The Red Zone. Linux Yes. Microslop No.

[Farley Flud]

All programming code, regardless of language, MUST be reduced
to assembly language instructions.

On GNU/Linux systems, during a function call (i.e sub-routine)
there is established a so-called RED ZONE which is 128 bytes
of free space below the stack pointer.

The RED ZONE allows functions to use this space as a "scratch"
area with minimal instruction overhead. This is very EFFICIENT.

What about that pile-of-stinking-shit known as Microslop
Winblows?

The Microslop binary API has no RED ZONE.

Nope. None. Zip. Nada.

Why not?

Because Microslop Winblows is a pile of stinking shit.

That's why.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!


Farley Fud

He knows.

You don't.

[DFS]

"There is no red zone in 64-bit Linux kernel mode."


Fuckin' uninformed dweeb idiot. Stay out of cola with your ignorance
and bogus bragging about being asked to write code for Gimp and
ImageMagick. You're not qualified.

[Tyrone]

On 2023/11/17 3:29 PM, Farley Flud wrote:

> All programming code, regardless of language, MUST be reduced
> to assembly language instructions.

Once again you have no clue what you are talking about. All code gets
translated (not "reduced") to machine language (not assembly language).
Assembly language is for humans. You should be able to figure out what
machine language is for.

> On GNU/Linux systems, during a function call (i.e sub-routine)
> there is established a so-called RED ZONE which is 128 bytes
> of free space below the stack pointer.

Linux does this because Unix does this. Linux is not special here, being
a cheap copy of Unix. MacOS does the same thing because it IS Unix.

> The RED ZONE allows functions to use this space as a "scratch"
> area with minimal instruction overhead. This is very EFFICIENT.

And you just now learned this? Congratulations. You are 20 years behind me.

Personally, I would never use such a space. Because depending on this
"red zone" makes your code less portable. Just push your data onto the
stack. There is no need to be bypassing the stack these days.

Too many risks with very small benefit.

[Tyrone]

On 2023/11/17 5:14 PM, DFS wrote:

> "There is no red zone in 64-bit Linux kernel mode."

I was going to mention this, but I assumed he would not know what
"kernel mode" OR "64 Bit" is.

> Fuckin' uninformed dweeb idiot.  Stay out of cola with your ignorance
> and bogus bragging about being asked to write code for Gimp and
> ImageMagick.  You're not qualified.

He is not even qualified to recommend a usable browser.

[DFS]

On 11/17/2023 5:55 PM, Tyrone wrote:

> On 2023/11/17 5:14 PM, DFS wrote:
>
>> "There is no red zone in 64-bit Linux kernel mode."
>
> I was going to mention this, but I assumed he would not know what
> "kernel mode" OR "64 Bit" is.

You're above my pay grade. I quoted that from an Agner Fog calling
conventions document re: Linux device drivers.

https://www.agner.org/optimize/calling_conventions.pdf
pg 17


I know what kernel mode is, but had never heard of 'red zone'.

>> Fuckin' uninformed dweeb idiot. Stay out of cola with your ignorance
>> and bogus bragging about being asked to write code for Gimp and
>> ImageMagick. You're not qualified.
>
> He is not even qualified to recommend a usable browser.

heh! Links and Dillo? wtf?


He desperately WANTS to be a *nix system programmer, but the harsh
reality if Feeb is just an advanced software configurator - ask him to
write some working code or deliver some DDL and watch the excuses fly:

"I have other fish to fry"
"I'm not going to waste time to prove you wrong"
"I don't write code on demand"
"I program for myself only"
"it was a prototype / rough draft / proof of concept"

blah blah blah

My favorite was when Feeb labeled me incompetent because I didn't spot
one of his ridiculous programming errors.

------------------------------------------------------------------
"But the original asm code that I posted did contain a GLARING
ERROR and you missed it completely.

That error should be EXTREMELY OBVIOUS to any competent programmer
but you missed it totally."
------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course he blamed it on cut-n-paste.

In case it's not obvious: I can't stand that lying, bragging jerkwad.

[RonB]

On 2023-11-17, Tyrone <no...@none.none> wrote:
> On 2023/11/17 3:29 PM, Farley Flud wrote:
>
>> All programming code, regardless of language, MUST be reduced
>> to assembly language instructions.
>
> Once again you have no clue what you are talking about. All code gets
> translated (not "reduced") to machine language (not assembly language).
> Assembly language is for humans. You should be able to figure out what
> machine language is for.
>
>> On GNU/Linux systems, during a function call (i.e sub-routine)
>> there is established a so-called RED ZONE which is 128 bytes
>> of free space below the stack pointer.
>
> Linux does this because Unix does this. Linux is not special here, being
> a cheap copy of Unix. MacOS does the same thing because it IS Unix.

I would say Linux, the "cheap copy" of UNIX, has now far outpaced it.

>> The RED ZONE allows functions to use this space as a "scratch"
>> area with minimal instruction overhead. This is very EFFICIENT.
>
> And you just now learned this? Congratulations. You are 20 years behind me.
>
> Personally, I would never use such a space. Because depending on this
> "red zone" makes your code less portable. Just push your data onto the
> stack. There is no need to be bypassing the stack these days.
>
> Too many risks with very small benefit.

--
"Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good."
-- Archbishop Charles J. Chaput

[Relf]

DFS:

> I can't stand that lying, bragging jerkwad.

You feed Feeb like a loving mother feeds her only child.

[RonB]

On 2023-11-18, Tyrone <no...@none.none> wrote:

> On Nov 17, 2023 at 8:59:55 PM EST, "RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-11-17, Tyrone <no...@none.none> wrote:
>>>
>>> Linux does this because Unix does this. Linux is not special here, being
>>> a cheap copy of Unix. MacOS does the same thing because it IS Unix.
>>
>> I would say Linux, the "cheap copy" of UNIX, has now far outpaced it.
>>
>

> Linux has outpaced Unix? For servers yes.
>
> Outpaced MacOS on the desktop? No way.

In my opinion it has. Linux is more customizable, open and free.

But I was basically talking about UNIX in general, not the Mac flavor.

[Borax Man]

I used MacOS at work for a few years. I'm not a developer, just a
working professional who has to deal with MS Office, databases, etc.
I didn't mind having access to the unix tools but overall the
experience was OK. How different that would have been with admin
access, I don't know. But with Linux I have more options to customise
it, and prefer to create workflows on my home Linux box, than at work
where we are now using Windows 10. Windows 10 feel so limited and
rigid.

I think with Linux, or similar OS's (such as FreeBSD), you need to be
able to use, and employ, your imagination to some degree to really get
the most out of it. You need to be able to think outside the box and
of paradigms other than what Microsoft and Apple feed (force feed?)
you. This is I think the weakness in Linux advocacy. It focuses on
how it can be like Windows, or in past years, Compiz, when the real
power is in extensibility. I use FVWM and can treat it not just as a
simple window manager, but a GUI for my work in and of itself.

--

[RonB]

I'm not a developer, but one of the main things about Linux that I like is
that its file organization just seems to make more sense than Windows.
And everything just works together.

And you're definitely right about not trying to make Linux into Windows. I
tried Linux several times before finally moving away from Windows. The
mistake I kept making was trying to turn Linux into Windows. When I finally
realized that Linux is NOT Windows and I need to work through learning it.
That's when I started to really appreciate Linux for what it was.

[Farley Flud]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 17:50:48 -0500, Tyrone wrote:

>
> Once again you have no clue what you are talking about. All code gets
> translated (not "reduced") to machine language (not assembly language).
>

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What a supreme dunce!

There is a direct, one-to-one relation between an assembly
language statement and the sequence of bytes that is the
machine code.

That's why assemblers/disassemblers are so easy to write
whereas compilers are very difficult.

In essence, machine language EQUALS assembly language.

Furthermore, a true programmer (unlike YOU) can look at
an assembly statement and actually see the byte sequence
in his head -- and vice versa.

A true programmer (unlike YOU) can look at a byte dump
and make corrections to the code by directly modifying
the byte values without having to re-assemble.

[Farley Flud]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 17:03:25 +1100, Borax Man wrote:

>
> I think with Linux, or similar OS's (such as FreeBSD), you need to be
> able to use, and employ, your imagination to some degree to really get
> the most out of it. You need to be able to think outside the box and
> of paradigms other than what Microsoft and Apple feed (force feed?)
>

You refer to the "desktop metaphor:"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_metaphor

Both Microsoft and Apple are merely presentations of the desktop
metaphor. Their target audience is composed of people who do
not understand computers and how to use them. The desktop metaphor
is designed for such an audience as it attempts to relate simple
and familiar ideas to the control of the machine. But in the
process most of the actual computer becomes hidden or obscured.

GNU/Linux is oriented to professionals who DO understand the computer
and who DO know how to use it. There is no need for a desktop
metaphor. The machine becomes transparent and all of its potential
is easily accessible.

However, certain projects within GNU/Linux, such as GNOME and KDE,
do emphasize the desktop metaphor. But unlike with Microsoft or Apple,
these projects are entirely optional.

[Borax Man]

I think that is part of it, but I don't think there is as much of the
'desktop metaphor' left in Windows and MacOS as there used to be. At
work, we use a fairly stock standard Windows setup. The standard
Windows desktop, applications and so forth. What strikes me as odd,
is that no matter what you do on the computer, where you go, the
desktop is the same. There is nothing in the Windows desktop itself,
which is specifically geared towards the work the *I* do.

At home I use FVWM. FVWM allows you to redefine how it works, to
create new menus, not just to start applications, but menus which list
files, or the contents of a text file, and selecting that menu can do
whatever you like. You could tailor your GUI as if you were
developing a super-app. Imagine a workplace where the GUI itself had
menus, options and capabilities to allow you to follow your worflows
easily, instead of having to wrangle applications, opening them,
opening and finding the right Excel register to add a row, as we do
now. I could create a menu, in the taskbar itself, with sub options
which you just select to close a task with a comment, but the OS
doesn't give me that functionality. I have to think in terms of
applications rather than processes.

I used to use Linux originally just as if it were Windows, but when I
started to adopt the unix way more, I realised that its better to
think of workflows and processes, rather than just applications.
--

[Borax Man]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 07:37:04 -0000 (UTC)

The interoperability of everything is key. I too originally looked at
it as just a better windows, but after using the "Unix way" to solve
some problems (such as generating financial reports) I now see it as
more a tool box. You can treat the filesystem as a database, and use
that data in multiple programs (pass, the "standard" Linux password
manager is a great example of this). I used to do things the
"Windows" way, but you always end up stuck with everything in silos.
This data belong to this application only, and so on.

[RabidPedagog]

Perhaps putting this imbecile and all of his nyms in your filters would
be a good idea?

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Christ is king.

[RabidPedagog]

On 2023-11-17 11:25 p.m., Tyrone wrote:
> On Nov 17, 2023 at 8:59:55 PM EST, "RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> On 2023-11-17, Tyrone <no...@none.none> wrote:
>>>
>>> Linux does this because Unix does this. Linux is not special here, being
>>> a cheap copy of Unix. MacOS does the same thing because it IS Unix.
>>
>> I would say Linux, the "cheap copy" of UNIX, has now far outpaced it.
>>
>

> Linux has outpaced Unix? For servers yes.
>
> Outpaced MacOS on the desktop? No way.

MacOS is indeed a stellar desktop experience.

[Stéphane CARPENTIER]

Le 18-11-2023, Borax Man <rotf...@hotmail.com> a écrit :
> I used to use Linux originally just as if it were Windows, but when I
> started to adopt the unix way more, I realised that its better to
> think of workflows and processes, rather than just applications.

Yes. And as I very few workflows, I don't need menus, I just have a few
shortcuts to remember.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

[Stéphane CARPENTIER]

Le 18-11-2023, Farley Flud <f...@linux.rocks> a écrit :
>
> AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What a supreme dunce!

Great for you, you still don't feel alone.

> Furthermore, a true programmer (unlike YOU)

And unlike you, don't be so shy.

> can look at
> an assembly statement and actually see the byte sequence
> in his head -- and vice versa.

I'm not sure anyone like that exist, I'm definitely sure if someone like
that exist, it's not you.

> A true programmer (unlike YOU)

And still unlike you, still don't be so shy.

> can look at a byte dump
> and make corrections to the code by directly modifying
> the byte values without having to re-assemble.

That's just plain stupid. If there is a bug, you correct it in the
source code, not in the compiled code. First, it's faster. Second if you
don't correct it in the source code, the bug will be there back again
any time you improve your code.

[rbowman]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 22:56:27 +1100, Borax Man wrote:

> At home I use FVWM. FVWM allows you to redefine how it works, to create
> new menus, not just to start applications, but menus which list files,
> or the contents of a text file, and selecting that menu can do whatever
> you like. You could tailor your GUI as if you were developing a
> super-app.

I have used FVWM and liked it and have Xfce on my Debian box. It works
too. Typically I do very little if any configuration. It's like getting
into a rental car with all the same stuff in different places. Figure out
how it works, adjust the seat and mirrors, and get to where you're going.

[RonB]

If you like that platform and buy into the full Apple "experience." To me
it's constraining. I can't even move the window's close and minimize buttons
to the right side instead of the left.

[Stéphane CARPENTIER]

Le 18-11-2023, Farley Flud <f...@linux.rocks> a écrit :

What happened to you?
That's an interesting message without any insult. Are you OK?

[DFS]

On 11/18/2023 2:37 AM, RonB wrote:


> I'm not a developer, but one of the main things about Linux that I like is
> that its file organization just seems to make more sense than Windows.

The well-structured Filesystem Hierarchy Standard used by Linux is, of
course, derived from Unix from the late 70s.

specs
https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/fhs.shtml

> And everything just works together.

A variation on "Linux just works"?

[Joel]

DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>On 11/18/2023 2:37 AM, RonB wrote:
>
>> I'm not a developer, but one of the main things about Linux that I like is
>> that its file organization just seems to make more sense than Windows.
>
>The well-structured Filesystem Hierarchy Standard used by Linux is, of
>course, derived from Unix from the late 70s.
>
>specs
>https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/fhs.shtml

File systems are a dime a dozen. Unix has a good one, though.

>> And everything just works together.
>
>A variation on "Linux just works"?

Windows is pretty good about "just working" until suddenly you get an
update that breaks your machine. I never worried about it, with my
hardware, but you'd hear about these limited basis issues with
bricking a device. It's not entirely unreasonable, I guess, it's just
that Microsoft pushes updates pretty hard, and there are fatal
problems from time to time.

--
Joel W. Crump

[Borax Man]

On 18 Nov 2023 20:43:06 GMT

I like the idea of shortcuts. I have one key combo that brings up a
help screen, which is generated from my FVWM Bindings file. I only
have to remember one shortcut, Windows-Key H. Pressing that shows the
others, which is updated automatically when I change key bindings, as
well as bring up menus for common tasks.

When I had to write a multipage procedure at work to get people to
produce a signed PDF in a specific format from data in Excel, via MS
Word, it struck me how much I.T. has failed. I should have been
instructing the *computer* to do this task, not writing a document
with screenshot for a *person* to do. But alas, with Windows, and
restricted access, no such thing was possible. All this RAM, all this
CPU power, decades of software development, and we're still using
these machines like eneanterthals.

If we were running Linux, I could have written someone easily, where
the user would just press a key combo, or select a menu, enter an item
code, and it would produce the PDF.


--

[Borax Man]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 20:59:07 -0000 (UTC)
RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2023-11-18, RabidPedagog <ra...@pedag.og> wrote:
> > On 2023-11-17 11:25 p.m., Tyrone wrote:
> >> On Nov 17, 2023 at 8:59:55 PM EST, "RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2023-11-17, Tyrone <no...@none.none> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Linux does this because Unix does this. Linux is not special here, being
> >>>> a cheap copy of Unix. MacOS does the same thing because it IS Unix.
> >>>
> >>> I would say Linux, the "cheap copy" of UNIX, has now far outpaced it.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Linux has outpaced Unix? For servers yes.
> >>
> >> Outpaced MacOS on the desktop? No way.
> >
> > MacOS is indeed a stellar desktop experience.
>
> If you like that platform and buy into the full Apple "experience." To me
> it's constraining. I can't even move the window's close and minimize buttons
> to the right side instead of the left.
>
> --

I wonder how productive people are when they talk about the
'experience'? I want results, not an 'experience'.

[DFS]

On 11/18/2023 5:44 PM, Borax Man wrote:


> When I had to write a multipage procedure at work to get people to
> produce a signed PDF in a specific format from data in Excel, via MS
> Word, it struck me how much I.T. has failed. I should have been
> instructing the *computer* to do this task, not writing a document
> with screenshot for a *person* to do. But alas, with Windows, and
> restricted access, no such thing was possible. All this RAM, all this
> CPU power, decades of software development, and we're still using
> these machines like eneanterthals.

"signed PDF in a specific format from data in Excel, via MS Word"...
"restricted access"... "not possible"

Sounds like PEBKAC to me.

Your description of the problem is very vague and odd.

Post the docs (or explain exactly what you need to do), and I bet it can
be programmed with VBA.

> If we were running Linux, I could have written someone easily, where
> the user would just press a key combo, or select a menu, enter an item
> code, and it would produce the PDF.

'impossible' in Windows, but 'easy' in Linux... where have I heard that
before?

[DFS]

On 11/18/2023 5:43 PM, Joel wrote:
> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 11/18/2023 2:37 AM, RonB wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not a developer, but one of the main things about Linux that I like is
>>> that its file organization just seems to make more sense than Windows.
>>
>> The well-structured Filesystem Hierarchy Standard used by Linux is, of
>> course, derived from Unix from the late 70s.
>>
>> specs
>> https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/fhs.shtml
>
>
> File systems are a dime a dozen. Unix has a good one, though.

You might be confusing file system with file organization.

ext4 and NTFS are file systems.

FHS is a reference for how Linux files are organized:

/
/bin
/dev
/etc
/home/DFS
/proc

[Joel]

DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>On 11/18/2023 5:43 PM, Joel wrote:
>> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/18/2023 2:37 AM, RonB wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not a developer, but one of the main things about Linux that I like is
>>>> that its file organization just seems to make more sense than Windows.
>>>
>>> The well-structured Filesystem Hierarchy Standard used by Linux is, of
>>> course, derived from Unix from the late 70s.
>>>
>>> specs
>>> https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/fhs.shtml
>>
>> File systems are a dime a dozen. Unix has a good one, though.
>
>You might be confusing file system with file organization.
>
>ext4 and NTFS are file systems.

Confusing them? Where do you get off talking such moronic crap, like
you're some guru who praises Microsoft, Winblows and Office daily in
the Linux advocacy group? You're a laughingstock. I know the
difference between the terms you're using, they are meaningless here,
together the components of Unix and its flavors create a file system,
organization is definitely a key part of that, as it is with NTFS.

>FHS is a reference for how Linux files are organized:
>
>/
>/bin
>/dev
>/etc
>/home/DFS
>/proc

I'm familiar with it.

--
Joel W. Crump

[%]

no you're not

[vallor]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 19:36:57 -0500, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote in
<DMc6N.33690$Ee89....@fx17.iad>:

TBF, I was going to ask why something using OLE wouldn't work?

But it's greek to me. Windows is weird to POSIX people.

--
-v

[Joel]

Using Linux to *that* extent isn't anything beyond what one does in
Windows. Using the command line is where it gets challenging, but
fortunately I just learn what I need to learn, it's always there to be
found online or in the help information.

--
Joel W. Crump

[%]

i don't see what good any of this is just to post in usenet

[Relf]

I've signed PDF documents before,
Jeff-Relf.Me/2019.ABA.Agreement.PDF
it's done online.

[DFS]

On 11/18/2023 8:00 PM, Joel wrote:
> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 11/18/2023 5:43 PM, Joel wrote:
>>> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/18/2023 2:37 AM, RonB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not a developer, but one of the main things about Linux that
I like is
>>>>> that its file organization just seems to make more sense than
Windows.
>>>>
>>>> The well-structured Filesystem Hierarchy Standard used by Linux is, of
>>>> course, derived from Unix from the late 70s.
>>>>
>>>> specs
>>>> https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/fhs.shtml
>>>
>>> File systems are a dime a dozen. Unix has a good one, though.
>>
>> You might be confusing file system with file organization.
>>
>> ext4 and NTFS are file systems.
>
>
> Confusing them? Where do you get off talking such moronic crap, like
> you're some guru who praises Microsoft, Winblows and Office daily in
> the Linux advocacy group? You're a laughingstock.

I'm concerned about you, Jesus... I mean Joel. Why are you flying off
the handle?

> I know the
> difference between the terms you're using, they are meaningless here,
> together the components of Unix and its flavors create a file system,

What the hell? Are you high and drunk now?

> organization is definitely a key part of that, as it is with NTFS.

The file system (ext4, NTFS, ZFS, etc) is irrelevant to the file layout.

>> FHS is a reference for how Linux files are organized:
>>
>> /
>> /bin
>> /dev
>> /etc
>> /home/DFS
>> /proc
>
>
> I'm familiar with it.

I should hope so. File locations is one of the very first things you
learn about and experience with an OS. Every time you save a file you
have to put it somewhere. Apps almost always have a default/suggested
location.

Where do keep you Agent message history? Probably you want it under
/home/Joel/Agent/messages, or something like that.

My Sent Thunderbird messages are stored in:
D:\newsgroups\Thunderbird\Profiles\DFS\News\Local Folders\Sent.sbd


If you're OCD like me, you want your files as organized as possible, so
they're easier to find. I organize my own files to a T (on a separate
SSD), but you can't do much if anything about C:\Windows or
C:\Users\DFS\AppData or C:\Program Files, etc.

Look in C:\Windows and C:\Windows\System32 sometime. It's a chaotic
hodgepodge of folders with meaningless names. Not that the user has to
deal with them very often, but it still looks confusing.

The *nix FHS is a better, cleaner file layout. All the binaries are, or
are supposed to be, in /bin or /usr/bin. Libraries in /lib or /usr/lib.

In Windows, binaries and libraries are generally spread among multiple
folders in C:\Program Files or C:\Program Files (x86).

[vallor]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 21:41:07 -0500, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote in
<7Be6N.61489$svP4....@fx12.iad>:

$ pwd
/home/scott/.wine/drive_c/Program Files (x86)/40tude Dialog

Which shows up "in" WINE as:

C:\Program Files (x86)\40tude Dialog>

That's the default WINE installation. One can change WINEPREFIX to
point to another installation of WINE. These are often called
"bottles", esp. when using PlayOnLinux, a front-end to WINE.

--
-v

[RonB]

On 2023-11-18, Borax Man <rotf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

I guess maybe "environment" would be a better word. Whatever you call it, I
don't like the constraints of Mac OS.

[%]

but why would you

[Relf]

You (zZombie(%)) replied ( to ScottGNU ):

> > One can change WINEPREFIX to point to another installation of WINE.
>

> but why would you

Why wouldn't you ?

-- " Just don't do it. " -- Jews/Zelenskyy.

[Borax Man]

Anything can be done if you write an application to do it, of course.
My point is moreso that the basic unix tools that come with the OS, as
well as the GUI will get you almost all the way there. There are
other situations, ones I've had to deal with, where the tooling has
allowed me to create a solution.

What you are suggesting, is that Microsoft Office could do something
similar with some scripting. Well, that could be the case, but it
still means that

1) You need to purchase an additional program to do some rather basic
document generation and data extraction.

2) The final solution is tied to a particular application suite in a
fundamental way.




--

[Borax Man]

The problem is that I have to access files through SharePoint or
Teams, so there is no path. I can sync and get a proper path (ie,
make the file appear in the C:\ heirarchy, but it appears under the
users folder, so the Word template I use be customised for each person
who is using it (and there are multiple people using it). I have
played with macros, but those macros are part of the document, so the
document still needs to be opened.

My solution was simply to use Mail Merge, which kind of works aside
from the difficulties of not having a single site wide template. It's
functional, but I had to write instructions for people on what
document to open, how to select the right options, etc. A Macro could
simplify things a little if multiple documents are generated, but only
if word can export to PDF without user intervention. Either way, it
requires an Office Suite, ie, something not part of Windows.

[Joel]

% <purse...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> I'm familiar with it [the Unix file system structure].

>>>>
>>> no you're not
>>
>> Using Linux to *that* extent isn't anything beyond what one does in
>> Windows. Using the command line is where it gets challenging, but
>> fortunately I just learn what I need to learn, it's always there to be
>> found online or in the help information.
>>
>i don't see what good any of this is just to post in usenet

I'm everywhere online, I use my computer for many things. Usenet is
where I started out, though, on dial-up Internet when I was 19-20.

--
Joel W. Crump

[DFS]

On 11/19/2023 2:41 AM, Borax Man wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 19:36:57 -0500
> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/18/2023 5:44 PM, Borax Man wrote:
>>
>>
>>> When I had to write a multipage procedure at work to get people to
>>> produce a signed PDF in a specific format from data in Excel, via MS
>>> Word, it struck me how much I.T. has failed. I should have been
>>> instructing the *computer* to do this task, not writing a document
>>> with screenshot for a *person* to do. But alas, with Windows, and
>>> restricted access, no such thing was possible. All this RAM, all this
>>> CPU power, decades of software development, and we're still using
>>> these machines like eneanterthals.
>>
>>
>> "signed PDF in a specific format from data in Excel, via MS Word"...
>> "restricted access"... "not possible"
>>
>> Sounds like PEBKAC to me.
>>
>> Your description of the problem is very vague and odd.
>>
>> Post the docs (or explain exactly what you need to do), and I bet it can
>> be programmed with VBA.
>>
>>
>>
>>> If we were running Linux, I could have written someone easily, where
>>> the user would just press a key combo, or select a menu, enter an item
>>> code, and it would produce the PDF.
>>
>>
>> 'impossible' in Windows, but 'easy' in Linux... where have I heard that
>> before?
>>
>
> Anything can be done if you write an application to do it, of course.

If you're Master Of Your Office Domain: https://ibb.co/zbvgx5N

> My point is moreso that the basic unix tools that come with the OS, as
> well as the GUI will get you almost all the way there.

I'm curious: what basic Unix tools will allow you to add Excel data to a
Microsoft Word document, then export the Word doc to PDF?

> There are
> other situations, ones I've had to deal with, where the tooling has
> allowed me to create a solution.

Such as? I know you can do good things with bash and sed and awk and
grep and text files.

It's not *nix-specific, but it was a bit of a revelation for me to learn
you could query a database (SQLite and PostgreSQL anyway) from the
command line, without ever having to open the db in an application:

$ sqlite3 database_file "SELECT COUNT(COLUMN) FROM TABLE;"
2770267

> What you are suggesting, is that Microsoft Office could do something
> similar with some scripting. Well, that could be the case, but it
> still means that
>
> 1) You need to purchase an additional program to do some rather basic
> document generation and data extraction.

If you have MS Office, you don't need to buy anything more.

If the cost of Office is literally a hindrance, you're going bankrupt
anyway and there's no need to keep working on this project.

> 2) The final solution is tied to a particular application suite in a
> fundamental way.

Your objection is you don't want to use MS Office to script a solution
involving MS Office documents, because your script is in MS Office?

Sounds like you just need to quit running away from:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/office/vba/api/overview/


Or just say you hate Microsoft and want to use LibreOffice. Good luck
with that pile of hooey.


Note: you MIGHT be able to use Python for this. Look into reading Excel
or LibreOffice sheets with Python, and creating Word format or PDF
documents with python. But that will probably be much more time and
effort than using VBA in Office.

[Joel]

DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:

> >>>> The well-structured Filesystem Hierarchy Standard used by Linux is, of
> >>>> course, derived from Unix from the late 70s.
> >>>>
> >>>> specs
> >>>> https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/fhs.shtml
> >>>
> >>> File systems are a dime a dozen. Unix has a good one, though.
> >>
> >> You might be confusing file system with file organization.
> >>
> >> ext4 and NTFS are file systems.
> >
> > Confusing them? Where do you get off talking such moronic crap, like
> > you're some guru who praises Microsoft, Winblows and Office daily in
> > the Linux advocacy group? You're a laughingstock.
>
>I'm concerned about you, Jesus... I mean Joel. Why are you flying off
>the handle?

I just don't like how the use of terms related to each other has to
always be differentiated according to some meaningless BS, file
organization is a distinct concept yes, but it's a component of how an
OS creates a live file system, you're not wrong that ext4 and NTFS are
more properly low level aspects of it, but what we think of as "NTFS"
includes the Windows organization structure, as would the overall
"Linux file system" include that of Unix, even though it's not
dependent on ext4 as such.

> > I know the
> > difference between the terms you're using, they are meaningless here,
> > together the components of Unix and its flavors create a file system,
>
>What the hell? Are you high and drunk now?

I stand by what I wrote.

> > organization is definitely a key part of that, as it is with NTFS.
>
>The file system (ext4, NTFS, ZFS, etc) is irrelevant to the file layout.

And yet your initial reply talked about "file system hierarchy", as if
it's very closely related to what you're calling distinctly the file
system.

> >> FHS is a reference for how Linux files are organized:
> >>
> >> /
> >> /bin
> >> /dev
> >> /etc
> >> /home/DFS
> >> /proc
> >
> > I'm familiar with it.
>
>I should hope so. File locations is one of the very first things you
>learn about and experience with an OS. Every time you save a file you
>have to put it somewhere. Apps almost always have a default/suggested
>location.
>
>Where do keep you Agent message history? Probably you want it under
>/home/Joel/Agent/messages, or something like that.
>
>My Sent Thunderbird messages are stored in:
>D:\newsgroups\Thunderbird\Profiles\DFS\News\Local Folders\Sent.sbd

Since I only need a single Agent instance, putting it in Program Files
(x86)\Agent\Data works under Wine, under Windows it needs to be in
Agent's folder in the User folder. I think for me to use a second
instance under Wine, I'd have to install it twice, and use the \Data
method for each one, because there's no way to make a Windows shortcut
to it, wherein one can have Agent "start in" wherever the data folder
is located, and thus have multiple instances with one installation.

>If you're OCD like me, you want your files as organized as possible, so
>they're easier to find. I organize my own files to a T (on a separate
>SSD), but you can't do much if anything about C:\Windows or
>C:\Users\DFS\AppData or C:\Program Files, etc.
>
>Look in C:\Windows and C:\Windows\System32 sometime. It's a chaotic
>hodgepodge of folders with meaningless names. Not that the user has to
>deal with them very often, but it still looks confusing.
>
>The *nix FHS is a better, cleaner file layout. All the binaries are, or
>are supposed to be, in /bin or /usr/bin. Libraries in /lib or /usr/lib.
>
>In Windows, binaries and libraries are generally spread among multiple
>folders in C:\Program Files or C:\Program Files (x86).

Windows is in that way "WinDOS" as Chris would say, but it works fine.
I just like Linux because it doesn't get in my way, I'm not
sacrificing anything for the imaginary Windows quality of experience.

--
Joel W. Crump

[DFS]

OLE might be a or the solution, or maybe he wants to populate Word mail
merge fields from an Excel sheet and save to PDF. We need much more detail.

OLE's been around for 30+ years. In Word 2003: Insert | Object |
Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet and you can work with an Excel sheet object
right there in Word (default size 10x7). When you save the file, it's
one Word .doc (no need to save a separate Excel file).

You can VBA automate the importation of an Excel OLE object into Word,
or a Word OLE document into Excel, or work with an object in code
without ever seeing it on screen.

For saving to PDF functionality, VBA has the ExportAsFixedFormat method:

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/office/vba/api/word.document.exportasfixedformat

He very likely can script a VBA solution and click a button to run the
whole thing. But he'll have to quit running from:

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/office/vba/api/overview/

One way to get started with VBA programming is to record a macro doing
what you need, then look at the VBA code it records.

> But it's greek to me. Windows is weird to POSIX people.

POSIX people are weird to their families, but this isn't a POSIX thang.

OLE in LibreOffice works similarly to MS Office:
Insert | OLE Object | OLE Object | LibreOffice 7.4 Spreadsheet

Script to export to pdf
https://ask.libreoffice.org/t/how-i-export-pdf-using-macro/38445/2

[Stéphane CARPENTIER]

Le 19-11-2023, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> I just don't like how the use of terms related to each other has to
> always be differentiated

Because there is nothing in common. Stop showing every one you don't
understand what you are speaking of. It's not about what you like, it's
about what is.

>> > I know the
>> > difference between the terms you're using, they are meaningless here,
>> > together the components of Unix and its flavors create a file system,
>>
>>What the hell? Are you high and drunk now?
>
> I stand by what I wrote.

You shouldn't. It's like saying a road and a car are exactly the same
thing and you don't like to differentiate them because the only thing
that matter is the possibility to go from a point to another.

Here you are not alone in your own world, you are speaking to others. So
you need to have the same way to express yourself.

>> > organization is definitely a key part of that, as it is with NTFS.
>>
>>The file system (ext4, NTFS, ZFS, etc) is irrelevant to the file layout.
>
>
> And yet your initial reply talked about "file system hierarchy", as if
> it's very closely related to what you're calling distinctly the file
> system.

It is. On the same file system hierarchy, you can have your hard drive,
with some partition, the RAM and some USB sticks. And with only one file
system hierarchy, you can have many filesystem.

And the USB stick can go from a file system hierarchy to another (from a
VM to another or from a computer to another) and its file system will stay
the same.

> Windows is in that way "WinDOS" as Chris would say, but it works fine.

The first step. Last time you didn't speak about Windows but about
Winblows or something like that.

> I just like Linux because it doesn't get in my way,

For how long?

> I'm not sacrificing anything for the imaginary Windows quality of
> experience.

Wait and see.

[rbowman]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 07:54:00 -0500, DFS wrote:

> OLE's been around for 30+ years. In Word 2003: Insert | Object |
> Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet and you can work with an Excel sheet object
> right there in Word (default size 10x7). When you save the file, it's
> one Word .doc (no need to save a separate Excel file).

The horror... COM has many bizarre features inherited from DDE that was
developed with VB in mind, like BSTR.

[Joel]

Stéphane CARPENTIER <s...@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:

>> I just don't like how the use of terms related to each other has to
>> always be differentiated
>
>Because there is nothing in common. Stop showing every one you don't
>understand what you are speaking of. It's not about what you like, it's
>about what is.

"Nothing in common" except composing the file system, idiot.

>>> > I know the
>>> > difference between the terms you're using, they are meaningless here,
>>> > together the components of Unix and its flavors create a file system,
>>>
>>>What the hell? Are you high and drunk now?
>>
>> I stand by what I wrote.
>
>You shouldn't. It's like saying a road and a car are exactly the same
>thing and you don't like to differentiate them because the only thing
>that matter is the possibility to go from a point to another.
>
>Here you are not alone in your own world, you are speaking to others. So
>you need to have the same way to express yourself.

I'm speaking to others like you who are stupid.

>>> > organization is definitely a key part of that, as it is with NTFS.
>>>
>>>The file system (ext4, NTFS, ZFS, etc) is irrelevant to the file layout.
>>
>> And yet your initial reply talked about "file system hierarchy", as if
>> it's very closely related to what you're calling distinctly the file
>> system.
>
>It is. On the same file system hierarchy, you can have your hard drive,
>with some partition, the RAM and some USB sticks. And with only one file
>system hierarchy, you can have many filesystem.
>
>And the USB stick can go from a file system hierarchy to another (from a
>VM to another or from a computer to another) and its file system will stay
>the same.

That was a lot of words to say jack shit.

>> Windows is in that way "WinDOS" as Chris would say, but it works fine.
>
>The first step. Last time you didn't speak about Windows but about
>Winblows or something like that.

I call it Winblows because it does suck. It's hardware-hungry.

>> I just like Linux because it doesn't get in my way,
>
>For how long?

Again, retard, just because you joined the group at the same time, in
which, I experimented with *returning to* Win10, in 2021, on my old
computer, that doesn't negate the two years *before* that, when I ran
Linux exclusively, and after the Win10 experiment until I built the
new computer, nor the fact that I am running it now on the new
computer. So shut your French ass the fuck up, MORON.

>> I'm not sacrificing anything for the imaginary Windows quality of
>> experience.
>
>Wait and see.

I already saw, dipshit.

--
Joel W. Crump

[DFS]

On 11/19/2023 7:50 AM, Joel wrote:
> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> The well-structured Filesystem Hierarchy Standard used by Linux is, of
>>>>>> course, derived from Unix from the late 70s.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> specs
>>>>>> https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/fhs.shtml
>>>>>
>>>>> File systems are a dime a dozen. Unix has a good one, though.
>>>>
>>>> You might be confusing file system with file organization.
>>>>
>>>> ext4 and NTFS are file systems.
>>>
>>> Confusing them? Where do you get off talking such moronic crap, like
>>> you're some guru who praises Microsoft, Winblows and Office daily in
>>> the Linux advocacy group? You're a laughingstock.
>>
>> I'm concerned about you, Jesus... I mean Joel. Why are you flying off
>> the handle?
>
>
> I just don't like how the use of terms related to each other has to
> always be differentiated according to some meaningless BS,

File systems (ext*, NTFS, ZFS, btrfs) and file organization (codified in
the FHS document) are not related in any way.

File systems are software. The FHS is a just a standard for where files
on *nix should be stored, regardless of the file system being used.

> file
> organization is a distinct concept yes, but it's a component of how an
> OS creates a live file system,

'Filesystem Hierarchy Standard' is a little bit of a confusing name;
File Layout Standard or File Placement Standard would be more intuitive.

> you're not wrong that ext4 and NTFS are
> more properly low level aspects of it, but what we think of as "NTFS"
> includes the Windows organization structure, > as would the overall
> "Linux file system" include that of Unix, even though it's not
> dependent on ext4 as such.

Incorrect. NTFS- or ext*-partitioned devices do not include the OS file
organization - unless and until the OS places them on it.

Format a USB key as NTFS or ext4 and it has no knowledge whatsoever of
the OS.

>>> I know the
>>> difference between the terms you're using, they are meaningless here,
>>> together the components of Unix and its flavors create a file system,
>>
>> What the hell? Are you high and drunk now?
>
>
> I stand by what I wrote.

OK. It's still nonsense.

>>> organization is definitely a key part of that, as it is with NTFS.
>>
>> The file system (ext4, NTFS, ZFS, etc) is irrelevant to the file layout.
>
>
> And yet your initial reply talked about "file system hierarchy", as if
> it's very closely related to what you're calling distinctly the file
> system.

'Filesystem Hierarchy' isn't my terminology.

Usually it's not imaginary - it's a fine OS experience. Plenty good
enough. It's gotten better with the new Windows Terminal and WSL. I
also like putting the icons in the middle bottom; on this wide screen
having them on the left means a lot of eyeball shifting or head turning.

The splitting of system controls between Control Panel and Settings is
bogus, but MS was between a rock (hundreds of millions of existing
users) and a hard place (moving toward the future).

[Joel]

DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:

>>>>>>> The well-structured Filesystem Hierarchy Standard used by Linux is, of
>>>>>>> course, derived from Unix from the late 70s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> specs
>>>>>>> https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/fhs.shtml
>>>>>>
>>>>>> File systems are a dime a dozen. Unix has a good one, though.
>>>>>
>>>>> You might be confusing file system with file organization.
>>>>>
>>>>> ext4 and NTFS are file systems.
>>>>
>>>> Confusing them? Where do you get off talking such moronic crap, like
>>>> you're some guru who praises Microsoft, Winblows and Office daily in
>>>> the Linux advocacy group? You're a laughingstock.
>>>
>>> I'm concerned about you, Jesus... I mean Joel. Why are you flying off
>>> the handle?
>>
>> I just don't like how the use of terms related to each other has to
>> always be differentiated according to some meaningless BS,
>
>File systems (ext*, NTFS, ZFS, btrfs) and file organization (codified in
>the FHS document) are not related in any way.
>
>File systems are software. The FHS is a just a standard for where files
>on *nix should be stored, regardless of the file system being used.

Blah, blah, blah, that was even more boring than the French fuck's
rambling.

>> file
>> organization is a distinct concept yes, but it's a component of how an
>> OS creates a live file system,
>
>'Filesystem Hierarchy Standard' is a little bit of a confusing name;
>File Layout Standard or File Placement Standard would be more intuitive.

Oh, really, so their name supports my argument, and you decide to
overrule their name for their product. Another DFS narcissism fail.

>> you're not wrong that ext4 and NTFS are
>> more properly low level aspects of it, but what we think of as "NTFS"
>> includes the Windows organization structure, > as would the overall
>> "Linux file system" include that of Unix, even though it's not
>> dependent on ext4 as such.
>
>Incorrect. NTFS- or ext*-partitioned devices do not include the OS file
>organization - unless and until the OS places them on it.
>
>Format a USB key as NTFS or ext4 and it has no knowledge whatsoever of
>the OS.

Not even relevant to what I said.

>>>> I know the
>>>> difference between the terms you're using, they are meaningless here,
>>>> together the components of Unix and its flavors create a file system,
>>>
>>> What the hell? Are you high and drunk now?
>>
>> I stand by what I wrote.
>
>OK. It's still nonsense.

"Nonsense" that refuted you and the French fuck.

>>>> organization is definitely a key part of that, as it is with NTFS.
>>>
>>> The file system (ext4, NTFS, ZFS, etc) is irrelevant to the file layout.
>>
>> And yet your initial reply talked about "file system hierarchy", as if
>> it's very closely related to what you're calling distinctly the file
>> system.
>
>'Filesystem Hierarchy' isn't my terminology.

But you do see how it makes the point I'm making, I hope.

I just think it's bloatware. It's not really about how it operates,
I'm familiar with it as I am Linux, I can use either one just fine.

--
Joel W. Crump

[DFS]

On 11/19/2023 6:01 PM, Joel wrote:

> Again, retard, just because you joined the group at the same time, in

> which, I experimented with*returning to* Win10, in 2021, on my old
> computer, that doesn't negate the two years*before* that, when I ran

> Linux exclusively, and after the Win10 experiment until I built the
> new computer, nor the fact that I am running it now on the new
> computer.

That is some serious oxy-English.

[Joel]

Yeah well tell the French fuck to stop acting like time began in 2021.
I hate French people's narcissism.

--
Joel W. Crump

[RabidPedagog]

I guess that's what extended exposure to "girl cock" does to a person.

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Christ is king.

[Joel]

Your obsession with women having a female body is so 2010s.

--
Joel W. Crump

[Borax Man]

My point moreso was about how Linux based systems come with core
components that allow solutions like this to be created. The
Excel/Word mailmerge is one example. There is a different philosophy.
Unix gives you tools that you can use and exploit, whereas Windows is
purely a platform for other applications to run on. You could do this
in Windows, with external apps, but in the Windows world it tends to
take the form of one "application" that is built for that specific
purpose and doesn't have reusable components.

[Borax Man]

The Unix system becomes a mess when you lose track of what files
belong to what programs. At least with DOS, you know that C:\GRAPHWIZ
contained the program Graphwiz and if you wanted to remove it, you
just delete that directory. With Unix, you need either a package
manager, or to keep the original makefile so you can do a 'make
remove', otherwise you'll have real difficulty cleaning the program
out. Windows (mostly) follows the DOS way.

Now with Linux, you have /opt, which is a place to put programs that
install in their own directory, so now you have both programs in /bin,
/lib etc AND some which are just put all in their own directory. Then
on top of that, you have Flatpak and Snaps, and it becomes a mess!

[Farley Flud]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 09:34:44 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:

>
> The Unix system becomes a mess when you lose track of what files
> belong to what programs. At least with DOS, you know that C:\GRAPHWIZ
> contained the program Graphwiz and if you wanted to remove it, you
> just delete that directory. With Unix, you need either a package
> manager, or to keep the original makefile so you can do a 'make
> remove', otherwise you'll have real difficulty cleaning the program
> out. Windows (mostly) follows the DOS way.
>

The PATH and LD_LIBRARY_PATH variables would need to contain thousands
of directories for this to work.

But one could set variables during the build of a particular package
to point to different installation paths, i.e. --prefix=/usr/package

There is also GNU Stow:

https://www.gnu.org/software/stow/

GNU/Linux is very flexible.

[Borax Man]

Well, thats the thing, even in Windows software would install DLL's in
the Windows directory heirachy, and that turned into a mess as well.
Not sure what it is like now, but that was the case when I last
routinely ran Windows at home.

Ulitimately, I think the Unix way wins out, but it does need a package
manager to keep things sane. That is, a package manager which keeps
to the traditional layout, not snap or some bollocks like that.

[RonB]

Flatpaks are easy. Everything is in its own subdirectory under ~/.var/app.
Since I use the package manager for basically everything else, I don't have
a lot of problems installing or uninstalling applications.

None of it compares to the cluster "kludge" of the Windows Registry. At
least that was the case when I still used Windows. I remember installing
applications, which wouldn't work (or you chose the wrong options), so they
would suggest you uninstall and reinstall — but after the uninstall Windows
"thought" the application was still installed. So you would be instructed to
dig into the Registry and delete multiple references to the application so
you could start fresh again. Often you would be in this loop several times.
Lots of "fun" in those days.

I like the fact that many applications in Linux use the same library and
files that other applications do. Just seems like a better way to do it.

[DFS]

On 11/20/2023 4:34 AM, Borax Man wrote:


> The Unix system becomes a mess when you lose track of what files
> belong to what programs. At least with DOS, you know that C:\GRAPHWIZ
> contained the program Graphwiz and if you wanted to remove it, you
> just delete that directory. With Unix, you need either a package
> manager, or to keep the original makefile so you can do a 'make
> remove', otherwise you'll have real difficulty cleaning the program
> out. Windows (mostly) follows the DOS way.
>
> Now with Linux, you have /opt, which is a place to put programs that
> install in their own directory, so now you have both programs in /bin,
> /lib etc AND some which are just put all in their own directory. Then
> on top of that, you have Flatpak and Snaps, and it becomes a mess!

Linux liars like to claim uninstalls are done perfectly, that no orphan
files are left behind, blah blah

Turns out there are about a dozen Linux apps built specifically to come
behind the bogus uninstalls and fix what they screwed up.


BleachBit
Computer Janitor
Cruft
dupeclean
FSlint
GCleaner
Gconf-Cleaner
GtkOrphan/deborphan
KDE Sweeper
KleanSweep
Linux Disk Cleaner
lostfiles
Synaptic Residual Config
Ubuntu Cleaner

[DFS]

On 11/19/2023 6:24 PM, Joel wrote:
> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> The well-structured Filesystem Hierarchy Standard used by Linux is, of
>>>>>>>> course, derived from Unix from the late 70s.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> specs
>>>>>>>> https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/fhs.shtml
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> File systems are a dime a dozen. Unix has a good one, though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You might be confusing file system with file organization.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ext4 and NTFS are file systems.
>>>>>
>>>>> Confusing them? Where do you get off talking such moronic crap, like
>>>>> you're some guru who praises Microsoft, Winblows and Office daily in
>>>>> the Linux advocacy group? You're a laughingstock.
>>>>
>>>> I'm concerned about you, Jesus... I mean Joel. Why are you flying off
>>>> the handle?
>>>
>>> I just don't like how the use of terms related to each other has to
>>> always be differentiated according to some meaningless BS,
>>
>> File systems (ext*, NTFS, ZFS, btrfs) and file organization (codified in
>> the FHS document) are not related in any way.
>>
>> File systems are software. The FHS is a just a standard for where files
>> on *nix should be stored, regardless of the file system being used.
>
>
> Blah, blah, blah, that was even more boring than the French fuck's
> rambling.

Stephane and I explained the difference. Do you understand yet?


You're not the only one that's confused. This article conflates the two
topics as well:

https://www.scaler.com/topics/linux-tutorial/file-system-of-linux/

* "The Linux file system is the structure that the Linux operating
system uses to organize and store files and data on a computer."

* "There is a wide range of file systems available in Linux..."

Both statements cannot be true. The first is false.

>>> file
>>> organization is a distinct concept yes, but it's a component of how an
>>> OS creates a live file system,
>>
>> 'Filesystem Hierarchy Standard' is a little bit of a confusing name;
>> File Layout Standard or File Placement Standard would be more intuitive.
>
>
> Oh, really, so their name supports my argument, and you decide to
> overrule their name for their product. Another DFS narcissism fail.

It's actually another Joel ignorance fail.

>>> you're not wrong that ext4 and NTFS are
>>> more properly low level aspects of it, but what we think of as "NTFS"
>>> includes the Windows organization structure, > as would the overall
>>> "Linux file system" include that of Unix, even though it's not
>>> dependent on ext4 as such.
>>
>> Incorrect. NTFS- or ext*-partitioned devices do not include the OS file
>> organization - unless and until the OS places them on it.
>>
>> Format a USB key as NTFS or ext4 and it has no knowledge whatsoever of
>> the OS.
>
>
> Not even relevant to what I said.

Joel: "what we think of as 'NTFS' includes the Windows organization
structure"

That's what YOU think of as NTFS, but that is not correct. The NTFS
file system is completely unrelated to the directory structure of Windows.

>>>>> I know the
>>>>> difference between the terms you're using, they are meaningless here,
>>>>> together the components of Unix and its flavors create a file system,
>>>>
>>>> What the hell? Are you high and drunk now?
>>>
>>> I stand by what I wrote.
>>
>> OK. It's still nonsense.
>
>
> "Nonsense" that refuted you and the French fuck.


"together the components of Unix and its flavors create a file system"

is just nonsense.

>>>>> organization is definitely a key part of that, as it is with NTFS.
>>>>
>>>> The file system (ext4, NTFS, ZFS, etc) is irrelevant to the file layout.
>>>
>>> And yet your initial reply talked about "file system hierarchy", as if
>>> it's very closely related to what you're calling distinctly the file
>>> system.
>>
>> 'Filesystem Hierarchy' isn't my terminology.
>
>
> But you do see how it makes the point I'm making, I hope.

When you say "File systems are a dime a dozen. Unix has a good one,
though." you're displaying confusion. *nix doesn't have one file system
- it supports dozens. It does have one file layout standard, though.
Not that every distro or app developer follows it to the letter.


Good reading here:
https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs-3.0.pdf

a real deep dive here:
https://docs.kernel.org/filesystems/index.html

and in the fs directory of the Linux kernel tree, ie
linux-6.4.6/fs/*

That directory contains some tremendously complicated code. If you want
to understand how inodes work, it's in /fs/inode.c.

If you want to see how Linux reads an NTFS file system, it's in /fs/ntfs.

[RabidPedagog]

I'll give you a quick story about how well Linux Mint just worked out
for my mother. To say the least, I am going to be driving across the
city through traffic today to put my mom's original hard disk back into
her Intel NUC because Mint fucked everything up for her.

1) Windows 11 was slow
2) I gave her my 512GB SSD with Linux Mint on it. It worked here.
3) Once she got home, her printer didn't work and she had no sound.
4) I painfully guided her through the process of installing TeamViewer
(she is shockingly bad at doing the simplest thing) and noticed that
while the distribution detects her internal sound chip, the sound
settings don't allow her to select it
5) Install pavucontrol and a few other things to allow myself to choose
the sound chip rather than the non-existent HDMI speakers the
distribution decided to use.
6) Installed the printer which was connected by USB by going into the
Printers setting, choose to install a new printer and selecting USB. Why
the system didn't do this automatically when it detects network printers
automatically and adds them without my permission is beyond me.
7) Checked the sound and printer. It works. Did updates, restarted.
Disconnected
8) Get a call from my mom that the sound doesn't work again.
9) Connect to TeamViewer, realize that the sound indeed doesn't work and
again can't be selected in the sound settings.
10) Go into pavucontrol, it fails at establishing any kind of connection
with the pulseaudio daemon (the daemon is frozen)
11) Kill the process, restart, allows me to select the right sound chip
but sound doesn't work
12) Reinstall pulseaudio components because every attempt to open
pulseaudio results in the system's inability to load the pulseaudio
daemon which was just restarted
13) Realize that for whatever reason, reinstalling pulseaudio caused the
cinnamon-control-centre to disappear. Reinstall that too through
Synaptic package manager
14) It doesn't reappear and executing cinnamon-control-centre through
the command line results in only "Online Accounts" being available.
15) Assume that it might just need to be re-enabled through being logged
back in... log out, log back in.
16) Call mom, ask her to get into her computer. She logs in,
cinnamon-control-centre gives her an error and the screen remains
completely black. No panels, no icons, no applications available.

This is where I say "I give up" and tell my mom that I'll drive the 35km
or whatever it is and just put her Windows system back. I give up with
this system. Sure Windows is shit, but it's not _this_ level of shit. As
bad as Windows can get, at least it can be fixed. This is some
Dodge-car-level garbage. In one attempt to help my mom with what should
have been a trivial problem, the whole system goes down because:

a) The fucking idiotic system is unable to wrap its head around the
possibility that despite the fact that the monitor is connected through
HDMI, the screen might not have speakers.
b) The fucking idiotic system is unwilling to allow a user to use analog
speakers despite detecting them.
c) The fucking idiotic system believes that a re-installation of one
component means that you want to purge an entirely unrelated component.

*I* *GIVE* *UP*

I am going to be formatting every last key I have with Linux on it and I
am quitting this forum. I don't even want to think about this steaming
pile of garbage anymore. It was a fucking routine installation on a
basic computer and even THAT Linux manages to complete screw up. *I*
*GIVE* *UP* . I no longer think that it is a coincidence that the people
advocating this shit are deranged social pariahs like Larry Pietraskiewicz.

[Joel]

DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:

>>>> I just don't like how the use of terms related to each other has to
>>>> always be differentiated according to some meaningless BS,
>>>
>>> File systems (ext*, NTFS, ZFS, btrfs) and file organization (codified in
>>> the FHS document) are not related in any way.
>>>
>>> File systems are software. The FHS is a just a standard for where files
>>> on *nix should be stored, regardless of the file system being used.
>>
>> Blah, blah, blah, that was even more boring than the French fuck's
>> rambling.
>
>Stephane and I explained the difference. Do you understand yet?
>
>
>You're not the only one that's confused. This article conflates the two
>topics as well:
>
>https://www.scaler.com/topics/linux-tutorial/file-system-of-linux/
>
>* "The Linux file system is the structure that the Linux operating
> system uses to organize and store files and data on a computer."
>
>* "There is a wide range of file systems available in Linux..."
>
>Both statements cannot be true. The first is false.

Asked and answered, I'm not going to explain again.

>>>> you're not wrong that ext4 and NTFS are
>>>> more properly low level aspects of it, but what we think of as "NTFS"
>>>> includes the Windows organization structure, > as would the overall
>>>> "Linux file system" include that of Unix, even though it's not
>>>> dependent on ext4 as such.
>>>
>>> Incorrect. NTFS- or ext*-partitioned devices do not include the OS file
>>> organization - unless and until the OS places them on it.
>>>
>>> Format a USB key as NTFS or ext4 and it has no knowledge whatsoever of
>>> the OS.
>>
>> Not even relevant to what I said.
>
>Joel: "what we think of as 'NTFS' includes the Windows organization
>structure"
>
>That's what YOU think of as NTFS, but that is not correct. The NTFS
>file system is completely unrelated to the directory structure of Windows.

It's clear you don't really understand how it operates. You're making
a distinction with a very small difference, Windows uses NTFS because
it knows what NTFS is and does, Linux can mount an NTFS drive easily,
but it has to treat it in a somewhat special way, it doesn't meld as
organically as a drive formatted by Linux.

>>>> your initial reply talked about "file system hierarchy", as if
>>>> it's very closely related to what you're calling distinctly the file
>>>> system.
>>>
>>> 'Filesystem Hierarchy' isn't my terminology.
>>
>> But you do see how it makes the point I'm making, I hope.
>
>When you say "File systems are a dime a dozen. Unix has a good one,
>though." you're displaying confusion. *nix doesn't have one file system
>- it supports dozens. It does have one file layout standard, though.
>Not that every distro or app developer follows it to the letter.

The differences between "file systems" on this low level is abstracted
to the user *but not to the OS*, whatever it does, all the way to
read/write operations on the storage/media unit, is part of the OS. My
video driver, under Linux, being a proprietary one NVIDIA releases
itself, isn't even GNU or FOSS, but it is part of the OS, as long as
it's in use.

--
Joel W. Crump

[DFS]

hmmm...

https://freedesktop.org/software/pulseaudio/pavucontrol/#download

says pavucontrol "Works perfectly"

> 11) Kill the process, restart, allows me to select the right sound chip
> but sound doesn't work
> 12) Reinstall pulseaudio components because every attempt to open
> pulseaudio results in the system's inability to load the pulseaudio
> daemon which was just restarted
> 13) Realize that for whatever reason, reinstalling pulseaudio caused the
> cinnamon-control-centre to disappear. Reinstall that too through
> Synaptic package manager
> 14) It doesn't reappear and executing cinnamon-control-centre through
> the command line results in only "Online Accounts" being available.
> 15) Assume that it might just need to be re-enabled through being logged
> back in... log out, log back in.
> 16) Call mom, ask her to get into her computer. She logs in,
> cinnamon-control-centre gives her an error and the screen remains
> completely black. No panels, no icons, no applications available.


"13) Realize that for whatever reason, reinstalling pulseaudio caused
the cinnamon-control-centre to disappear."

Yikes. The whole control center is gone, or just the pulseaudio/sound
components settings?

> This is where I say "I give up" and tell my mom that I'll drive the 35km
> or whatever it is and just put her Windows system back. I give up with
> this system. Sure Windows is shit, but it's not _this_ level of shit. As
> bad as Windows can get, at least it can be fixed. This is some
> Dodge-car-level garbage. In one attempt to help my mom with what should
> have been a trivial problem, the whole system goes down because:
>
> a) The fucking idiotic system is unable to wrap its head around the
> possibility that despite the fact that the monitor is connected through
> HDMI, the screen might not have speakers.
> b) The fucking idiotic system is unwilling to allow a user to use analog
> speakers despite detecting them.
> c) The fucking idiotic system believes that a re-installation of one
> component means that you want to purge an entirely unrelated component.
>
> *I* *GIVE* *UP

> I am going to be formatting every last key I have with Linux on it and I
> am quitting this forum. I don't even want to think about this steaming
> pile of garbage anymore. It was a fucking routine installation on a
> basic computer and even THAT Linux manages to complete screw up. *I*
> *GIVE* *UP* .

Never heard you this angry!

Did you review the pavucontrol source code? RTFM? File a bug report
and wait 2 months for the fix?

Seriously though, Mint is supposed to be one of the more easy and
forgiving "just works" distros. You just got a bad one...

If you're truly leaving cola... good luck in life. But I expect you
back here this evening at the latest.

And I expect you to be back on Linux by the end of the year. No worries
- it's fun to use and try something different. I'm gonna setup a dual
boot someday soon so I can smack Joel around some more.

> I no longer think that it is a coincidence that the people
> advocating this shit are deranged social pariahs like Larry Pietraskiewicz.

Feeb spends *enormous* amounts of time wrangling his custom Linux
install. But he still faces hobbyware issues:

"I have serious problems with GNU/Linux from time to time and it's
always a bit of a struggle trying to get things back on track."

So you're not alone. I've found the most reliable experience in Linux
is at the command line.

[vallor]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 08:40:43 -0500, RabidPedagog <ra...@pedag.og> wrote in
<wr27N.63503$_Oab....@fx15.iad>:

Buh-bye.

For the benefit of anybody else running into this problem:

if you had asked for what could be wrong, I'd say,
go into power management and disable it turning off
the display. What I'll bet is the gentleman didn't
test that part at home -- that is to say, what the system
does when idle.

If the display gets shut down, so does the audio device.
When it re-awakens, it's a new audio device to the
system, and pulse can glom onto that.

Personally, I've also installed the venerable xscreensaver,
went into advanced settings, turned _on_ power managment, then slide
the time settings to "never/never/never". I'm a belt-and-suspenders
man.

I'm sorry he had to deal with the frustration. Knowledge is power.

--
-v

[Joel]

vallor <val...@cultnix.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 08:40:43 -0500, RabidPedagog <ra...@pedag.og> wrote in
><wr27N.63503$_Oab....@fx15.iad>:
>

>> *I* *GIVE* *UP*
>>
>> I am going to be formatting every last key I have with Linux on it and I
>> am quitting this forum. I don't even want to think about this steaming
>> pile of garbage anymore. It was a fucking routine installation on a
>> basic computer and even THAT Linux manages to complete screw up. *I*
>> *GIVE* *UP* . I no longer think that it is a coincidence that the people
>> advocating this shit are deranged social pariahs like Larry
>> Pietraskiewicz.
>
>Buh-bye.
>
>For the benefit of anybody else running into this problem:
>
>if you had asked for what could be wrong, I'd say,
>go into power management and disable it turning off
>the display. What I'll bet is the gentleman didn't
>test that part at home -- that is to say, what the system
>does when idle.
>
>If the display gets shut down, so does the audio device.
>When it re-awakens, it's a new audio device to the
>system, and pulse can glom onto that.
>
>Personally, I've also installed the venerable xscreensaver,
>went into advanced settings, turned _on_ power managment, then slide
>the time settings to "never/never/never". I'm a belt-and-suspenders
>man.
>
>I'm sorry he had to deal with the frustration. Knowledge is power.

I've run into relatively trivial snafus, with the finer points of a
desktop OS, under Linux. It's solved by just using the features that
work, your example of disabling the screen being turned off is exactly
what I realized, fully shutting off the 4K display confuses software,
but just letting the screen lock is great, it's not wasting much
electricity, it's mostly a black screen.

--
Joel W. Crump

[RonB]

Do an Internet search for "TeamViewer no sound" (without the quotes). Lots
of issues with sound not working when TeamViewer is installed, even on
Windows.

[vallor]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 21:07:18 -0000 (UTC), RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com>
wrote in <slrnulq706.tc...@3020m.hitronhub.home>:

Good to know, thank you.

--
-v

[%]

it works for me

[Farley Flud]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 08:40:43 -0500, RabidPedagog wrote:

>
> I am going to be formatting every last key I have with Linux on it and I
> am quitting this forum. I don't even want to think about this steaming
> pile of garbage anymore.
>

Good riddance.

Don't let the door slam you on the ass on your way out.

But with your technical ineptitude, you couldn't even
operate a fucking digital door knob.

Heeeee, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!


Farley Flud

Registered black Linux user #4464.

[Stéphane CARPENTIER]

Le 19-11-2023, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> a écrit :

> Stéphane CARPENTIER <s...@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
>
>>> I just don't like how the use of terms related to each other has to
>>> always be differentiated
>>
>>Because there is nothing in common. Stop showing every one you don't
>>understand what you are speaking of. It's not about what you like, it's
>>about what is.
>
> "Nothing in common" except composing the file system,

You never stop going deeper. Even when you are at the bottom, you still
try to go bellow.

> idiot.

Yes, I already told you I know that. It looks like you have memory issues.

>>> I stand by what I wrote.
>>
>>You shouldn't. It's like saying a road and a car are exactly the same
>>thing and you don't like to differentiate them because the only thing
>>that matter is the possibility to go from a point to another.
>>
>>Here you are not alone in your own world, you are speaking to others. So
>>you need to have the same way to express yourself.
>
> I'm speaking to others like you

Yes, and everyone agree to tell you you are wrong. It's not enough to
insult others. You need to understand what you are speaking, too.

> who are stupid.

Once again, I already know that. Try to improve.

>>> And yet your initial reply talked about "file system hierarchy", as if
>>> it's very closely related to what you're calling distinctly the file
>>> system.
>>
>>It is. On the same file system hierarchy, you can have your hard drive,
>>with some partition, the RAM and some USB sticks. And with only one file
>>system hierarchy, you can have many filesystem.
>>
>>And the USB stick can go from a file system hierarchy to another (from a
>>VM to another or from a computer to another) and its file system will stay
>>the same.
>
> That was a lot of words to say jack shit.

That's trying to explain you why it's different. But it's impossible to
explain something to someone who want to be wrong. If you were right,
you would be able to show me where I'm wrong, but you can't because you
lost and you try to hide it with insults.

>>> Windows is in that way "WinDOS" as Chris would say, but it works fine.
>>
>>The first step. Last time you didn't speak about Windows but about
>>Winblows or something like that.
>
>
> I call it Winblows because

Because you want to believe you have see the light.

> it does suck. It's hardware-hungry.

I know that, that's why I don't use it at home. But you used it on
purpose not that long ago, already knowing it, and I'm pretty sure,
you'll use it again.

>>> I just like Linux because it doesn't get in my way,
>>
>>For how long?
>
> Again,

You improved your memory. You remembered you said it.

> retard,

Ah no, your memory didn't improved you already forget I know it.

> just because you joined the group at the same time, in
> which, I experimented with *returning to* Win10, in 2021, on my old
> computer, that doesn't negate the two years *before* that, when I ran
> Linux exclusively, and after the Win10 experiment until I built the
> new computer, nor the fact that I am running it now on the new
> computer.

All I say is I saw you write a message saying you were on Linux forever
and you would never used Windows again. And something like a week, maybe
two bot I don't believe it was more, you switched back to Windows.

> So shut your French ass the fuck up, MORON.

With only one sentence, you show me, you have a lot of things to learn:
- I do what I want and it's not a brain dead dictator who will tell me
what to do.
- You are racist.
- You are not as tough as you claim, because you can't stand
contradictions.

>>> I'm not sacrificing anything for the imaginary Windows quality of
>>> experience.
>>
>>Wait and see.
>
> I already saw,

Wait a little be longer, there is no hurry.

> dipshit.

Good, you have been able to improve. Unless it's your name?

[Stéphane CARPENTIER]

Le 21-11-2023, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> a écrit :
>
> Linux liars like to claim uninstalls are done perfectly, that no orphan
> files are left behind, blah blah

Depends of your package manager. It's so difficult to manage the
dependencies that there is often something useless left behind with
time. But with NixOS or Guix, it's clean. Really: it's by design.

[Stéphane CARPENTIER]

Le 21-11-2023, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> a écrit :

> On 11/19/2023 6:24 PM, Joel wrote:
>>
>> Blah, blah, blah, that was even more boring than the French fuck's
>> rambling.
>
> Stephane and I explained the difference. Do you understand yet?

No, he can't understand because he is racist and as I'm French he can't
believe I can be right. And as he is using his dick instead of his brain
to answer, it won't help.

[Stéphane CARPENTIER]

Le 21-11-2023, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> a écrit :

> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>
>>Both statements cannot be true. The first is false.
>
> Asked and answered, I'm not going to explain again.

Your insults aren't explanations. And instead of explaining, you should
try to understand.

>>Joel: "what we think of as 'NTFS' includes the Windows organization
>>structure"
>>
>>That's what YOU think of as NTFS, but that is not correct. The NTFS
>>file system is completely unrelated to the directory structure of Windows.
>
> It's clear you don't really understand how it operates.

There are a lot of points on which I disagree with him, but technically
speaking he knows what he says. You should try to understand him, you
could learn one thing or two.

> You're making a distinction with a very small difference, Windows uses
> NTFS because it knows what NTFS is and does, Linux can mount an NTFS
> drive easily, but it has to treat it in a somewhat special way, it
> doesn't meld as organically as a drive formatted by Linux.

You are really confusing things. For Linux, either it knows the
file system or it doesn't. If it knows the file system, be it NTFS, FAT,
ext4, btrfs or anything you like, it treat it the same way. There is
nothing inside Linux which tells it: "be careful it's a Windows file
system, it's not a Linux file system and can't be managed the same way."

[DFS]

On 11/24/2023 4:54 PM, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> Le 21-11-2023, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> a écrit :
>> On 11/19/2023 6:24 PM, Joel wrote:
>>>
>>> Blah, blah, blah, that was even more boring than the French fuck's
>>> rambling.
>>
>> Stephane and I explained the difference. Do you understand yet?
>
> No, he can't understand because he is racist and as I'm French he can't
> believe I can be right.

Joel claims he lived a past life as an African, so he's just self-hating
his current life as a White man.

> And as he is using his dick instead of his brain to answer, it
> won't help.

A malady endemic to poofters.

[Joel]

Stéphane CARPENTIER <s...@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
>Le 21-11-2023, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> a écrit :
>> On 11/19/2023 6:24 PM, Joel wrote:
>>>
>>> Blah, blah, blah, that was even more boring than the French fuck's
>>> rambling.
>>
>> Stephane and I explained the difference. Do you understand yet?
>
>No, he can't understand because he is racist and as I'm French he can't
>believe I can be right. And as he is using his dick instead of his brain
>to answer, it won't help.

You started the heat, if you can't take the heat, get out of the
kitchen, as the saying in English goes.

--
Joel W. Crump

[Joel]

Stéphane CARPENTIER <s...@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:

>> You're making a distinction with a very small difference, Windows uses
>> NTFS because it knows what NTFS is and does, Linux can mount an NTFS
>> drive easily, but it has to treat it in a somewhat special way, it
>> doesn't meld as organically as a drive formatted by Linux.
>
>You are really confusing things. For Linux, either it knows the
>file system or it doesn't. If it knows the file system, be it NTFS, FAT,
>ext4, btrfs or anything you like, it treat it the same way. There is
>nothing inside Linux which tells it: "be careful it's a Windows file
>system, it's not a Linux file system and can't be managed the same way."

Moron.

--
Joel W. Crump

[Joel]

DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>On 11/24/2023 4:54 PM, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>> Le 21-11-2023, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> a écrit :
>>> On 11/19/2023 6:24 PM, Joel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Blah, blah, blah, that was even more boring than the French fuck's
>>>> rambling.
>>>
>>> Stephane and I explained the difference. Do you understand yet?
>>
>> No, he can't understand because he is racist and as I'm French he can't
>> believe I can be right.
>
>Joel claims he lived a past life as an African, so he's just self-hating
>his current life as a White man.

I no longer have any issue with my own whiteness.

> > And as he is using his dick instead of his brain to answer, it
> > won't help.
>
>A malady endemic to poofters.

You're a really lame fuck at times.

--
Joel W. Crump

[Stéphane CARPENTIER]

I forget:
- You should use your brain instead of your dick when you're answering.

[DFS]

On 11/24/2023 5:48 PM, Joel wrote:
> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 11/24/2023 4:54 PM, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>> Le 21-11-2023, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> a écrit :
>>>> On 11/19/2023 6:24 PM, Joel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Blah, blah, blah, that was even more boring than the French fuck's
>>>>> rambling.
>>>>
>>>> Stephane and I explained the difference. Do you understand yet?
>>>
>>> No, he can't understand because he is racist and as I'm French he can't
>>> believe I can be right.
>>
>> Joel claims he lived a past life as an African, so he's just self-hating
>> his current life as a White man.
>
>
> I no longer have any issue with my own whiteness.

Who taught you to EVER have any issues with being a biological member of
the greatest race in history? Self-hating loser parents? Hope not.

For example: tell me about some programming languages designed or
created by non-Whites. I'm not saying there aren't a few, but I only
know of one: Ruby.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programming_languages

That's a list of 692 programming languages, big and little.


Or narrow it down to the most widely used languages:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/793628/worldwide-developer-survey-most-used-languages/


I predict your response will be a stupid insult.

>>> And as he is using his dick instead of his brain to answer, it
>>> won't help.
>>
>> A malady endemic to poofters.
>
>
> You're a really lame fuck at times.

What lameness are you referring to?

[rbowman]

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 19:24:01 -0500, DFS wrote:

> Who taught you to EVER have any issues with being a biological member of
> the greatest race in history? Self-hating loser parents? Hope not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzm9mM9BE6A

[Joel]

DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:

>> I no longer have any issue with my own whiteness.
>
>Who taught you to EVER have any issues with being a biological member of
>the greatest race in history? Self-hating loser parents? Hope not.

It's more the opposite, there is a sibling-of-parent branch of my
family that at least pretended to want me to embrace my this-life
heritage, I think it was essentially parody, though, on some level.

>For example: tell me about some programming languages designed or
>created by non-Whites. I'm not saying there aren't a few, but I only
>know of one: Ruby.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programming_languages
>
>That's a list of 692 programming languages, big and little.
>
>
>Or narrow it down to the most widely used languages:
>https://www.statista.com/statistics/793628/worldwide-developer-survey-most-used-languages/
>
>
>I predict your response will be a stupid insult.

I might be working with the core of WinNT or the Linux kernel, today,
if I had pursued what I wanted in college and potentially beyond. I
had a mile wide path to transfer to UMD College Park, one of the most
advanced computer science programs in the world. But drugs were a
higher calling.

>>> A malady endemic to poofters.
>>
>> You're a really lame fuck at times.
>
>What lameness are you referring to?

Bigotry.

--
Joel W. Crump

[Stéphane CARPENTIER]

Le 24-11-2023, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Stéphane CARPENTIER <s...@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
>>Le 21-11-2023, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> a écrit :
>>> On 11/19/2023 6:24 PM, Joel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Blah, blah, blah, that was even more boring than the French fuck's
>>>> rambling.
>>>
>>> Stephane and I explained the difference. Do you understand yet?
>>
>>No, he can't understand because he is racist and as I'm French he can't
>>believe I can be right. And as he is using his dick instead of his brain
>>to answer, it won't help.
>
> You started the heat,

No, I explained to you why you are wrong. But as a brainless drugged
addict you can't understand my explanations. And with a dick instead of
a brain, you replied to my explanations with insults because you believe
it's the same thing.

> if you can't take the heat,

You really believe your insults have any effect on me? I'm just stating
the facts: you don't counter my arguments, you reply by criticising the
fact that I'm French. It's racist, so you are racist and it's unrelated
with the fact that I could care about it. Your lack of brain and the
fact that you are wrong stop you to understand why you are wrong and to
have a good answer. So, you start to show your racist face and your dick
because you believe it can hide your stupidity and your wrongness.

DFS is racist too but, unlike you, he accepts it when you pretend the
opposite. I really don't care about racism as long as we speak about
technical Linux things. I don't answer his stupid vision about the black
people because it would only be a loss of time.

> get out of the kitchen, as the saying in English goes.

You are a little brainless toy, don't imagine I'm touched by anything
you can claim. When I'm saying your racism stops you to understand my
explanations, I just claim a fact. Personally, I don't care about your
opinion. as Georges Courteline said: « passer pour un idiot aux yeux
d'un imbécile est une volupté de fin gourmet ». Which could be
translated as something like "to appear as an idiot in the eyes of a
moron is a gourmet pleasure".

[Joel]

Stéphane CARPENTIER <s...@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:

>You are a little brainless toy, don't imagine I'm touched by anything
>you can claim. When I'm saying your racism stops you to understand my
>explanations, I just claim a fact. Personally, I don't care about your
>opinion. as Georges Courteline said: « passer pour un idiot aux yeux
>d'un imbécile est une volupté de fin gourmet ». Which could be
>translated as something like "to appear as an idiot in the eyes of a
>moron is a gourmet pleasure".

Your government had a moral objection to the 2003 war in Iraq, and a
sweet deal in the, then, "oil for food" program. Your brain operates
a lot like the previous sentence. If that makes me racist, well, I'd
not be the first.

--
Joel W. Crump

[Physfitfreak]

On 11/24/2023 6:24 PM, DFS wrote:
> Who taught you to EVER have any issues with being a biological member of
> the greatest race in history?  Self-hating loser parents?  Hope not.
>
> For example: tell me about some programming languages designed or
> created by non-Whites.

You cro-magnon sound like you did finger yourself after all. You come
across a bit optimistic :) Hehe :)

You've temporarily settled with the shit for human that you are.

If you're serious about your true abilities, go back to your "Roman"
numbers :)

[DFS]

You sound upset that no inferior sand chimps invented a programming
language. Or did they? It's a long list. Get to eeking and ooking and
prove me wrong.

[Physfitfreak]

Don't change the subject. Try writing a working program by exclusively
using your Roman numbers. That's what a cro-magnon encounters, after
removing the Modern Humans around him.

[DFS]

On 11/24/2023 10:25 PM, Joel wrote:
> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:

> I might be working with the core of WinNT or the Linux kernel, today,
> if I had pursued what I wanted in college and potentially beyond. I
> had a mile wide path to transfer to UMD College Park, one of the most
> advanced computer science programs in the world.

It would be fairly epic to have a cola reg that worked on an OS kernel.

> But drugs were a higher calling.

That is one sick belief. More likely you were afraid of competing in
life at a higher level, and tried to suicide yourself.

>>>> A malady endemic to poofters.
>>>
>>> You're a really lame fuck at times.
>>
>> What lameness are you referring to?
>
>
> Bigotry.

It's beyond my control.

[DFS]

The subject was "In this VERY long list of programming languages, which
were created by non-Caucasians".

Quit dragging your knuckles, Koochik.

[Physfitfreak]

Didn't you get thrown back at us Modern Humans, when you tried to
actually use your own creation, Roman numbers, to develop ways to write
a working computer program? :)

Are you still breathing hard, like you sensed the smell and sights of
the neanderthals in Europe? That familiar fear, so tightly hidden down
inside you? Well, welcome to the world that Modern Humans have created
for you.

[Stéphane CARPENTIER]

You see, you consider that you can look at the way my government acts to
know how I act.

> If that makes me racist,

Of course it does. You consider every French share the same way of life
and ideas. Like DFS considers all the Blacks are acting the same way.
There is no difference between your racist vision and his racist vision.

> well, I'd not be the first.

I never said you were the first racist. I'm only saying you are the
stupidest one.

[Joel]

Stéphane CARPENTIER <s...@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:

>>>You are a little brainless toy, don't imagine I'm touched by anything
>>>you can claim. When I'm saying your racism stops you to understand my
>>>explanations, I just claim a fact. Personally, I don't care about your
>>>opinion. as Georges Courteline said: « passer pour un idiot aux yeux
>>>d'un imbécile est une volupté de fin gourmet ». Which could be
>>>translated as something like "to appear as an idiot in the eyes of a
>>>moron is a gourmet pleasure".
>>
>> Your government had a moral objection to the 2003 war in Iraq, and a
>> sweet deal in the, then, "oil for food" program. Your brain operates
>> a lot like the previous sentence.
>
>You see, you consider that you can look at the way my government acts to
>know how I act.

Nope. You might actually have your own views, in fact you seem to be
pretty willing to drink Pepsi, but there is an uncanny genetic
tendency in people of French descent to self-importance.

>> If that makes me racist,
>
>Of course it does. You consider every French share the same way of life
>and ideas. Like DFS considers all the Blacks are acting the same way.
>There is no difference between your racist vision and his racist vision.

Ah, but he doesn't really think that's how blacks are, he's one of
these shit talking guys. He can't possibly be stupid enough,
unexposed enough, not to know some regular, normal black people. Nor
would I be expecting not to find some cool people, like you, in
France.

>> well, I'd not be the first.
>
>I never said you were the first racist. I'm only saying you are the
>stupidest one.

Hopefully, I'm a self-aware one.

--
Joel W. Crump

[Joel]

DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:

>> I might be working with the core of WinNT or the Linux kernel, today,
>> if I had pursued what I wanted in college and potentially beyond. I
>> had a mile wide path to transfer to UMD College Park, one of the most
>> advanced computer science programs in the world.
>
>It would be fairly epic to have a cola reg that worked on an OS kernel.
>
> > But drugs were a higher calling.
>
>That is one sick belief. More likely you were afraid of competing in
>life at a higher level, and tried to suicide yourself.

But I was late to the game. Windows 2000 and Linux both existed
around the time I'd be starting out, what was there left to conquer,
there? Linus and Bill Gates were the winners, of the OS wars. But
I'm giving Donald J. Trump a defeat, *that* is what counts.

--
Joel W. Crump

[DFS]

Your 1 vote in 150M votes won't hand him a defeat... but it would be
nice if you or I was the deciding vote that kept that horrid pos out of
office.

I don't vote Dem. Never have and never will. Hopefully I won't have to
write-in my Republican Pres vote 3x in a row.

[DFS]

On 11/26/2023 5:21 PM, Joel wrote:

> Stéphane CARPENTIER <s...@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
>

>> Of course it does. You consider every French share the same way of life
>> and ideas.

That's not racism - that's a form of White nationalism. But he's just
baselessly attacking you because you schooled him on some things.

>> Like DFS considers all the Blacks are acting the same way.

They do.

>> There is no difference between your racist vision and his racist vision.

Joel's not racist.

> Ah, but he doesn't really think that's how blacks are, he's one of
> these shit talking guys. He can't possibly be stupid enough,
> unexposed enough, not to know some regular, normal black people.

unexposed? I grew up in the South and have lived here my whole life.

They're all whiny, mean, illiterate bitches wanting $5M in reparations
each for being born black and dumb. I'd have some respect if most of
them moved to African countries and created successful societies...
dream on.

[%]

and you go back to where your ancestors came from , ok , bye

[Relf]

zZombie(%):

> go back to where your ancestors came from , ok , bye

Back 60 million years ago, after the dinosaur "extinction" (they became birds),
our ancestors were little mammals living in the hot, lush, Canadian Arctic.

-- Nothing is Greener than GreenHouse Earth.

[Stéphane CARPENTIER]

Le 26-11-2023, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Stéphane CARPENTIER <s...@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
>

> Nope. You might actually have your own views, in fact you seem to be
> pretty willing to drink Pepsi,

What does that mean? There is no correlation between choosing something
to drink and having any view about one's government.

> but there is an uncanny genetic
> tendency in people of French descent to self-importance.

That's nonsense. You prove once again you are racist. You put scientist
word unrelated with scientist research to back your racist view, but you
know nothing about science. There is nothing like a French gene or a
Black gene. Whatever your claims they are false.

>>> If that makes me racist,
>>
>>Of course it does. You consider every French share the same way of life
>>and ideas. Like DFS considers all the Blacks are acting the same way.
>>There is no difference between your racist vision and his racist vision.
>
>
> Ah, but he doesn't really think that's how blacks are, he's one of
> these shit talking guys. He can't possibly be stupid enough,
> unexposed enough, not to know some regular, normal black people. Nor
> would I be expecting not to find some cool people, like you, in
> France.

Like you, he put genetic words uncorrelated with any scientific research
about Black people like you do with the French. It's the same.

[Stéphane CARPENTIER]

Le 27-11-2023, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> a écrit :
> On 11/26/2023 5:21 PM, Joel wrote:
>> Stéphane CARPENTIER <s...@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
>>
>
>>> Of course it does. You consider every French share the same way of life
>>> and ideas.
>
> That's not racism - that's a form of White nationalism.

When he speak about "genetic tendency in people of French descent" it
is.

>>> There is no difference between your racist vision and his racist vision.
>
> Joel's not racist.

He is, he proved it. Even if he claims the opposite.

[Joel]

I retract that your nationality is relevant, and concede.

--
Joel W. Crump