On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 03:59:36 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 04:49:23AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote: [...]
> > > and as long as skype can pick up my voice and transmit the other person's voice, that's good enough.
> > > 
> > 
> > Is the Skype software any less dreadful on Linux than it is on Windows?
> 
> Nope. It's worse, actually. Linux support is spotty, and there have been debacles where Linux support was under consideration to be dropped. Fortunately, they didn't. But it tends to fall behind the Windows version, so weird quirks may pop up every now and then. Plus, it's *still* a 32-bit app. :-(
> 

Ugh, I've been convinced for some time that Skype needs to be a *service*, not a "service plus god awful proprietary application".

Maybe they already do, but they *really* need to allow other people to write Skype clients. Because they're clearly incompetent at it, and while their *service* is great (well, aside from willfully handing all your correspondence over to the government without any due process whatsoever) their own client applications are by far the biggest liability to their own business (aside from the Google-like lack of respect for user privacy...but almost nobody cares about that anyway, so it's less of a threat to them than their own broken client applications are.)

> 
> > It used to be that even the close button doesn't work properly, *by design*. But last I looked, the damn thing no longer even *allowed* you to end the glitchy resource-draining process *at all*. And that's just one small aspect of the program.
> 
> Fortunately, in Linux there's 'killall -9 skype'. :)
> 
> Well, that's usually not necessary, since selecting "exit" from the main menu (as opposed to merely closing the window) actually does logout *and* terminate the skype process.
> 

That's what the Windows version *used* to be like, back when it was *less* terrible. Last I saw, the damn thing didn't even *have* an "exit" command anymore.

On 09/14/13 21:15, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> So much work when one could just call the debugger from running code,
> 
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/f408b4et.aspx
> 
> at least on Windows. :)

   // version (x86|x86_64)
   enum __debugbreak = q{asm { "int $3"; }};

   void main() {
      import std.stdio;
      auto a = 42;
      writeln(a);
      mixin (__debugbreak);
      writeln(a);
   }


$ gdc -O3 -g explbp.d -o explbp
$ gdb ./explbp
(gdb) run
42

Program received signal SIGTRAP, Trace/breakpoint trap.
D main () at explbp.d:10
10	      writeln(a);
(gdb) bt
#0  D main () at explbp.d:10
#1  0x00000000004082af in rt.dmain2._d_run_main.runMain (this=0x7fffffffe480)
    at ../../../../libphobos/libdruntime/rt/dmain2.d:620
#2  0x0000000000408a0f in rt.dmain2._d_run_main() (this=this@entry=0x7fffffffe480, dg=...)
    at ../../../../libphobos/libdruntime/rt/dmain2.d:595
#3  0x0000000000408c30 in rt.dmain2._d_run_main.runAll (this=0x7fffffffe480)
    at ../../../../libphobos/libdruntime/rt/dmain2.d:630
#4  0x0000000000408a0f in rt.dmain2._d_run_main() (this=this@entry=0x7fffffffe480, dg=...)
    at ../../../../libphobos/libdruntime/rt/dmain2.d:595
#5  0x0000000000408ba0 in _d_run_main (argc=1, argv=<optimized out>, mainFunc=<optimized out>)
    at ../../../../libphobos/libdruntime/rt/dmain2.d:639
#6  0x00007ffff762b662 in __libc_start_main (main=0x408bd0 <main>, argc=1,
    ubp_av=0x7fffffffe5c8, init=<optimized out>, fini=<optimized out>,
    rtld_fini=<optimized out>, stack_end=0x7fffffffe5b8) at libc-start.c:225
#7  0x0000000000403055 in _start () at ../sysdeps/x86_64/start.S:123
(gdb) p a
$1 = 42
(gdb) c
Continuing.
42
[Inferior 1 (process 32095) exited normally]
(gdb) q


DMD might support inline asm too, with a different syntax; never used it.


artur

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 09:27:59 -0700
Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, September 14, 2013 05:43:14 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > The best I've found so far is KDE4's Dolphin, but it's still no Explorer rival, has nothing like Tortoise (to my knowledge), it still has some irritating goofiness (ex: the horizontal scrolling in the tree-view panel is every bit as broken-by-design as in Vista's Explorer), and there's some other things, plus I don't like KDE4 :(   (And I'd rather not have to pull in the bloat of KDE4 just for a file manager.)
> 
> I'm a diehard Konqueror fan myself, but I also use KDE as my DE and really like it. I'd probably be a bit lost without Konqueror, because then I'd have to find separate programs for all of the various protocols that Konqueror supports on top of file:// (e.g. ftp and samba). It'll also do svn, cvs, and the like if you want to, though I never use GUIs for source control.
> 

I kinda liked KDE3 (and GNOME 2 wasn't too bad either, for the most part). My non-server Linux installations tend to be either Trinity or XFCE these days.

I never thought to try Konqueror as a file manager. My mind always associates it with web browsing.

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 03:23:21 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> 
> That was when I
> acquired a strong distaste for laptops -- I learned that they have
> basically *no* user-serviceable parts


Yea, that is the one thing I really hate about laptops.

*Other* than that, they're like desktops that you can realistically unplug and take with you (abiet with a sub-par keyboard and pointing device when you're using it on-the-go - but that's better than the "nothing" you get on-the-go with a desktop).

On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 19:46:29 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> Ugh, I've been convinced for some time that Skype needs to be a
> *service*, not a "service plus god awful proprietary application".
>
> Maybe they already do, but they *really* need to allow other people to
> write Skype clients. Because they're clearly incompetent at it, and
> while their *service* is great (well, aside from willfully handing all
> your correspondence over to the government without any due process
> whatsoever) their own client applications are by far the biggest
> liability to their own business (aside from the Google-like lack of
> respect for user privacy...but almost nobody cares about that anyway,
> so it's less of a threat to them than their own broken client
> applications are.)
>

That /was/ possible, and  our company is using the engine /naked/ on linux, but...

https://support.skype.com/en/faq/FA12322/what-is-skypekit

Now MS is ending that game, or at least it seems so.

 - Paolo

On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 17:34:27 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
> On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 12:25:44 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi
> wrote:
>> Give me a way to writeln the callstack frames at a certain
>
> Challenge accepted:
>
>
> import std.stdio;
>
> string getStackTrace() {
>          import core.runtime;
>
>          version(Posix) {
>                  // druntime cuts out the first few functions on
> the trace as they are internal
>                  // so we'll make some dummy functions here so our
> actual info doesn't get cut
>                  Throwable.TraceInfo f5() { return
> defaultTraceHandler(); }
>                  Throwable.TraceInfo f4() { return f5(); }
>                  Throwable.TraceInfo f3() { return f4(); }
>                  Throwable.TraceInfo f2() { return f3(); }
>                  auto stuff = f2();
>          } else {
>                  auto stuff = defaultTraceHandler();
>          }
>
>          return stuff.toString();
> }
>
>
> void foo() {
>          writeln("on foo");
>          bar();
> }
>
> void bar() {
>          writeln("on bar");
>          omg();
> }
>
> void omg() {
>          writeln("on omg");
>
>          writeln(getStackTrace());
> }
>
> void main() {
>          omg();
>
>          writeln("\n****\n");
>          foo();
> }


O_o

Adam, this is *really* an unexpected gift!
I suggest to add this example in the core.runtime DDoc at least!

- Paolo

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 09:20:04 -0700
Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, September 14, 2013 05:58:51 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > Those exist?
> > 
> > I've long heard stories about such things, but they seem to be like unicorns or mermaids or bigfoot...fantasy creatures you only ever hear tales "through the grapevine" about. Not so much real evidence or first-hand accounts.
> 
> Lenovo and Dell certainly used to, but I don't know about right now. One company that's definitely still doing it though is System76 (who is one of the Linux Action Show's sponsors). _All_ of the systems that they build are built specifically for Linux (both desktop and laptop). They don't even sell anything with Windows on it. I always build my own desktops, but the next time that I'm in the market for a laptop, I'll probably end up getting one from them.
> 
> www.system76.com
> 

Hmm, that sounds awesome, in many ways, but they appear to be very expensive. Their *cheapest* one is over $800. I certainly don't need a full i7. (I'm on a two-core Intel B960 right now, and it's plenty fast for anything I do, The *only* beef I have with it the ridiculous lack of hardware virtualization - so no 64-bit VMs. But there's an even cheaper model now with an AMD IIRC - so that would have the hardware virtualization, and other specs at least as good as my current one, all for less than $300 for the entire machine. An $800 laptop these days would be overkill unless I was doing CG animations, or professional HD video editing/compositing, or something like that...or using Eclipse...)

Don't really need the 1080 resolution either since I'm usually on an external monitor - 1080 would make everything way too small on a 15" anyway.

On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 19:19:16 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-09-14 16:42, Peter Alexander wrote:
>
>> What does TextMate do better than Sublime? (genuine question)
>
> * It shows file icons and SCM status in the side bar.
> * TextMate 2 has built in support for downloading new bundles. With Sublime I need to download some Python thing and run to be able to download new languages

For bundles/packages in Sublime, I recommend everyone install the Package Control package. I'm surprised it's not built-in by now because every package uses it (1559 packages atm)

https://sublime.wbond.net/

Am 14.09.2013 21:52, schrieb Artur Skawina:
> On 09/14/13 21:15, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>> So much work when one could just call the debugger from running code,
>>
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/f408b4et.aspx
>>
>> at least on Windows. :)
>
>     // version (x86|x86_64)
>     enum __debugbreak = q{asm { "int $3"; }};
>
>     void main() {
>        import std.stdio;
>        auto a = 42;
>        writeln(a);
>        mixin (__debugbreak);
>        writeln(a);
>     }
>

Ah, should have tested on Linux before posting. I was under the impression you could not do an "int 3" from user space.

> ...
>
> DMD might support inline asm too, with a different syntax; never used it.
>

It does, Walter is very keen on it and contrary to C and C++, it is really part of the language's specification.

--
Paulo

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 11:00:35 +0100
Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@ubuntu.com> wrote:

> On Sep 14, 2013 7:21 AM, "Nick Sabalausky" < SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:
> >
> > Heh, I'm sort of the opposite. I've been using Windows from 3.11 through 7, and from Vista onward I've started to really hate Windows more and more (If I wanted to be running a Mac, I'd have gotten a Mac, not two versions of "New Windows: Apple-Envy Edition" followed by "Microsoft UI-Of-The-Month Club").
> >
> > Meanwhile, I've been using Linux more and more for testing and servers, and I'm looking at switching my main OS over to...probably Debian 7, with wine and VirtualBox for the occasional things that don't come in Linux flavor. I just wish I could get a Linux file manager I liked.
> >
> 
> It's not as if window's file manager is any good. :o)
> 

It certainly isn't anymore :(  It took a nosedive in Vista and then
never got any better. And even in XP (and Vista/7, too, and presumably
8) it's terribly inefficient at handling reasonable numbers of
files/directories. The cmd prompt can query and display the
names/attributes of hundreds of files in the blink of an eye.
Why does Explorer often need to sit and wait for several seconds for a
even fraction as many? It's not *that* graphically intensive.

But I love XP Explorer's UI. (YMMV)