On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:45:59 +0200
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 06:15:08 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 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
> 
> I kinda love Windows Vista. The little start menu command line rocks and I missed it back on XP.
> 

That thing's not bad, but I hate the new-style "All Programs". And I get frequent use out of the Win-R shortcut anyway.

On Saturday, September 14, 2013 15:53:18 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> I never thought to try Konqueror as a file manager. My mind always associates it with web browsing.

I actually use it for both, but it's definitely a power user file browser. I've never quite groked why they created Dolphin, because Konqueror is so much better than anything else that I've used (though obviously YMMV) that it just seems weird to me that you'd even consider creating another one, let alone another one that you'd make the default. I think that they were trying to make a file browser that was more newbie-centric, but I don't know. I haven't even opened Dolphin in ages.

- Jonathan m Davis

On Saturday, September 14, 2013 21:37:41 Justin Whear wrote:
> Vim has ctags integration, 'gd' for "Go to definition", and :tag
> somefunction/struct/etc
> When working on a big project it can be very nice to start vim
> with:
>   $ vim -t someFunction
> 
> I usually have a `tags` target in my makefile which uses Dscanner.

When I messed with ctags in the past, I found it to be so primitive that it wasn't worth it. IIRC, it didn't understand enough about C++ to able to properly differentiate between symbols with the same name, and ultimately, it didn't do much better than using grep would have. If it can't jump straight to the correct declaration correctly in pretty much all cases, then it's not worth my time, and it definitely wasn't doing that. I've never tried it with D, but I would generally expect programs like that to do worse with D than with C++.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 2013-09-14 22:32, Peter Alexander wrote:

> 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/

Yes, that's the one I'm talking about.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 21:34:12 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-09-14 22:32, Peter Alexander wrote:
>
>> 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/
>
> Yes, that's the one I'm talking about.

Sorry, thought you meant that you had to run a Python script for every package, my bad.

On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 09:15:35PM +0200, 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. :)
[...]

Well, I haven't used Windows in any significant way for at least a decade, much less did any Windows development, so I think I'll go with Adam Ruppe's solution (which t0t4lly r0x0r5, btw). :-)


T

-- 
He who does not appreciate the beauty of language is not worthy to bemoan its flaws.

Am 14.09.2013 23:55, schrieb H. S. Teoh:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 09:15:35PM +0200, 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. :)
> [...]
>
> Well, I haven't used Windows in any significant way for at least a
> decade, much less did any Windows development, so I think I'll go with
> Adam Ruppe's solution (which t0t4lly r0x0r5, btw). :-)
>
>
> T
>

Well, I used to do it as well, around 1994-99. :)

On 9/14/2013 3:13 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> Plus I seem to be the only Windows user in history who has never said
> "Uhh, ok" to a "Super-helpful web browser toolbar! You'll love it!
> Install now!"


People today keep trying to get me to install this linucks-thingy. "Trust me! It's better than Windows!" Yeah, right :-)

I'm probably the only Mac user in history who doesn't find it intuitive and has to constantly google how to do basic things.

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 03:41:58 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 04:59:16AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 23:55:55 -0700
> > "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> > >
> > > But I dunno, IME, when Windows 3.1 came along, it had so many gratuitous limitations that I said to myself, this sucks! So now I can't have direct access to hardware in the name of "protection", and what do I get in return? Nothing but being straitjacketed into a system that can't even do what I want.
> > 
> > OMG, iOS and Android == Win 3.1! Why did I never notice that before!
> 
> lol...
> 
> I do find Android at least 100 times more usable than iOS, though. There's actually a file manager app that lets me *manage my own files*, for crying out loud. And I can mount the thing as a USB drive and, y'know, transfer files without going through the horror of bad GUI design known as iTunes. And I can change the wallpaper without jailbreaking the contraption, install an alternate keyboard, choose from browsers that don't have to fear retribution from Apple for being too similar to Safari, etc.. Not to mention being able to do something so basic as using an arbitrary mp3 as a ringtone (seriously, *why* does the iPhone require a completely separate subsystem and gratuitously obscure file format just for ringtones? it's not as though in this day and age we don't have generic sound-playing libraries that can handle multiple file formats... and don't get me started on the fact that an i*Pod* refuses to receive a custom ringtone, 'cos it's not a phone, in spite of the fact that the built-in clock chooses from the ringtone catalogue for alarm sounds -- the whole thing is straitjacketed beyond belief).
> 

Yea, "straitjacketed" is absolutely the word for it. I had to carry an iPhone around for much of 2012, and I can't tell you how many times I had an incredible urge to hurl the stupid thing into the nearest concrete wall. Or lodge it into Steve Jobs's skull, but I guess I was about a year late for that :(

> Of course, Android isn't *completely* free of annoyances. A recent one is the inability to completely remove preinstalled apps that I don't use and don't intend to use, because they're "system" apps. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept of Facebook being a "system" app... Sigh.
> 

Ugh, that's a new one to me. Mine was version 4.0 (and rooted so I could also swap in and out of 2.3 plus the CyanogenMod versions of both 4.0 and 2.3). It was *definitely* the better of the two, but there were still plenty of things I hated about Andorid, too:

- Dalvik and Java at the system-level is absurd.

- Battery life was a joke. I'm only speculating here, but I can't help
  wonder if Dalvik was a major reason for that.

- Google clearly hates expandable memory as much as Apple does.

- It's an iOS clone.

- The hardware is an iPhone clone: Capacitive touchscreens and zero
  physical buttons. Bleh, just give me an updated version of Palm's Zire
  71 (with WiFi, PalmOS 6.1+, and for the love of god a
  *user-replaceable* battery)...please! That thing was brilliantly
  designed (aside from the stupid non-replaceable battery which has
  long since rendered my Zire useless).

- Google pushes their anti-privacy "cloud" syncing/storage/etc far more
  heavily than Apple does. Even though they don't outright ban it, they
  clearly don't want you synching directly to machines *you* own,
  whereas Apple seems perfectly happy to let you suffer through iTunes
  in order to bypass their servers.

- Just like Apple, they retain the ability to remotely delete *your*
  apps just in case they feel like it.

- Just like Apple, you can't really install multiple versions of
  stuff or, in most cases, download older versions. Technically maybe
  you can, but if so it's rather "advanced territory".

- I used it as a WiFi-only, but it kept nagging me to activate it every
  time I rebooted it (which I had to do any time I switched OSes).
  There was *no* existing option or even hack to disable that.

- If there's a newer version of the OS, it will nag you and nag you and
  nag you to update regardless of whether you actually want to.

- The view you get when using it as a USB drive is actually a fairly
  censored, straightjacketed view. Not nearly as bad as Apple, but
  still, it takes rooting, some extra work, and maybe also the
  developer tools to access the *real* filesystem.

- Almost *nothing* uses real words. It's all completely meaningless
  arbitrary symbols, often invented on-the-spot for individual programs.

I'm *almost* more interested in Win Phone 8. Except it's butt-ugly, has basically no third-party support (by comparison), and has plenty of its own straitjacketing, too.

That said, Android still makes iOS look like a toy (And I truly do
see iOS devices as little more than toys.) I do kinda want to get an
Android device again, although mainly just because Palm OS 6.1+ devices
don't exist. :(

I'm quite interested in something I've heard Ubuntu was working on: An installation of full-desktop Ubuntu that runs side-by-side with Android, sharing the same kernel, and switches to desktop mode when you connect it to a monitor.

Even before I had heard of them actually *doing* that, I had started to feel something like that had the potential to become the real future of personal computing. Because hell, they're already more than powerful enough. They already connect to HDMI and keyboards/etc. They just need some (more?) virtual memory and an OS/UI that isn't a toy, and that puts them a hair away from being laptop/desktop-killers in probably 99% of use-cases *including* gaming.

Granted, I'm not so enthusiastic about Ubuntu anymore, but still, I really think something like that is the right way to go.

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:38:52 +0200
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 06:57:23 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > Windows and most of the other distros at the time offered: the ability to install a bare minimum system that could still function without *requiring* X11
> 
> 
> oh god X11 was too brutally slow to use on an older computer anyway. Windows 95 was actually fast.
> 

My first introduction to Linux was around 2001 with Mandrake and Red Hat (the two main "newbie-friendly" distros at the time). I couldn't believe how insanely sllloooooow Nautilus was compared to Win98 and Win2k on the same hardware.

Plus, the X11 installation kept completely destroying itself for no apparent reason. One day, a few weeks after the most recent from-scratch OS installation, X would just simply decide not to start. And I never could manage to fix it without yet another OS re-installation.

That, plus the constant tinkering, the awful state of pre-apt/yum packages, and the attitudes of many Linux users at the time left me swearing off Linux and running back to Windows until several years later when I finally gave it another try with "This new Ubuntu thing everyone seems to be talking about."

Boy have things improved. Not perfect, granted, but far better than I had ever expected.

> 
> Actually though now there's the whole qemu/kvm virtualization stuff who's potential I really don't think has been fully explored.

I feel exactly the same way. EVen though I've never been a
big VM-language fan, machine virtualization rocks. (Aside from Intel's
deliberate marginalization of it for anything but high-end.)