Solaris 10 x86 less than 1 month ago. I did not notice any
missing rpc script. Also, you should not need this to connect to the
Internet.
Some processes are started from a special daemon that manages them, not
from scripts in /etc/rc*.d. However, assuming you are looking for a script
in /etc/rc2.d, did you look for the source of this in /etc/init.d?
Specifically, look for "/etc/init.d/rpc" or something similar. The S*
scripts are either copies of, or just links to, the files in /etc/init.d
I can't check my installation right now because it is a dual boot machine
and is running Linux. Unfortunately, the distro does not include support
for UFS filesystems, so I can't mount the Solaris partition.
Dom
>>>>> are capitalized. Learn to proofread before posting.
> ... 3 errors I think....
Three, indeed. Spelling, punctuation and failure to heed own advice.
Sandman
<43f4203a$0$35482$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,
Dom <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I'm not a native English speaker myself, but I've come to understand
that it's perfectly ok to use punctuation inside quotes, such as:
He said "Come over here."
Which would, according to my experience, be a grammatically correct
sentence. In the same vein, the following sentence would also be
correct:
The correct spellings are "Apple" and "Unix," proper nouns
are capitalized.
In Swedish, which is my native tongue, this would be unheard of,
though.
--
Sandman[.net]
"As far as my decision to use the PC goes, that
went according to my pocketbook"
- Edwin, too poor to afford a Mac.
amosf © Tim Fairchild
> In article <1140051181....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> rex.b...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Apple's
>> own proprietary hardware,
>
> so intel is owned by apple now ? :)
They may use intel chips (and a variety of other chip makers) but the
hardware configuration is certainly apple...
A Jones
>
> Karen Hill wrote:
>> I tried Solaris 10. I tried Linux. I tried FreeBSD.
<snip>
>> Debugger entered--Lisp error: (void-variable +)
>
> Not even a clue what he was doing. He ended up in Lisp mode trying to
> enter commands, and entered invalid lisp commands. Emacs has a massive
> amount of power and flexibility, but it's not for "beginners".
I just poked into this thread and this bullshit happened to catch my
eye. Emacs has a "massive amount of power and flexibility"? Either
a) you don't use emacs,
b) you're nothing but an apologist for open source software,
or
c) you've been living in a bomb shelter for the past 25 years and
you're unfamiliar with modern standards of software quality.
I myself have been using Emacs for about 25 years, almost since it
first appeared. I have yet to find any "massive amount of power"
or flexibility in the program. What I have found is a very poorly
designed, underpowered, system, built on top of what is probably
the worst implementation of Lisp that has ever gained wide use.
Emacs Lisp breaks just about every principle that competent researchers
in computer programming languages have embraced for decades.
Emacs Lisp makes just about any programming language you've ever heard
of look like a work of genius (barring, maybe, DOS batch language and
Bash and the like). Unfortunately, almost all functionality in Emacs is
written as Emacs Lisp packages. The majority of these are contributed by
random people in the software wilderness who mostly seem to have
practically no grasp of good software practice. Some of the packages are
maintained by the core emacs developers, who seem at best marginally more
competent. Exacerbating the problem is that Emacs Lisp is so poorly
designed that these packages get tangled with each other, and at some
fairly early point, become too convoluted and complicated to reliably
develop much further. In any case, it's an empirical fact that almost all
Emacs packages are perennially broken and unfinished.
I know first hand just how bad the situation is. I found several of the
core packages so intolerably limited and unimaginative that I rewrote them
from scratch. I actually value the experience. I have an interest in the
theory of computer programming languages. In order to seek the ideal, it's
helpful to experience the worst first hand, so you know what disease you
need to cure. Emacs Lisp gave me first hand experience in what
might be the worst programming environment in wide use today.
As you can see, I feel strongly about this. That is because I have been
suffering under emacs for so long, and because I consider the emacs story
a microcosm of everything that is wrong with the open software world:
poor architecture, bloated but underpowered software, unreliable and
poorly coordinated systems, incompetent developers,
fragmentation, disregard for standards, disrespect for the end user.
So let me just warn anyone who is reading this thread, that whoever
wrote the above bullshit about emacs, is probably biased and/or
dishonest. In a word, he is probably nothing more than an advocate.
Peter Köhlmann
< snip bullshit >
> So let me just warn anyone who is reading this thread, that whoever
> wrote the above bullshit about emacs, is probably biased and/or
> dishonest. In a word, he is probably nothing more than an advocate.
Whereas you are nothing than a honest, unbiased professional speaking
nothing but the truth
Spot the flaws
--
Windows isn't unstable. It's spontaneous.
Peter Hayes
> Karen Hill wrote:
> > I tried Solaris 10. I tried Linux. I tried FreeBSD.
> >
> > Unix is too hard.
>
> Download a Knoppix CD/DVD.
> Boot it up. That's. You're connected to the Internet.
>
> If that doesn't work, try a brain transplant :)
Shouldn.t that be a brain **inplant**?
--
Peter
spi...@freenet.co.uk
implant, I think you mean...
After all, all a brain transplant would achieve is putting the idiot in some
other poor sod's body.
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| spi...@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
Drazen Kacar
> I'm an IT Architect
Just because a sense of humor is not in the job description. :-)
--
.-. .-. Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely
(_ \ / _) ceremonial.
|
| da...@fly.srk.fer.hr
zara
"Ana Thema" <anat...@gmail.net> wrote in message
news:10001553.cF3uvoMyIP@MS-NWO...
> and likes to wear his underpants on the outside. Maybe
> he wants to try hers on for size.
OH! I always thought Kohlmann wore them over his head?
chrisv
>Roger P. Johnson wrote:
>>
>> What a retard to sit there and write this piece of crap and post it.
>> Get a life idiot.
>
>Yet 32 people including yourself read the post and felt the need to
>respond to it. Who's laughing at who?
The trolls are well-fed around here, that's for sure...
TheLetterK
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 00:19:41 +0000, Rick wrote:
>
> <snip?
>
>>>I got home and got on the internet right away with my iMac. I am so
>>>glad I'm done with Unix. My apple gets things done like unix where unix
>>>couldn't.
>>
>
>
> Actually, it's based on Darwin...which was partly derived from BSD.
That's actually a good term to use to describe OS X's relation to FreeBSD.
JEDIDIAH
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:53:01 -0800, rex.ballard wrote:
>
>>
>> Karen Hill wrote:
>>> I tried Solaris 10. I tried Linux. I tried FreeBSD.
><snip>
>>> Debugger entered--Lisp error: (void-variable +)
>>
>> Not even a clue what he was doing. He ended up in Lisp mode trying to
>> enter commands, and entered invalid lisp commands. Emacs has a massive
>> amount of power and flexibility, but it's not for "beginners".
>
> I just poked into this thread and this bullshit happened to catch my
> eye. Emacs has a "massive amount of power and flexibility"? Either
> a) you don't use emacs,
You are simply on crack.
You may call emacs bloated and overly complicated but you
can't claim it isn't powerful or flexible. The damn thing has it's
own web browser for crying out loud. There are entire classes of
Unix users that just plain use emacs as if it were there OS and
have been doing so before Linux even existed.
> b) you're nothing but an apologist for open source software,
> or
> c) you've been living in a bomb shelter for the past 25 years and
> you're unfamiliar with modern standards of software quality.
>
> I myself have been using Emacs for about 25 years, almost since it
> first appeared. I have yet to find any "massive amount of power"
> or flexibility in the program. What I have found is a very poorly
[deletia]
Your rant expressing your hatred of emacs is really quite
irrelevant. The fact remains that emacs can be your entire
application suite if you want it to be. Your dislike of lisp is
also irrelevant. The fact that it might not follow your particular
software engineering religion doesn't detract from it's turing
completeness.
What a nutball.
--
vi isn't easy to use. |||
/ | \
vi is easy to REPLACE.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Peter Hayes
> Peter Hayes <not_i...@btinternet.com> did eloquently scribble:
> >
> >
> > Harry <harryoo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Karen Hill wrote:
> >> > I tried Solaris 10. I tried Linux. I tried FreeBSD.
> >> >
> >> > Unix is too hard.
> >>
> >> Download a Knoppix CD/DVD.
> >> Boot it up. That's. You're connected to the Internet.
> >>
> >> If that doesn't work, try a brain transplant :)
> >
> > Shouldn.t that be a brain **inplant**?
>
> implant, I think you mean...
Yeup... :-)
> After all, all a brain transplant would achieve is putting the idiot in some
> other poor sod's body.
--
Peter
ray
making Linux (or Unix, which of course, is a different thing) work on the
internet is generally as easy as booting it up - assuming you have an
ethernet connection. If there is a 'winmodem' involved, it may or may not
work. If it will work, one can easily follow the 'linmodem' howto at
www.tldp.org to get things going. If it won't work, it won't work. I know
you're not interested in 'why', but the reason is that the manufacturer
will not release any information about how it works to allow proper
drivers to be written and won't provide one.
BTW OpenOffice, AbiWord, GIMP and several other MS busters are also
available for MS systems.
Bill Gunshannon
year.
(Hint: Please don't feed the trolls!!)
bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bi...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Rich Teer
> I myself have been using Emacs for about 25 years, almost since it
> first appeared. I have yet to find any "massive amount of power"
> or flexibility in the program. What I have found is a very poorly
> designed, underpowered, system, built on top of what is probably
> the worst implementation of Lisp that has ever gained wide use.
[...]
> As you can see, I feel strongly about this. That is because I have been
> suffering under emacs for so long, and because I consider the emacs story
> a microcosm of everything that is wrong with the open software world:
> poor architecture, bloated but underpowered software, unreliable and
> poorly coordinated systems, incompetent developers,
> fragmentation, disregard for standards, disrespect for the end user.
Why suffer so much? Surely one of the other UNIX text editors meets
your needs? (Personally I'm a vi man, but I'm not gonna turn this
into a vi vs emacs flame war.)
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
M
"zara" <zsp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:40QIf.261$ak2...@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> <spi...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:f1lcc3-...@ridcully.fsnet.co.uk...
>> Karen Hill <karen_...@yahoo.com> did eloquently scribble:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> installed by my friend on my computer and yet I wasn't able to connect
>>> to the internet. My friend is a computer Wiz and he couldn't figure
>>> out how to get my computer on the internet. In fact all the
>>> secretaries at work have my friend work on their computers and he is
>>> thinking of going back to college to get his MCSE.
>>
>> So...
>> He's a computer wiz and he wants to get an MCSE?
>> Why would a computer wiz want a piece of paper that tells everyone he's a
>> minesweeper consultant and solitaire expert?
>>
>>> My friend is trying to get Unix to connect to the net still even
>>> though I am telling him to put windows XP back on my PC. He tells me
>>> that getting Unix connected to the net is one of the greatest
>>> challenges a computer Wiz has to encounter.
>>
>> Bull shit
>> It's fucking automatic on almost every linux and bsd distribution going.
>> Even if it's dialup, the only thing that'll get in the way is the odd
>> winmodem that'll cause a problem, use a normal external, no problem.
>>
I think this is like when you take your car to the garage, and the mechanic
comes out to you, takes a sharp intact of breath and tells you that you need
a new radiator. He fails to mention that he has just put his screw driver
through it.
>>> I had to pull the power cord on the computer to reboot it. By this
>>> time I had convinced my friend that MCSE degrees were offered to give
>>> training in computers and he agreed that in order to become a "hacker"
>>> level computer Wiz, he would have to get that degree.
>>
>> Oh no, it gets better and better... MCSE is a degree now?
>
> I think Dom is correct - the guy probably wants to get those panties off.
Yes I would concur with Dom also.
Regards,
M
JEDIDIAH
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, A Jones wrote:
>
>> I myself have been using Emacs for about 25 years, almost since it
>> first appeared. I have yet to find any "massive amount of power"
>> or flexibility in the program. What I have found is a very poorly
>> designed, underpowered, system, built on top of what is probably
>> the worst implementation of Lisp that has ever gained wide use.
>
> [...]
>
>> As you can see, I feel strongly about this. That is because I have been
>> suffering under emacs for so long, and because I consider the emacs story
>> a microcosm of everything that is wrong with the open software world:
>> poor architecture, bloated but underpowered software, unreliable and
>> poorly coordinated systems, incompetent developers,
>> fragmentation, disregard for standards, disrespect for the end user.
>
> Why suffer so much? Surely one of the other UNIX text editors meets
> your needs? (Personally I'm a vi man, but I'm not gonna turn this
> into a vi vs emacs flame war.)
>
Quite right. This fellow is entirely too excited. It's not
as if there are network effects forcing him to use gnus and such. He's
free to live his life as if emacs never came into being.
I just like it because at the time I was first exposed to it it
was a reasonably nice visual text editor.
TheLetterK
> On 2006-02-16, A Jones <ajo...@nospam.me.noway> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:53:01 -0800, rex.ballard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Karen Hill wrote:
>>>
>>>>I tried Solaris 10. I tried Linux. I tried FreeBSD.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>Debugger entered--Lisp error: (void-variable +)
>>>
>>>Not even a clue what he was doing. He ended up in Lisp mode trying to
>>>enter commands, and entered invalid lisp commands. Emacs has a massive
>>>amount of power and flexibility, but it's not for "beginners".
>>
>>I just poked into this thread and this bullshit happened to catch my
>>eye. Emacs has a "massive amount of power and flexibility"? Either
>>a) you don't use emacs,
>
>
> You are simply on crack.
>
> You may call emacs bloated and overly complicated but you
> can't claim it isn't powerful or flexible. The damn thing has it's
> own web browser for crying out loud. There are entire classes of
> Unix users that just plain use emacs as if it were there OS and
> have been doing so before Linux even existed.
It's even used as a tet-to-speech processor.
GreyCloud
Well, the thing is when running solaris 8, I got the RPC bind message
upon boot up. I don't get any indication of this service running on
Solaris 10. I answered the installers questions and end up without any
internet access. So I go snooping thru many of the usual files and find
that a lot of things aren't even configured for internet access.
Either Solaris 10 moved things to different places or the installer
didn't do its job. I could sys-unconfigure the box and start that
process over without reinstalling the o/s.
I'm behind a cisco router that already does DHCP so my box doesn't need
to do that. During the install there were several choices to be made on
one screen... DNS, LDAP, etc. The last box was none and was given
advice to check this box. Is that the main mistake here??
GreyCloud
> On 2006-02-16, Rich Teer <rich...@rite-group.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, A Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I myself have been using Emacs for about 25 years, almost since it
>>>first appeared. I have yet to find any "massive amount of power"
>>>or flexibility in the program. What I have found is a very poorly
>>>designed, underpowered, system, built on top of what is probably
>>>the worst implementation of Lisp that has ever gained wide use.
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>As you can see, I feel strongly about this. That is because I have been
>>>suffering under emacs for so long, and because I consider the emacs story
>>>a microcosm of everything that is wrong with the open software world:
>>>poor architecture, bloated but underpowered software, unreliable and
>>>poorly coordinated systems, incompetent developers,
>>>fragmentation, disregard for standards, disrespect for the end user.
>>
>>Why suffer so much? Surely one of the other UNIX text editors meets
>>your needs? (Personally I'm a vi man, but I'm not gonna turn this
>>into a vi vs emacs flame war.)
>>
>
>
> Quite right. This fellow is entirely too excited. It's not
> as if there are network effects forcing him to use gnus and such. He's
> free to live his life as if emacs never came into being.
>
> I just like it because at the time I was first exposed to it it
> was a reasonably nice visual text editor.
>
I found that emacs worked very good using PrimeOS on a terminal.
Larry Qualig
I really don't know why but I've thought about installling Solaris on
one of my spare drives. (I actually found another drive yesterday that
I didn't know I had.) I went to the OpenSolaris site and it looks like
the current method of installing it is to download a minimal
"boot-strap" and then compile the entire thing from sources using the
recommended Sun compiler.
Is this how you did your install or is there some other way?
Thanks in advance,
- LQ
zara
"Bill Gunshannon" <bi...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message
news:45joggF...@individual.net...
> Congratulations. That troll should be fat and happy for at least a
> year.
>
> (Hint: Please don't feed the trolls!!)
puleeeze- don't feed the trolls. Spoken like a true tightass.
Bill Gunshannon
GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> writes:
>
> I found that emacs worked very good using PrimeOS on a terminal.
Actually, that's PRIMOS.
(Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt!)
JEDIDIAH
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> On 2006-02-16, Rich Teer <rich...@rite-group.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, A Jones wrote:
>> Quite right. This fellow is entirely too excited. It's not
>> as if there are network effects forcing him to use gnus and such. He's
>> free to live his life as if emacs never came into being.
>>
>> I just like it because at the time I was first exposed to it it
>> was a reasonably nice visual text editor.
>>
>
> I found that emacs worked very good using PrimeOS on a terminal.
It worked really well on a 2400bps connection to an Atari ST too...
--
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||
/ | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!
Frank Cusack
> Lee Sau Dan wrote:
>
>>>>>>>"GreyCloud" == GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> My friend is trying to get Unix to connect to the net still
>> >> even though I am telling him to put windows XP back on my PC.
>> >> He tells me that getting Unix connected to the net is one of
>> >> the greatest challenges a computer Wiz has to encounter.
>>
>>
>> Note: "computer" in that context means "MS Windows". ;)
>>
>
> Hehe... on a side note tho, I spent most of the day installing Solaris
> 10 x86 on a new hard drive dontated by one of the posters here. The
> hard drive works great, but installing Solaris is a PITA. I finally got
> everything installed, but Sun screwed up their install script with
> regards to RPC. There isn't any S71rpc script in the rc2.d directory
> for startup. Hence, no internet access. Where or which Sun package
> this is in is beyond my means. Other than that, the Java desktop does
> run quite a bit faster than Suse 10 does on the same hardware.
>
> The CDE won't let even root use anything but gives out a cryptic DT
> error message saying that I should fix up the /etc/hosts file,
> /etc/src.sh, and /usr/adm/inetd.sec. I click on that OK button and
> back to the login splash screen. I can get in under failsafe, but it
> shows that /etc/src.sh and /usr/adm/inetd.sec are missing. I suspect
> that the missing S71rpc is the culprit here.
Solaris 10 no longer has an /etc/rc2.dS71rpc script. Beginning in S10,
startup scripts are managed by 'service management' with commands like
'svcadm'. The stuff that is in /etc/rc* dirs is "legacy" and will be
removed in short order.
Lack of RPC won't stop you from getting on the Internet. At install
time, you merely need to choose yes for 'networked' and then probably
choose 'dhcp' and it will work.
Post-install, run 'sys-unconfig' as root, then when the system reboots
it will prompt you for the network questions.
-frank
philo
> I tried Solaris 10. I tried Linux. I tried FreeBSD.
>
> installed by my friend on my computer and yet I wasn't able to connect
> to the internet. My friend is a computer Wiz and he couldn't figure
> out how to get my computer on the internet.
<snip>
Then your Whiz friend is a moron.
When I was still a complete newbie and had barely gotten the hang of
windows 95...
though it did take me a while...
I managed to get Linux installed and working.
When I started out with Linux I had so little knowledge of
computers I did not even know what a partition was.
The only thing "bad" I can say about Linux is that
it forces you to think...
at least back in the old days...
Today, all you do is pop in a cd
and many Linux distros install and configure themselves in just a few
minutes...even easier than Windows
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
02/15/2006
at 04:53 PM, rex.b...@gmail.com said:
>It sounds like your friend had little or no hands-on knowledge of
>Linux or Unix.
YHBT. Google for Barkto.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
GreyCloud
I went to http://www.sun.com-> downloads.
Create a login account and the downloads are free.
What happens is on CD1. It boots from your CD-rom drive and loads a
miniroot. The rest just installs images and documentation on your drive
and takes some time. My old IBM took most of the day, only because I
had to backtrack on their vague instructions on screen.
But it did install, but minus the networking. That part I have the
printed admin manuals for, but will take some reading to edit the
appropriate files.
If you make a mistake during the configuration, all that one has to do
is type in as root 'sys-unconfig' which causes a reboot and you go thru
the setup screens again, only you don't install any new software unless
some is missing and it needs it.
In your case, you may have to research and download the SATA drive
controller drivers if they are needed. Googling on SATA controller
solaris 10 may get you the necessary site for drivers, plus information
on when to insert into grub the driver cd during installation.
Sun has a documentation in the Solaris 10 docs on installation
procedures. Even those are a bit vague in some areas.
GreyCloud
Thnx for that piece of info. I'll sys-unconfig the box and try again.
However, my cisco router already does DHCP. How do I get the box to not
do DHCP and just give it a fixed address, which it does now??
>
> Post-install, run 'sys-unconfig' as root, then when the system reboots
> it will prompt you for the network questions.
>
Can I presume to select DNS as well??
There is a check box for none, which I selected and was advised to
check. (???)
GreyCloud
> In article <SNWdnTIIfqbLS2ne...@bresnan.com>,
> GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> writes:
>
>>I found that emacs worked very good using PrimeOS on a terminal.
>
>
> Actually, that's PRIMOS.
> (Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt!)
>
> bill
>
It has been since 1986 since I touched one. Memory gets a bit fuzzy
after 20 years. And yes, it has been a long time. :-)
zara
"Roger P. Johnson" <roge...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:ws-dnZ5QPow...@comcast.com...
> Karen Hill wrote:
>> I tried Solaris 10. I tried Linux. I tried FreeBSD.
>> unix couldn't.
>>
> What a retard to sit there and write this piece of crap and post it.
> Get a life idiot.
You are the Idiot, along with a bunch of other Idiots. One post, and you
are all arguing among yourselves. Dumb Mutts. But one of the best Trolls
in months.
Richard L. Hamilton
> installed by my friend on my computer and yet I wasn't able to connect
> to the internet. My friend is a computer Wiz and he couldn't figure
> secretaries at work have my friend work on their computers and he is
> thinking of going back to college to get his MCSE.
> I got home and got on the internet right away with my iMac. I am so
> glad I'm done with Unix. My apple gets things done like unix where
> unix couldn't.
This has _got_ to be flame-bait, or a joke, or something, even if it's
not April 1 yet.
* if they're a wiz, and they can't get a Unix box on the 'net (Unix or
Linux boxes are the _servers_ on most of the damn 'net), then sorry,
but they're not a wiz, except maybe the type that gets flushed.
* going to college for an MCSE is like going to Nordstrom's (I was going
to say FAO Schwartz) for toilet paper...and more literally so the more I
think about it.
* underneath the eye-candy and easy-of-use cosmetics on an Apple, lies
something just about identical to Unix (even if they aren't actually
entitled to use the trademark).
Having said all that, there may be something to the point that Unix or
Linux is harder to _start_ using than Windows or a Mac. Personally, I'm
not so populist that I care; I'd rather have less people that pursued clue
mostly on their own than droves of people for whom navigating from their
"Start" button to something new is a major accomplishment.
But for those that think that it's necessary for the survival of Unix-like
OS's to have a lower barrier to entry, there are certainly ample
opportunities to reduce those barriers.
For those that want something a particular way, but neither wish to pay
for it _nor_ participate in improving it, well, they're freeloaders, and
if they're smart enough to figure out how to post to Usenet (even using
Outhouse Express), they really don't have the excuse of being unable to
learn, so they ought to take some initiative to smarten themselves up, or
do without.
--
mailto:rlh...@smart.net http://www.smart.net/~rlhamil
Lasik/PRK theme music:
"In the Hall of the Mountain King", from "Peer Gynt"
Frank Cusack
> Frank Cusack wrote:
>> Solaris 10 no longer has an /etc/rc2.dS71rpc script. Beginning in
>> S10,
>> startup scripts are managed by 'service management' with commands like
>> 'svcadm'. The stuff that is in /etc/rc* dirs is "legacy" and will be
>> removed in short order.
>> Lack of RPC won't stop you from getting on the Internet. At install
>> time, you merely need to choose yes for 'networked' and then probably
>> choose 'dhcp' and it will work.
>
> Thnx for that piece of info. I'll sys-unconfig the box and try again.
>
> However, my cisco router already does DHCP. How do I get the box to
> not do DHCP and just give it a fixed address, which it does now??
Not sure why both your cisco router and your computer can't do DHCP.
Normally, your router does DHCP to your provider, and is also a DHCP
*server* which your computers use to obtain an IP. But in any case,
after sys-unconfig you can specify a fixed IP.
>> Post-install, run 'sys-unconfig' as root, then when the system
>> reboots
>> it will prompt you for the network questions.
>>
>
> Can I presume to select DNS as well??
yes
> There is a check box for none, which I selected and was advised to
> check. (???)
I'm not sure how the name service selection works with dhcp, but if
you configure as fixed IP, then choose DNS for nameservice.
-frank
Lee Sau Dan
>> You are simply on crack. You may call emacs bloated and overly
>> complicated but you can't claim it isn't powerful or
>> flexible. The damn thing has it's own web browser for crying
>> out loud. There are entire classes of Unix users that just
>> plain use emacs as if it were there OS and have been doing so
>> before Linux even existed.
TheLetterK> It's even used as a tet-to-speech processor.
You mean "text-to-speech"?
You must be talking about Emacspeak, then. An impressive thing.
But no, Emacs doesn't do the text-to-speech. It delegate that job to
hardware/software speech synthesizers. Emacs simply sends the text to
the device/process, which then does the hardest job. (Well... but
dir-ed also delegate an important task to "ls", and psvn.el or
pcl-cvs.el also delegate the complicated tasks to SVN or CVS.) This
is unlike W3 or Gnus, which are virtually pure E-lisp.
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~}
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
TheLetterK
>>>>>>"TheLetterK" == TheLetterK <no...@none.net> writes:
>
>
> >> You are simply on crack. You may call emacs bloated and overly
> >> complicated but you can't claim it isn't powerful or
> >> flexible. The damn thing has it's own web browser for crying
> >> out loud. There are entire classes of Unix users that just
> >> plain use emacs as if it were there OS and have been doing so
> >> before Linux even existed.
>
> TheLetterK> It's even used as a tet-to-speech processor.
>
> You mean "text-to-speech"?
Yes, but a typo creeped in there.
>
> You must be talking about Emacspeak, then. An impressive thing.
>
> But no, Emacs doesn't do the text-to-speech. It delegate that job to
> hardware/software speech synthesizers. Emacs simply sends the text to
> the device/process, which then does the hardest job. (Well... but
> dir-ed also delegate an important task to "ls", and psvn.el or
> pcl-cvs.el also delegate the complicated tasks to SVN or CVS.) This
> is unlike W3 or Gnus, which are virtually pure E-lisp.
I was simply providing a more obscure use of emacs. I know it's not the
only link in that chain (I've been using festival quite a bit lately).
Giorgos Keramidas
Lee Sau Dan <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>> "TheLetterK" == TheLetterK <no...@none.net> writes:
>
> >> You are simply on crack. You may call emacs bloated and overly
> >> complicated but you can't claim it isn't powerful or
> >> flexible. The damn thing has it's own web browser for crying
> >> out loud. There are entire classes of Unix users that just
> >> plain use emacs as if it were there OS and have been doing so
> >> before Linux even existed.
>
> TheLetterK> It's even used as a tet-to-speech processor.
>
> You mean "text-to-speech"?
>
> You must be talking about Emacspeak, then. An impressive thing.
>
> But no, Emacs doesn't do the text-to-speech. It delegate that job to
> hardware/software speech synthesizers. Emacs simply sends the text to
> the device/process, which then does the hardest job. (Well... but
> dir-ed also delegate an important task to "ls", and psvn.el or
> pcl-cvs.el also delegate the complicated tasks to SVN or CVS.) This
> is unlike W3 or Gnus, which are virtually pure E-lisp.
That's ok. The important thing is that we have the *choise* to use
other tools from within our editor in an 'intergrated' manner :)
Sometimes, I use ``ESC |'' to filter regions through standard UNIX
tools. Other times, I use ``ESC-x replace-regexp'' to do similar work.
I don't really care if a string substitution command or a commit to a
file has to spawn a process underneath Emacs to do its work, but it sure
feels very nice to have both Emacs and a real shell with tons of
utilities a few typestrokes away :)
No Windows system has been able to match this sort of flexibility,
agility and comfort for me so far. Ever...
TheLetterK
A Jones
> On 2006-02-16, A Jones <ajo...@nospam.me.noway> wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:53:01 -0800, rex.ballard wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Karen Hill wrote:
>>>> I tried Solaris 10. I tried Linux. I tried FreeBSD.
>><snip>
>>>> Debugger entered--Lisp error: (void-variable +)
>>>
>>> Not even a clue what he was doing. He ended up in Lisp mode trying to
>>> enter commands, and entered invalid lisp commands. Emacs has a massive
>>> amount of power and flexibility, but it's not for "beginners".
>>
>> I just poked into this thread and this bullshit happened to catch my
>> eye. Emacs has a "massive amount of power and flexibility"? Either
>> a) you don't use emacs,
>
> You are simply on crack.
>
> You may call emacs bloated and overly complicated but you
> can't claim it isn't powerful or flexible. The damn thing has it's
> own web browser for crying out loud. There are entire classes of
> Unix users that just plain use emacs as if it were there OS and
> have been doing so before Linux even existed.
I was once one of those people. Back in the early 1980's when I started
using emacs we had a phrase "living in emacs," for people who'd
do everything inside emacs, even running shells inside emacs buffers.
I was doing that in the early 1980's and in those days, emacs was
a pretty good technology. But by the end of the 1980's, emacs was already
showing its age and failing to adapt to the rapid developments in the
software world. By the end of the 1990's, emacs was a relic. Its
development community had proven beyond any doubt that it was barely
capable of maintaining the application, and wholly incapable to renovating
and revisioning it as a modern application.
It is now 2006. Emacs doesn't make a very good OS these days.
>
>> b) you're nothing but an apologist for open source software,
>> or
>> c) you've been living in a bomb shelter for the past 25 years and
>> you're unfamiliar with modern standards of software quality.
>>
>> I myself have been using Emacs for about 25 years, almost since it
>> first appeared. I have yet to find any "massive amount of power"
>> or flexibility in the program. What I have found is a very poorly
> [deletia]
>
> Your rant expressing your hatred of emacs is really quite
> irrelevant. The fact remains that emacs can be your entire
> application suite if you want it to be. Your dislike of lisp is
> also irrelevant. The fact that it might not follow your particular
> software engineering religion doesn't detract from it's turing
> completeness.
>
> What a nutball.
Emacs can be your entire application suite, but it will be a
jack of all trades, master of none. Emacs is single threaded,
slow, resource intensive, has only crude user interface capabilities,
does not adhere to modern user interface conventions, does not
integrate well with its environment, has a weak underlying programming
model, is laden with a large code base of inconsistent and poorly written
packages, etc. It is easy to create a quick and dirty approximation in
emacs to most applications out there, but it is very, very difficult
indeed to create something first rate. Emacs modes for web browsing,
email, etc., would satisfy no one on their merits as
stand-alone applications.
I never stated that I dislike lisp. I regard lisp as one of the
most important programming languages ever developed. It has
reached a highly elegant incarnation in some of the modern Scheme
implementations. What I don't like is Emacs Lisp. It is a very
badly designed variant of lisp. It has dynamic scoping, it conflates
three distinct concepts into the symbol "nil," it has only the
crudest forms of modularization, it lacks higher order functions
and other advanced functional features, it has distinct namespaces
for functions and other data, it has an inconsistent and quirky
and buggy set of core functions, etc. It is terrible.
Turing completeness is not a good measure of the power of an application
like emacs, for a long list of reasons. Computer systems of the 1940's
were already Turing complete.
John C. Randolph
> Unix is too hard. Why is that?
Umm.. because you have a short attention span?
Seriously, what was the point you were trying to make with this screed
of yours?
-jcr
Lee Sau Dan
>> But no, Emacs doesn't do the text-to-speech. It delegate that
>> job to hardware/software speech synthesizers. Emacs simply
>> sends the text to the device/process, which then does the
>> hardest job. (Well... but dir-ed also delegate an important
>> task to "ls", and psvn.el or pcl-cvs.el also delegate the
>> complicated tasks to SVN or CVS.) This is unlike W3 or Gnus,
>> which are virtually pure E-lisp.
Giorgos> That's ok. The important thing is that we have the
Giorgos> *choise* to use other tools from within our editor in an
Giorgos> 'intergrated' manner :)
Giorgos> Sometimes, I use ``ESC |'' to filter regions through
Giorgos> standard UNIX tools. Other times, I use ``ESC-x
Giorgos> replace-regexp'' to do similar work. I don't really care
Giorgos> if a string substitution command or a commit to a file
Giorgos> has to spawn a process underneath Emacs to do its work,
Giorgos> but it sure feels very nice to have both Emacs and a real
Giorgos> shell with tons of utilities a few typestrokes away :)
Giorgos> No Windows system has been able to match this sort of
Giorgos> flexibility, agility and comfort for me so far. Ever...
I can't agree more. That's why I've been using Emacs for over a
decade. (When I'm forced to use Windows at work, I install NTEmacs at
first instance, as well as Cygwin.)
Lee Sau Dan
A> Emacs can be your entire application suite, but it will be a
A> jack of all trades, master of none. Emacs is single threaded,
That's why I have a separate Emacs process for running Gnus
exclusively.
A> slow,
I don't think so.
A> resource intensive,
Well... yes, when running on X11 and running a resource-instensive
application such as Gnus or W3. But it's still eats less resource
than Mozilla.
A> has only crude user interface capabilities,
I believe that's why Emacs is so lovely. Many people use Emacs only
from a terminal. No need to struggle through a GUI which always
require you to have one hand on the mouse. Even for those like me who
prefer running Emacs on X11, most still stick both hands to the
keyboard. The "crude" interface is indeed what makes it productive to
work on Emacs, compared to the pointt-clicky interfaces of so called
"modern" programs.
A> does not adhere to modern user interface conventions,
What's "modern"? Something that decreases and hinders productivity so
as to create more jobs?
The Emacs interface is indeed much more learnable: many features are
orthogonal and the key bindings has its own consistency to make it
easier to learn and *internalize*.
A> does not integrate well with its environment,
Much better than other so called IDEs. A new tool like SVN comes to
replace CVS? No problem. I found psvn.el at once, which resembels
pcl-cvs.el. How long do you have to wait until your IDE gets updated
to support a new revision control system (if that is something forseen
by the designers of that IDE)?
A> has a weak underlying programming model,
I don't see any real weaknesses. It's Turing complete. Emacs
packages are highly modular -- so modular that I can easy dig out the
E-lisp code for any feature that I want to investigate. The
decoupling of keypresses (and mouse clicks) from the underlying
function is so nice that I can easily find out the functions that I
can invoke from the keyboard (or mouse) and use them in my own LISP
code. This decoupling also allows me to freely rebind any keypress to
any function. And Emacs has an interactive E-lisp environment which
also has good support to the documentations of the functions and
variables defined in the LISP code. All in all, no other application
programs I've used have ever paralleled the extensibiliy, flexibility,
customizability and scriptability of Emacs.
A> is laden with a large code base of inconsistent and poorly
A> written packages, etc.
Where is the inconsistency? What is poor?
A> It is easy to create a quick and dirty approximation in emacs
A> to most applications out there, but it is very, very difficult
A> indeed to create something first rate. Emacs modes for web
A> browsing, email, etc., would satisfy no one on their merits as
A> stand-alone applications.
If no one is satisfied, then why was it written and keeps on
*evolving*? You think such complicated things like W3, Gnus, PSGML,
AUCTeX, preview-latex are all written overnight, with no user beedback
at all?
A> I never stated that I dislike lisp. I regard lisp as one of the
A> most important programming languages ever developed. It has
A> reached a highly elegant incarnation in some of the modern
A> Scheme implementations. What I don't like is Emacs Lisp. It is
A> a very badly designed variant of lisp. It has dynamic scoping,
This is why it is Emacs Lisp, not Emacs Scheme.
I'd also prefer Scheme to LISP, because I hate dynamic scoping, too.
A Scheme engine could be made more efficient than a LISP engine.
A> it conflates three distinct concepts into the symbol "nil," it
A> has only the crudest forms of modularization,
I always thinkg that discipline of the coders is more important than
language features that enforce a language policy or coding
methodology. One can write spaghetti code even with a highly
structured, object-oriented language. Even a language without GOTO
(e.g. Java) cannot stop a coder from writing spaghetti code by
simulating GOTO.
A> it lacks higher order functions and other advanced functional
A> features,
Well... few languages have direct support for higher-oder functions.
The most commonly used languages (C, C++, Java) don't. You could
emulate them in OO languages by defining Function classes. But that's
not native to the underlying language, and is pretty involving.
A> it has distinct namespaces for functions and other data, it has
A> an inconsistent and quirky and buggy set of core functions,
A> etc. It is terrible.
Well... you have never tried writing VB code, then. Emacs LISP is
much better.
A> Turing completeness is not a good measure of the power of an
A> application like emacs, for a long list of reasons.
But it is a way to compare. Which other *editor* or application
parallels Emacs in terms of Turing-completeness?
A> Computer systems of the 1940's were already Turing complete.
But many _application programs_ of the 2000's are still NOT Turing
complete.
Liam Slider
> A classic example of why Linux users are totally out of touch with average
> Joe.
> It's just an editor Jones, just an editor. It's not your mother, father or
> first girlfriend (although having met more than my fair share of editor
> worshiping Unix freaks, that last one might have some merit).
Emacs may be "just an editor" but it's practically an OS, or at least a
shell. It's a newsreader, web browser, therapist (a poor one
admittedly...but hey, not like human ones are really much better), memory
agent, email client, has games, and does a ton of other stuff. Granted, it
needs extensions loaded to do those things, but it does those things.
The only thing it lacks is a simple, easy to use text editor.... Oh wait,
doesn't it have vi emulation mode or something?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 12:46 AM, Richard.L...@mindwarp.smart.net (Richard L.
Hamilton) said:
>In article <1140037809....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Karen Hill" <karen_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> I tried Solaris 10. I tried Linux. I tried FreeBSD.
Color me sceptical.
>Having said all that, there may be something to the point that Unix
>or Linux is harder to _start_ using than Windows or a Mac.
Indeed, but that something may be propaganda rather than reality. I
certainly never found Linux to be more difficult than windoze.
>But for those that think that it's necessary for the survival of
>Unix-like OS's to have a lower barrier to entry, there are certainly
>ample opportunities to reduce those barriers.
You're right; SuSE et al should fix their distributions to include a
desktop manager by default. I hear that they're going to do that
sometime in the 1990's.
>For those that want something a particular way, but neither wish to
>pay for it _nor_ participate in improving it, well,
Nor learn whether it already do what they want if they would only
configure it properly :-(
>well, they're freeloaders,
I'm willing to help those who neither pay for a distribution nor code
fixes or enhancements. But I don't do hand holding.
>(even using Outhouse Express),
Mommy, he said a bad word! Please uninstall it.
Giorgos Keramidas
>Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>> I don't really care if a string substitution command or a commit to a
>> file has to spawn a process underneath Emacs to do its work, but it sure
>> feels very nice to have both Emacs and a real shell with tons of
>> utilities a few typestrokes away :)
>>
>> No Windows system has been able to match this sort of flexibility,
>> agility and comfort for me so far. Ever...
>
> Well, except for emacs, which will also run on Windows.
You missed the *and* part, but that's ok. I obviously failed to
emphasize it enough :)
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 02:12:04 +0800,
Lee Sau Dan <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
Vim, with any of the perl, python or tcl interpreter engines compiled
in.
> A> Computer systems of the 1940's were already Turing complete.
>
> But many _application programs_ of the 2000's are still NOT Turing
> complete.
why should they be? I don't have a lot of need for a turing complete
trashcan, or game of sudoku...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD+Bs4d90bcYOAWPYRAhrtAJ0eMelEe9U7KkkKs7pCHLelPEFVsgCg4FHH
ngHmy+4wUas3rZ2XiqP5DNQ=
=FiiT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Never be in the company of anyone with whom you would not want to die.
-- Fremen Saying
Tim Smith
> A> application like emacs, for a long list of reasons.
>
> But it is a way to compare. Which other *editor* or application
> parallels Emacs in terms of Turing-completeness?
Uhm...Turing-completeness is a yes/no thing, so anything that is
Turing-complete parallels Emacs in terms of Turing-completeness.
Vi is Turing-complete (and so vim is also, without having to use any of
the Perl, Python, or TCL options Jim mentioned in his post).
Excel, Word, OpenOffice are all examples of Turing-complete applications.
--
--Tim Smith
John Bailo
> Excel, Word, OpenOffice are all examples of Turing-complete applications.
>
Wait...are you saying that I can write Excel in Excel macros?
Lee Sau Dan
John> Tim Smith wrote:
>> Excel, Word, OpenOffice are all examples of Turing-complete
>> applications.
>>
John> Wait...are you saying that I can write Excel in Excel
John> macros?
Impossible. Excel's macro language can't even do infinite loops.
Sam Nelson
<snip>
Ha, brilliant! Best laugh I've had on this NG, ever.
Hats off to you :)
Wayne
<snip>
If your "friend" is having this much trouble, then your "friend" should
go back to digging latrines.
JEDIDIAH
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 19:23:24 -0700, A Jones wrote:
>
>
>> I was once one of those people. Back in the early 1980's when I started
>> using emacs we had a phrase "living in emacs," for people who'd
>> do everything inside emacs, even running shells inside emacs buffers.
>> I was doing that in the early 1980's and in those days, emacs was
>> a pretty good technology. But by the end of the 1980's, emacs was already
>> showing its age and failing to adapt to the rapid developments in the
>> software world. By the end of the 1990's, emacs was a relic. Its
>> development community had proven beyond any doubt that it was barely
>> capable of maintaining the application, and wholly incapable to renovating
>> and revisioning it as a modern application.
>
> Joe.
A classic example of why the lemmings here are such morons.
Emacs has been this way since before Linux even existed. The
nature of emacs is an element of Unix culture quite orthogonal to
anything Linux specific.
> It's just an editor Jones, just an editor.
> It's not your mother, father or first girlfriend (although having met more
> than my fair share of editor worshiping Unix freaks, that last
> one might have some merit).
>
> Post a message in a *nix group, any *nix group, about improving graphics,
> or multimedia and you will be met with deafening silence.
> Post an emacs vs vi thread and it will go on for weeks.
--
Apple: because TRANS.TBL is an mp3 file. It really is! |||
/ | \
A Jones
open source software ... you have just witnessed in a nutshell
one of the main reasons why those technologies have progressed
so slowly for so many years. I have briefly sketched a partial
list of fairly devastating impediments to Emacs' progress. Indeed,
Emacs has been almost totally stagnant for years and years and
years. When I point out the problems, what happens? Instead of
doing something positive or constructive, instead of saying, "How
can we address this?", advocates of Emacs, or Unix, or open source
instead either at best dismiss my criticisms, or at worst attack me.
Stefaan A Eeckels
A Jones <ajo...@nospam.me.noway> wrote:
> Everyone reading this thread who cares about Emacs, Unix, or
> open source software ... you have just witnessed in a nutshell
> one of the main reasons why those technologies have progressed
> so slowly for so many years.
Have they? I don't know about Emacs (I tried it a couple of times but
wasn't tempted), but Unix and OSS have progressed tremendously over the
last 10 years. Technically, that is. They have certainly progressed
more than Windows (which since the introduction of Windows NT has
progressed mainly in the eye-candy department).
> I have briefly sketched a partial
> list of fairly devastating impediments to Emacs' progress. Indeed,
> Emacs has been almost totally stagnant for years and years and
> years.
I don't know if this is the case, but is that necessarily a problem?
After all, it's an editor. How much should an editor change?
In addition, you apparently ignore that the way to make Free Software
progress is to contribute to it. OK, Emacs LISP is grotty - where are
your improvements to the code?
> When I point out the problems, what happens? Instead of
> doing something positive or constructive, instead of saying, "How
> can we address this?", advocates of Emacs, or Unix, or open source
> instead either at best dismiss my criticisms, or at worst attack me.
Is there a remote possibility you might be wrong?
Take care,
--
Stefaan
--
As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning,
and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh
mein
says...
>
> > I have briefly sketched a partial
> > list of fairly devastating impediments to Emacs' progress. Indeed,
> > Emacs has been almost totally stagnant for years and years and
> > years.
>
> I don't know if this is the case, but is that necessarily a problem?
> After all, it's an editor. How much should an editor change?
I'd rather an editor DIDN'T change much, because that's one less thing
that I have to relearn over and over again.
And that's what's great about vi. No matter what *nix system you use,
and no matter how much time passes, vi always is there and it always
works the same way (with very minor and very rare exceptions). Sure, it
seems crude and unfriendly compared to newer editors, but once you get
used to it, you're pretty much done for the rest of your life.
A Jones
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:31:22 -0700
> A Jones <ajo...@nospam.me.noway> wrote:
>
>> Everyone reading this thread who cares about Emacs, Unix, or
>> open source software ... you have just witnessed in a nutshell
>> one of the main reasons why those technologies have progressed
>> so slowly for so many years.
>
> Have they? I don't know about Emacs (I tried it a couple of times but
> wasn't tempted), but Unix and OSS have progressed tremendously over the
> last 10 years. Technically, that is. They have certainly progressed
> more than Windows (which since the introduction of Windows NT has
> progressed mainly in the eye-candy department).
OSS progressed tremendously???? What on earth are you talking about?
If defunct and stagnant technologies like Emacs, X Window, Bash, TeX,
etc., etc., that have hardly progressed in decades aren't on your
mind, what are you talking about? The GUI? I've never seen a GUI
framework take as long as Gnome and KDE are taking. I remember back in
the early 1990's when IBM and MS split over OS/2. IBM developed OS/2's
user interface, the Workplace Shell, on top of a Corba compliant
distributed component technology called DSOM. If I'm not mistaken, IBM
had a team of fewer than 10 working on that, and the initial release was
out in about a year. I used to use it, and I'd say it was better over
10 years ago than Gnome is today. It also used to run fine on 1994
hardware and fly if you lavished anything like 16 or 32 MB ram on it.
Try getting Gnome to run on 1994 hardware with 8 MB of ram.
I think you could cite similar examples in the development of Mac,
Amiga, Windows, Java, and other technologies -- small teams producing
good GUIs in relatively short time.
This is a myth, and a damaging one at that. OSS has progressed at a
glacially slow pace.
>> I have briefly sketched a partial
>> list of fairly devastating impediments to Emacs' progress. Indeed,
>> Emacs has been almost totally stagnant for years and years and
>> years.
>
> I don't know if this is the case, but is that necessarily a problem?
> After all, it's an editor. How much should an editor change?
> In addition, you apparently ignore that the way to make Free Software
> progress is to contribute to it. OK, Emacs LISP is grotty - where are
> your improvements to the code?
Saying Emacs is just an editor is like saying Internet Explorer is
just a web browser. The way a lot of people work under Unix, a text
editor is just as central as a web browser. I don't think it's too
much of an exaggeration to say that I've had an editor running for
almost all of the past 20+ years.
I have written a lot of my own improvements of the Emacs lisp code,
but I would never release them. That would only bolster the current,
broken system. In fact, I would encourage others out there to withhold
all of their work on Emacs, to accelerate its demise. I would love to work
on a new editor that would replace Emacs. But I'd also love to replace
TeX, and X Window, and Bash, and ... Even if I were willing to take the
time to do it, how much could I change all by myself?
If by writing an occasional criticism I can change some attitudes,
that will do much more good. And perhaps by switching to Mac, I can help
things even more in the long run.
>> When I point out the problems, what happens? Instead of
>> doing something positive or constructive, instead of saying, "How
>> can we address this?", advocates of Emacs, or Unix, or open source
>> instead either at best dismiss my criticisms, or at worst attack me.
>
> Is there a remote possibility you might be wrong?
Unfortunately, no. I am never wrong.
> Take care,
>
> --
> Stefaan
Rich Teer
> OSS progressed tremendously???? What on earth are you talking about?
Yes it has. Solaris is open source, it it has progressed immensely
in the last couple of years. Zones, DTrace, ZFS, and so on are all
huge sign of progress.
> If defunct and stagnant technologies like Emacs, X Window, Bash, TeX,
> etc., etc., that have hardly progressed in decades aren't on your
You seem to be advocating change for change's sake. Or perhaps just
trolling.
> Unfortunately, no. I am never wrong.
Heh. Your statement here is self-defeating. You are wrong that you're
never wrong, as I demonstrated in rebutting your first sentence.
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich