Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

The Red Zone. Linux Yes. Microslop No.

125 views
Skip to first unread message

Farley Flud

unread,
Nov 17, 2023, 3:29:13 PM11/17/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 17, 2023, 5:14:42 PM11/17/23
to
"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

unread,
Nov 17, 2023, 5:51:02 PM11/17/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 17, 2023, 5:55:24 PM11/17/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 17, 2023, 7:21:53 PM11/17/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 17, 2023, 9:00:00 PM11/17/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 17, 2023, 11:17:54 PM11/17/23
to
DFS:
> I can't stand that lying, bragging jerkwad.

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

RonB

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 12:46:04 AM11/18/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 1:03:33 AM11/18/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 2:37:08 AM11/18/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 5:15:58 AM11/18/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 6:05:31 AM11/18/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 6:56:35 AM11/18/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 7:03:03 AM11/18/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 8:11:31 AM11/18/23
to
Perhaps putting this imbecile and all of his nyms in your filters would
be a good idea?

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Christ is king.

RabidPedagog

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 8:58:53 AM11/18/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 3:43:11 PM11/18/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 3:54:37 PM11/18/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 3:59:01 PM11/18/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 3:59:11 PM11/18/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 4:00:17 PM11/18/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 5:29:10 PM11/18/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 5:43:20 PM11/18/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 5:44:25 PM11/18/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 5:52:09 PM11/18/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 7:36:56 PM11/18/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 7:45:16 PM11/18/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 8:00:11 PM11/18/23
to
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

%

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 8:01:52 PM11/18/23
to
no you're not

vallor

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 8:05:04 PM11/18/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 8:14:55 PM11/18/23
to
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

%

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 8:30:33 PM11/18/23
to
i don't see what good any of this is just to post in usenet

Relf

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 9:05:33 PM11/18/23
to
I've signed PDF documents before,
Jeff-Relf.Me/2019.ABA.Agreement.PDF
it's done online.

DFS

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 9:41:11 PM11/18/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 10:11:34 PM11/18/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 10:17:46 PM11/18/23
to
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.

%

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 11:03:36 PM11/18/23
to
but why would you

Relf

unread,
Nov 18, 2023, 11:40:48 PM11/18/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 19, 2023, 2:41:11 AM11/19/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 19, 2023, 7:29:53 AM11/19/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 19, 2023, 7:36:21 AM11/19/23
to
% <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

unread,
Nov 19, 2023, 7:50:04 AM11/19/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 19, 2023, 7:50:45 AM11/19/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 19, 2023, 7:54:03 AM11/19/23
to
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

unread,
Nov 19, 2023, 8:28:33 AM11/19/23
to
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 o