In article <t6liej$86g$1@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
<address@not.available> wrote:

>
> >> > optimizing means make it faster.
> >>
> >> No, it doesn't. Not by a long shot.
> >
> > it doesn't?
> >
> >> Though mostly the /effect/ of those
> >> optimalisations is a faster running program.
> >
> > but it does?
> >
> > you just said it doesn't.
>
> Look up the word "means". I'm pretty sure that it doesn't mean what you
> think it does.

i'm pretty sure it does.

i'm also pretty sure that once again, you don't know what you're
talking about, which is why you snipped everything and resorted to
semantic games, as you usually do, rather than discuss the various
points made.

> Kiddo, you have a serious comprehension problem - or that is just the way
> you play your game.

projection.

In article <tVW7Szf6gljiFw+3@a.a>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>
> VB - or any other high-level language - isn't going to be that
> efficient, even if you do optimisation by rewriting it.

maybe not vb, but high level languages with optimizing compilers will
generate *more* efficient and better optimized code than hand coded
assembly in nearly every case, for all sorts of reasons.

> As (I think it
> was) Paul pointed out, a good compiler (or whatever the right word is
> for what processes VB code) can do amazing things, but it's likely never
> to approach real hand-coded code.

that is simply false.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| VB - or any other high-level language - isn't going to be that
| efficient, even if you do optimisation by rewriting it. As (I think it
| was) Paul pointed out, a good compiler (or whatever the right word is
| for what processes VB code) can do amazing things, but it's likely never
| to approach real hand-coded code. However, it's a darn sight easier
| (especially not to miss something that will break something); I suspect
| if I ever do any coding again, it won't be in assembler.

Actually it can be made very efficient. By optimizing
I mean finding more efficient methods and cutting out
wrappers. I might do things the easy way but then
gradually make it more lean. It's slow to use an ActiveX
control that's wrapping a system window, but then one
can use the system window with API calls to make it more
efficient. I can use the GDI API or byte arrays to process
images, but then display them in a VB picture box control
for convenience.

VB compiles to native code. It just provides a lot of optional
training wheels. It's often interesting what ends up being
most efficient. But for most things it's not important. Few things
really need speed. Yet I like to keep it lean and avoid dependencies.
So in general, anything I write runs without support files on
any Windows system. (It needs system libraries and the VB
runtime, but nothing else. No ActiveX controls. No secondary
libraries. No .Net, Java, Python, etc.)

In my own code editor I started out using a VB RichEdit
control, so that I could do color syntax highlighting. Over the
years I tried various improvements. I reduced the references
made in a call to RichTextBox.SelColor, for example, when I
wanted to do something like select "<DIV>" and color it blue.
But that was still a wrapper calling SendMessage on a system
window.
Then over time I began using the EM_ SendMessage API calls
to call the wrapped RTB directly. Eventually I took out the Ax
control and started loading the Windows RichEdit directly, so
that I could handle the message loop myself and have more
functionality than the VB wrapper provided.

So I was using a RichEdit just as any Windows program would
use it -- directly, via API calls, in compiled software...

Eventually I discovered that the fastest way, by far, to do the
color syntax highlighting was to point an integer array at the
text string of code in the editor window and run it through a
tokenizing routine. That allowed me to parse the text numerically.
(For example, with HTML I'd be looping through the array looking
for 60 (<), 62 (>), etc.
The original text string would then get rebuilt, inserting RTF
encoding directly to color the text. I had just assumed that API
calls were fastest. But a string processed without concatenation
is extremely fast, and a RichEdit loads RTF text extremely fast.

It's possible that hand drawing the entire window would be fastest,
but that would be a whole other level of programming.

I find that kind of challenge fun. But it must be practical or
it doesn't hold my interest. It's hard to write software that I
don't need myself.

| >
| > I dabbled a bit in C++ and could see the appeal. Compared
| >to VB it's like riding without a seat belt or a floor. But I just
| >wasn't ambitious enough to master it. And it's a damned ugly
| >language.
| | (I never got into the plusses. I did learn raw C. Yes, there's a
| definite appeal to it. [And definite cliquiness too, which I've been
| guilty of too, though I hope less than some.])

I never knew you were such an oldtimer geek. But actually,
I think both C and C++ are still in big demand. You could probably
get a job, if you could get past the 19 year old HR director. :)

| With PCs, when I came in - probably 1980s, I can't remember - you could
| definitely save money by selecting and assembling the various component
| modules yourself, and also get something very much more what you wanted;
| I think the economic side faded out about the start of XP (not least
| because the cost of Windows shot up about then). Over the years after
| that, the performance of the various bits improved to the extent that,
| although some people do still assemble their own for the ultimate in
| either performance or some other parameter (including appearance!),
| they're very much in the minority: if I go into a branch of PC World
| here now, I'm not sure if I can even find things like memory,
| processors, graphics cards - only ready-built PCs.
|

I'm sitting at a machine I built myself in 2015. About
$400. But hardware prices are way up. And compatibility
is more limited. I'm not sure I'll build again, either. When a
CPU is $250 and a PC is $400, there's no point.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| I think Dan and some others would say that the "control" you want is the
| right to change it _back_ - i. e. they'd say you aren't willing to spend
| the time learning the new way, even if it is actually better.
|

Yes, but better is a matter of opinion. I want the option.
And most of the changes are not necessarily improvements.
They're usually changes to make it easier for the average person
and reduce any impression of bugginess. Some changes are
just to make things look new, like the chrome trim on 2022 cars.

Start Menu in the middle? Fine. Make it movable. There's no
excuse for changing it and making it fixed. That used to be the
design logic. All programs should have the same interface, the
same basic menus, and respect user choice of GUI. So you could
get a new program and immediately know what's on the Edit menu,
for example. Over time those norms have been disrespected. When
I insiatlled Chromium on Raspberry Pi (Linux) it was impossible to
show a menu bar. I can only show a flyout menu from 3 dots on
the upper right. But that's phone design, not desktop design. I'm
not being stubborn to want a menu bar designed for a large screen
and mouse.

| (I don't even know what webp is, though I'm sure I use such pages.)
|

I hadn't noticed it until recently. I was trying to
figure out why a picture wouldn't show in a webpage.
I downloaded the JPG. IrfanView said it's not really a
JPG. It's a webp. ! Yet they named it JPG. So I downloaded
the IV plugin for webp. Now I have exactly one program
that recognizes webp. Yet commercial websites are using
them routinely. I don't even use PNG online, in case
someone's browser can't render it.

| > I can get used to changes, but not inflexibility. I don't care if Bill
| >Gates thinks my frying pan should be on the left and saucepans on
| >the right. I don't care if he thinks my hammers should be where my
| >screwdrivers are and vice versa. I didn't ask him. Nearly all these
| >problems are not about change but about removing choice.
| >
| They would argue that if they let you choose, you'd always choose the
| old way because it's less effort than learning the new way, for a
| benefit that's not always obvious - and thus you'd never benefit.

There you go again. :) Why so passive? You're the one using
the product. You bought it. And as I said, there's a lot more that
goes into design than good design. There's fashion, incompetence,
irrelevant priorities... Recently I bought a new shop vac. 6' cord.
The old one had a 15' cord. Is 6' an improvement? Of course
not. It's all but useless for my purposes. So I spliced the old cord
onto the new one and now I have 21'. So I don't have a carry an
extension cord with my shop vac. That's not stubbornness. It's just
adapting the product to what I actually need. And the short cord
is not design. It's just cost-cutting.

On Wed, 25 May 2022 at 14:50:33, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
[]
> VB compiles to native code. It just provides a lot of optional
>training wheels. It's often interesting what ends up being
>most efficient. But for most things it's not important. Few things
>really need speed.

Indeed.

> Yet I like to keep it lean and avoid dependencies.

I appreciate your efforts in that direction.

>So in general, anything I write runs without support files on
>any Windows system. (It needs system libraries and the VB
>runtime, but nothing else. No ActiveX controls. No secondary
>libraries. No .Net, Java, Python, etc.)

I wish more would do that!
[]
> I find that kind of challenge fun. But it must be practical or
>it doesn't hold my interest. It's hard to write software that I
>don't need myself.
>
Indeed.
>| >
>| > I dabbled a bit in C++ and could see the appeal. Compared
>| >to VB it's like riding without a seat belt or a floor. But I just
>| >wasn't ambitious enough to master it. And it's a damned ugly
>| >language.
>|
>| (I never got into the plusses. I did learn raw C. Yes, there's a
>| definite appeal to it. [And definite cliquiness too, which I've been
>| guilty of too, though I hope less than some.])
>
> I never knew you were such an oldtimer geek. But actually,
>I think both C and C++ are still in big demand. You could probably
>get a job, if you could get past the 19 year old HR director. :)

(-:! I never actually passed any exams in C, and have to refresh my
knowledge occasionally when looking at some code. The computing part of
my electronics degree actually taught us Algol, which I hardly very hear
mention of now - but the _concepts_ are transferrable to C (and some
other languages). I did my degree around 1980.
[]
> I'm sitting at a machine I built myself in 2015. About

Yes, but you're on of those here (wherever "here" is as I started this
in three 'groups - though this probably applies in all three of them).
The average TL;DR Joe Public would never even think of building a PC.
(The younger generation might even not buy a PC as we know it.)

>$400. But hardware prices are way up. And compatibility
>is more limited. I'm not sure I'll build again, either. When a
>CPU is $250 and a PC is $400, there's no point.
>
Indeed.
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

science is not intended to be foolproof. Science is about crawling toward the
truth over time. - Scott Adams, 2015-2-2

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:250520220911064307%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <t6kq46$gg$1@dont-email.me>, wasbit
> <wasbitREMOVE@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There are quite a number of web pages that don't change to reflect the
>> size
>> of the viewing area.
>
> some web designers are incompetent and do not test their work (or if
> they do, they ignore that it doesn't work). however, that is the
> exception, not the rule.
>
>> There are even some that you can't read what is outside the viewing area
>> because there are no scroll bars.
>
> i've never seen that. do you have an example?

Not off hand.
I just swear & move on. It's not something I keep a record of but it's
blasted annoying when you do come across one.

--
Regards
wabit

"wasbit" <wasbitREMOVE@hotmail.com> wrote

| >> There are even some that you can't read what is outside the viewing
area
| >> because there are no scroll bars.
| >
| > i've never seen that. do you have an example?
| | Not off hand.
| I just swear & move on. It's not something I keep a record of but it's
| blasted annoying when you do come across one.
| I've seen it. That's one of the many reasons that I
have a CSS toggle button the the browser toolbar.
I suspect it's another case of trying to make sure the
page won't work without script.

I've even seen pages (Forbes used to do it) where the
basic HTML is put into script in the page. So nothing is
there unless you let the script run. And the script's job
is the write the HTML to the document! That's not an easy
thing to accomplish. The only possible reason is the break the
webpage for people blocking spying and personalized ads.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| I think Dan and some others would say that the "control" you want is the
| right to change it _back_ - i. e. they'd say you aren't willing to spend
| the time learning the new way, even if it is actually better.
| I saw an article this AM that reminded me of this
discussion:

https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-sued-by-family-of-man-died-model-s-fire-2019-10?op=1

A man crashed his Tesla, the battery caught fire, then he
burned to death because only the car's computer can decide
when to make the door handles accessible, so bystanders
couldn't open the doors to help the man get out. That comes
on top of numerous reports of people killed by faulty auto-pilot
functionality. Yet people are determined to make cars self
driving. Why? Because it's the future, and the future is better.

Mayayana wrote:

> A man crashed his Tesla, the battery caught fire, then he
> burned to death because only the car's computer can decide
> when to make the door handles accessible, so bystanders
> couldn't open the doors to help the man get out.

I thought Elon demonstrated that Tesla windows *are* still breakable?

On 5/26/2022 7:56 AM, Mayayana wrote:
> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
>
> | I think Dan and some others would say that the "control" you want is the
> | right to change it _back_ - i. e. they'd say you aren't willing to spend
> | the time learning the new way, even if it is actually better.
> |
> I saw an article this AM that reminded me of this
> discussion:
>
> https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-sued-by-family-of-man-died-model-s-fire-2019-10?op=1
>
> A man crashed his Tesla, the battery caught fire, then he
> burned to death because only the car's computer can decide
> when to make the door handles accessible, so bystanders
> couldn't open the doors to help the man get out. That comes
> on top of numerous reports of people killed by faulty auto-pilot
> functionality. Yet people are determined to make cars self
> driving. Why? Because it's the future, and the future is better.
>

"A man crashed his Tesla"

The tempered glass will break, if you apply one of
those spring-loaded window breaker tools to it.

But there's a technique. Like operating RAID hard drives,
it's "practice, practice, practice" :-/ You do that in
a corner of the window, rather than dead center.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TM5r37a3ng

Those tools also include a belt-cutter, for when
you're upside-down and the mechanism is jammed. You want the
tool to be located where you can reach it in the car.
The glove box would be a daft storage location. I don't
expect cutting a belt to be easy.

And the "big ole round boulder" works too. That's how
they got into my car one day, to relieve the car of some tools.
They even left the boulder behind, as a souvenir. Thoughtful.
The tools were out-of-sight, so a passerby, while I had the
trunk open, probably saw the tools and passed the word along.

Paul

On 5/26/2022 7:24 AM, Mayayana wrote:
> "wasbit" <wasbitREMOVE@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> | >> There are even some that you can't read what is outside the viewing
> area
> | >> because there are no scroll bars.
> | >
> | > i've never seen that. do you have an example?
> |
> | Not off hand.
> | I just swear & move on. It's not something I keep a record of but it's
> | blasted annoying when you do come across one.
> |
> I've seen it. That's one of the many reasons that I
> have a CSS toggle button the the browser toolbar.
> I suspect it's another case of trying to make sure the
> page won't work without script.
>
> I've even seen pages (Forbes used to do it) where the
> basic HTML is put into script in the page. So nothing is
> there unless you let the script run. And the script's job
> is the write the HTML to the document! That's not an easy
> thing to accomplish. The only possible reason is the break the
> webpage for people blocking spying and personalized ads.

I've seen the webpage without the scroll bars too, but not lately.
It could have been a passing fad.

And there is a way to make extra large display surfaces... on Linux.
With an extra large display surface, we don't need stinkin scroll bars.
Because I just tested this yesterday :-) This is an easier procedure
than it used to be (editing Xorg.conf not necessary). The gsettings
steps are only if you want to clean up the desktop for photo work
(fewer distractions).

***************** Copy/Pasta ******************
Tested on Ubuntu 20.04 with Gnome desktop.

xrandr # discover names of outputs

xrandr --output HDMI-0 --panning 1280x10000 # my small screen, panning in Y only

gsettings set org.gnome.desktop.background picture-uri none # remove bkgd
gsettings set org.gnome.desktop.background primary-color '#3ea5a6" # pick a color

firefox http://something.interesting & # Compose the screenshot

sleep 10 ; xwd -root -out xwd.xwdump # delay time to iconify terminal.
# xwdump is to allow verification that
# output is 24-bit. (51,203,179 bytes)
# (32-bit pixels manipulate faster)

Opened with GIMP, it looks pretty good. This is scaled down 8x
and just to show the coverage of Yahoo News graphics is decent.

https://i.postimg.cc/qqYDckcZ/proof-print.jpg
***************** End Copy/Pasta ******************

Paul

"Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote

| The tempered glass will break, if you apply one of
| those spring-loaded window breaker tools to it.
|

I wondered about that. But I suppose it was probably
a time issue. People tried to get him out... no handle... now
what... woops. Too late.

In article <t6npte$kv7$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-sued-by-family-of-man-died-model-s-fire-
> 2019-10?op=1
>
> A man crashed his Tesla, the battery caught fire, then he
> burned to death because only the car's computer can decide
> when to make the door handles accessible, so bystanders
> couldn't open the doors to help the man get out.

that sounds like yet another frivolous lawsuit.

the link states that the vehicle veered off a parkway and hit a palm
tree. that sounds like he wasn't paying attention and driving in an
unsafe manner, which means that the door handles aren't the reason he
died.

many serious crashes result in doors becoming inoperable, which is why
there's the 'jaws of life', to extract people from such wrecks.

it is *not* unique to tesla.

> That comes
> on top of numerous reports of people killed by faulty auto-pilot
> functionality.

now compare that number versus the numerous reports of people killed by
faulty human drivers, including those who are drunk, distracted and
incompetent.

those crashes don't make the news because there are so many of them to
report. people just accept the fact that humans fuck up and crash into
things.

normalized to vehicle miles traveled, autonomous vehicles are safer
than human drivers.

there are approximately 40k vehicle fatalities in the usa per year,
which is more than 100 deaths *per* *day*. many, many more are injured.

keep in mind that some of those crashes are the fault of new and
inexperienced drivers, some of whom do not even have a license and are
driving with a learner's permit, still learning what to do and not do.

here's just a few examples:
<https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/disaster/2013/06/28/teen-killed-in-
car-wreck/23668046007/>
Jacob had just passed his driver¹s license test early this morning,
only a few hours before the Chevrolet Cavalier he was driving hit a
utility pole, Cvetan said.

Jacob was thrown from the car and died at the scene. His passengers ‹
sisters who are Jacob¹s cousins, Renee N. Farmer, 15, and Janay E.
Farmer, 16, both of Columbus ‹ also were thrown from the car.

<https://nypost.com/2022/02/10/girl-killed-by-driver-with-learners-permi
t-ided-as-davina-afokoba/>
The distraught mother of the 10-girl-old girl who was fatally struck
by a motorist with only a learner¹s permit tearfully described her
youngest daughter Thursday as her ³baby² and her ³mini-me.²

<https://gothamist.com/news/teen-driver-with-learners-permit-kills-4-fri
ends-in-southern-state-parkway-crash>
Yesterday, a Subaru swerved off the road on the westbound Southern
State Parkway between exits 17 and 18 and then crashed into the
woods, killing four passengers. The driver survived and has been
identified as Queens resident Joseph Beer, 17‹and he only had a
learner's permit.

> Yet people are determined to make cars self
> driving. Why?

because it will greatly reduce the number of injuries and fatalities
compared to human drivers.

the number of crashes will never be zero, nor does it need to be.

crashes will still occur with autonomous vehicles, just not as many nor
as severe, which is a significant benefit that will save many lives and
reduce and eliminate many injuries.

it only needs to be less than with human drivers, which sadly, is not
that difficult.

> Because it's the future, and the future is better.

it is. try it sometime. the water's warm. join in the fun.

On Thu, 26 May 2022 at 07:56:30, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
>
>| I think Dan and some others would say that the "control" you want is the
>| right to change it _back_ - i. e. they'd say you aren't willing to spend
>| the time learning the new way, even if it is actually better.
>|
> I saw an article this AM that reminded me of this
>discussion:
>
>https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-sued-by-family-of-man-died-model-s
>-fire-2019-10?op=1
>
> A man crashed his Tesla, the battery caught fire, then he
>burned to death because only the car's computer can decide
>when to make the door handles accessible, so bystanders
>couldn't open the doors to help the man get out. That comes
>on top of numerous reports of people killed by faulty auto-pilot
>functionality. Yet people are determined to make cars self
>driving. Why? Because it's the future, and the future is better.
>
>
Normally, I strongly dislike people who say things like "straw man", but
.... "numerous reports of people killed by faulty auto-pilot
>functionality" is not the same as "all self-driving cars should be
banned". (As another has pointed out, in terms of passenger-miles,
they've probably passed human drivers already.)

The car door handles thing was indeed something that needed looking
into. I presume it has been, and recalls (for reprogramming) issued if
necessary.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... a series about a grumpy old man who lives in a phone box is unlikely to
have been commissioned these days. 798 episodes later ...

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in
news:Tq9EtBhVyljiFw7N@a.a:

> On Tue, 24 May 2022 at 16:14:43, Mayayana
> <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote (my responses usually
> FOLLOW): []
>> I think I feel the same way. But the main thing for me
>> is control.
>>They want to put the Start menu in the middle? OK. But can
>>I move it if I want to? Each version has made it harder to
>>change things to the way I find convenient. Ribbon menus?
>>OK. But why can't they also be switched back? I want to be
>>able to cruise at top speed, without thinking about it. I
>>don't want to be zipping along and suddenly get a big
>>window asking whether I want to copy a file, replace it, or
>>add with a different name. Huh? Shut up! All I need is a
>>simple message: Overwrite existing file?
>
> I think Dan and some others would say that the "control"
> you want is the right to change it _back_ - i. e. they'd
> say you aren't willing to spend the time learning the new
> way, even if it is actually better.

That is one thing I may have been trying to say.

You mention Classic Shell below, because, of course the 'Live Tiles' menu is
horrificaly nasty.

....but, some people like it? (They do. The question mark is my disbelief.)

So, I can cry about it and suffer thoruhg it like a martyr, I can write my own (which I'm
not going to do, again) or I can use free Classic Shell, or pay $5 for the Stardock Startx
offering.

In fact, I chose to buy the Stardock Suite, because for $50 (at the time) I found several
of the included titles of use. At one time, I would just have procurred a cracked copy,
but, now can afford, to some extent, software I find useful.)
>
> I'm with you (-: - my Win7 screen looks very like my 98SE
> one did. Basically, I've developed "muscle memory" - and
> similar phrases - for how to do things, in some cases very
> quickly, and I get cross when a change is _imposed_ on me.
> But I do concede that _sometimes_ "the new way" is better,

<SNIP>

Except with the Windows 10 GUI. WindowBlinds is anohter very useful utility out of that
suite I use. It works very, very well (for me) and is nothing like that buggy, crash
inducing cr*p that was introduced a tthe end of the last millennium.

I just feel the flat, square, "window decorations" are a huge step backwards from
Windows 7. And, as you can see, I called them "window decorations" because that's
what the *nix term is. In *nix, it;s just built in that you can change all that stuff to suite
your liking.

Many people like the flat, ugly look of Windows 3.x. Not me. Sure, it doesn't add any
productivity, but it doesn't cause any loss of productivity either.

One thing that is a HUUUUUUUUUUGE improvement in Win10 over 7, is the boot time.

Sure, it doesn't matter THAT much, because all my home PCs and work PCs are on
24/7, but when I do need to reboot....

"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote in
news:t6lvbb$khe$1@dont-email.me:

> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
>
>| I think Dan and some others would say that the "control"
>| you want is the right to change it _back_ - i. e. they'd
>| say you aren't willing to spend the time learning the new
>| way, even if it is actually better.
>|
>
> Yes, but better is a matter of opinion. I want the
> option.
> And most of the changes are not necessarily improvements.
> They're usually changes to make it easier for the average
> person and reduce any impression of bugginess. Some changes
> are just to make things look new, like the chrome trim on
> 2022 cars.

....perhaps Linux is what you are looking for ?

Nearly cpletely customizable, with almost all source code avaliable for you to customize it
exactly how you want it.

"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote

| ...perhaps Linux is what you are looking for ?
| | Nearly cpletely customizable, with almost all source code avaliable for
you to customize it
| exactly how you want it.

It might come to that. But I have a lot of expertise
invested in Windows. And now Linux is starting to go
the other way.

The way I used to see it was that Macs were a sportscar
with the hood welded shut. Good as fashion accessories or
to pick up groceries, but not so practical. And way too cute
and sleazy. Linux was like a car kit for greasemonkeys. Windows
was in between, providing tools for any level of expertise.
A basic, useful car. It could be what I wanted and there was
loads of software. MS were catering to corporate workers, so
they focused on usability, customizing, good tools for writing
software, and amazing backward compatibility.

Now Windows is going south fast. MS are trying to sneak into
my driveway and replace my car with a taxi. But Linux is going
in the direction of Mac, with a kind of split personality. On one
extreme it's still an unfriendly car kit, with a culture of unsocialized
geeks who squeal at the very idea of having to write documentation.
At the other extreme it's becoming locked down. Software installs
and updates have become automated. I'm increasingly faced with
either having no options or digging down into /etc.

Awhile back I repeated an occasional experiment: I download
various Linux installers and try them out. I have a basic usability
test: Can I install an easy-to-use firewall to block outgoing
processes? Can I set it up the way I want it without resorting to
console windows? Is WINE perhaps good enough to run my
Windows software? For years now my test fails quickly. The designers
are people who only see engineers and dummies. Programmers
and grandmas. Last time I tried, I think it was Red Hat that
overwrote my boot manager without asking and had no option
to install without doing that. I asked in a reddit group. I was told
that it's supposed to do that. "No one understands multibooting.
Too much trouble." Huh?! Another version demanded a password
during setup, but I hadn't configured a password. It was a nightmare.
In no time I was back into commandline and online research; in
some case before I even got the thing installed! Then, of course,
the Linux freaks screamed at me when I complained on Reddit.
It's always their way or the highway... Yes, you can have it whatever
way you like, if you want to rewrite it yourself.

I remember a story about Richard Stallman. It seems that he
was at some kind of conference, giving a talk. A man got up and
said he was having trouble getting Stallman's compiler to work.
Stallman answered, "Then write your own." :)

"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote

| I just feel the flat, square, "window decorations" are a huge step
backwards from
| Windows 7.

That's an interesting thing to my mind. Design fads seem to
go in patterns. Pre-industrial cultures often celebrate bright
colors because they're rare. In the 60s we had day-glo. Today
you can have pretty much any color you like. So what happens?
People fret over tiny differences between off-white and dustball
hues. Similarly, GUIs were big on 3-D and curves, until that
became easy. Then flat with subtle colors started being the thing.
We always want what we don't have.

Similarly, maple cabinets were the only thing to buy for decades,
as tech became tendy and people wanted slick. Maple is among
the least "woody" woods. These days the trend is all over, with
dark stains and painted colors being popular. But oak is making a
slight comeback, as we worry about losing natural landscapes.

"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote in
news:t6tfdg$lfb$1@dont-email.me:

> Awhile back I repeated an occasional experiment: I
> download
> various Linux installers and try them out. I have a basic
> usability test: Can I install an easy-to-use firewall to
> block outgoing processes? Can I set it up the way I want it
> without resorting to console windows? Is WINE perhaps good
> enough to run my Windows software? For years now my test
> fails quickly. The designers are people who only see
> engineers and dummies. Programmers and grandmas. Last time
> I tried, I think it was Red Hat that overwrote my boot
> manager without asking and had no option to install without
> doing that. I asked in a reddit group. I was told that it's
> supposed to do that. "No one understands multibooting. Too
> much trouble." Huh?! Another version demanded a password
> during setup, but I hadn't configured a password. It was a
> nightmare. In no time I was back into commandline and
> online research; in some case before I even got the thing
> installed! Then, of course, the Linux freaks screamed at me
> when I complained on Reddit. It's always their way or the
> highway... Yes, you can have it whatever way you like, if
> you want to rewrite it yourself.
>
> I remember a story about Richard Stallman. It seems that
> he
> was at some kind of conference, giving a talk. A man got up
> and said he was having trouble getting Stallman's compiler
> to work. Stallman answered, "Then write your own." :)

LOL!!! ***THAT'S*** what you remeber of Richard Stallman?

First thing that comes to mind when I hear his name...is the time he was giving a
lecture about FOSS, I think it was, and he proceeded to take off one of his shoes, then
the sock, then dug something from between his toes....and ate it, right there on stage.

It made me almost want to hurl....

In article <XnsAEA58B3F3EF86thisnthatroadrunnern@216.166.97.131>, DanS
<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:

> > I remember a story about Richard Stallman. It seems that
> > he
> > was at some kind of conference, giving a talk. A man got up
> > and said he was having trouble getting Stallman's compiler
> > to work. Stallman answered, "Then write your own." :)
>
> LOL!!! ***THAT'S*** what you remeber of Richard Stallman?
>
> First thing that comes to mind when I hear his name...is the time he was
> giving a
> lecture about FOSS, I think it was, and he proceeded to take off one of his
> shoes, then
> the sock, then dug something from between his toes....and ate it, right there on stage.

stallman would sexually harass women at mit (and elsewhere).

as it turns out, he hates plants, so women kept lots of plants in their
offices to repel him.

there is also the 'anyone but stallman' license:
<https://github.com/benlk/misc-licenses/blob/master/stallman-license.md>
1 The licensed work may not be used by GNU RMS or his descendants.