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!
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.
"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.
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.
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.
On 2023-11-17, Tyrone <none@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.
I can't stand that lying, bragging jerkwad.
On Nov 17, 2023 at 8:59:55 PM EST, "RonB" <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-11-17, Tyrone <none@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.
On 2023-11-18, Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:
On Nov 17, 2023 at 8:59:55 PM EST, "RonB" <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-11-17, Tyrone <none@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.
--
"Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good."
-- Archbishop Charles J. Chaput
On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 05:46:00 -0000 (UTC)
RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-11-18, Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:
On Nov 17, 2023 at 8:59:55 PM EST, "RonB" <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: >> >
On 2023-11-17, Tyrone <none@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.
--
"Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good."
-- Archbishop Charles J. Chaput
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.
Once again you have no clue what you are talking about. All code gets translated (not "reduced") to machine language (not assembly language).
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?)
On 2023-11-18, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 05:46:00 -0000 (UTC)
RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-11-18, Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:
On Nov 17, 2023 at 8:59:55 PM EST, "RonB" <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-11-17, Tyrone <none@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.
--
"Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good."
-- Archbishop Charles J. Chaput
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.
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.
--
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.
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.
On Nov 17, 2023 at 8:59:55 PM EST, "RonB" <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-11-17, Tyrone <none@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.
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.
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.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What a supreme dunce!
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.
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.
On 2023-11-17 11:25 p.m., Tyrone wrote:
On Nov 17, 2023 at 8:59:55 PM EST, "RonB" <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-11-17, Tyrone <none@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.
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.
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.
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"?
Le 18-11-2023, Borax Man <rotflol2@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
On 2023-11-18, RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
On 2023-11-17 11:25 p.m., Tyrone wrote:
On Nov 17, 2023 at 8:59:55 PM EST, "RonB" <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: >>
On 2023-11-17, Tyrone <none@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.
--
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.
DFS <nospam@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.
DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
On 11/18/2023 5:43 PM, Joel wrote:
DFS <nospam@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 isThe well-structured Filesystem Hierarchy Standard used by Linux is, of >>>> course, derived from Unix from the late 70s.
that its file organization just seems to make more sense than Windows. >>>>
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.
On 11/18/2023 5:43 PM, Joel wrote:
DFS <nospam@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
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?
Joel wrote:
DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:no you're not
FHS is a reference for how Linux files are organized:
/
/bin
/dev
/etc
/home/DFS
/proc
I'm familiar with it.
% <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:
Joel wrote:
DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:no you're not
FHS is a reference for how Linux files are organized:
/
/bin
/dev
/etc
/home/DFS
/proc
I'm familiar with it.
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.
DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:I like is
On 11/18/2023 5:43 PM, Joel wrote:
DFS <nospam@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
Windows.that its file organization just seems to make more sense than
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.
On 11/18/2023 8:00 PM, Joel wrote:
DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:I like is
On 11/18/2023 5:43 PM, Joel wrote:
DFS <nospam@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
Windows.that its file organization just seems to make more sense than
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).
On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 20:59:07 -0000 (UTC)
RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-11-18, RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
On 2023-11-17 11:25 p.m., Tyrone wrote:
On Nov 17, 2023 at 8:59:55 PM EST, "RonB" <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>
On 2023-11-17, Tyrone <none@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'.
On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 21:41:07 -0500, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote in <7Be6N.61489$svP4.22060@fx12.iad>:
On 11/18/2023 8:00 PM, Joel wrote:
> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 11/18/2023 5:43 PM, Joel wrote:
>>> DFS <nospam@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).
$ 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.
One can change WINEPREFIX to point to another installation of WINE.
but why would you
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?
On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 19:36:57 -0500, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote in
<DMc6N.33690$Ee89.15418@fx17.iad>:
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?
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.
i don't see what good any of this is just to post in usenetI'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.
On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 19:36:57 -0500
DFS <nospam@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.
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.
On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 19:36:57 -0500, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote in <DMc6N.33690$Ee89.15418@fx17.iad>:
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?
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.
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).
I just don't like how the use of terms related to each other has to
always be differentiated
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.
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.
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).
I just don't like how the use of terms related to each other has to
always be differentiated
Because there is nothing in common. Stop showing every one you don't >understand what you are speaking of. It's not about what you like, it's
about what is.
I know the
difference between the terms you're using, they are meaningless here,
together the components of Unix and its flavors create a file system,
What the hell? Are you high and drunk now?
I stand by what I wrote.
You shouldn't. It's like saying a road and a car are exactly the same
thing and you don't like to differentiate them because the only thing
that matter is the possibility to go from a point to another.
Here you are not alone in your own world, you are speaking to others. So
you need to have the same way to express yourself.
organization is definitely a key part of that, as it is with NTFS.
The file system (ext4, NTFS, ZFS, etc) is irrelevant to the file layout.
And yet your initial reply talked about "file system hierarchy", as if
it's very closely related to what you're calling distinctly the file
system.
It is. On the same file system hierarchy, you can have your hard drive,
with some partition, the RAM and some USB sticks. And with only one file >system hierarchy, you can have many filesystem.
And the USB stick can go from a file system hierarchy to another (from a
VM to another or from a computer to another) and its file system will stay >the same.
Windows is in that way "WinDOS" as Chris would say, but it works fine.
The first step. Last time you didn't speak about Windows but about
Winblows or something like that.
I just like Linux because it doesn't get in my way,
For how long?
I'm not sacrificing anything for the imaginary Windows quality of
experience.
Wait and see.
DFS <nospam@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.
The well-structured Filesystem Hierarchy Standard used by Linux is, of >>>>>>> course, derived from Unix from the late 70s.
specs
https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/fhs.shtml
File systems are a dime a dozen. Unix has a good one, though.
You might be confusing file system with file organization.
ext4 and NTFS are file systems.
Confusing them? Where do you get off talking such moronic crap, like
you're some guru who praises Microsoft, Winblows and Office daily in
the Linux advocacy group? You're a laughingstock.
I'm concerned about you, Jesus... I mean Joel. Why are you flying off
the handle?
I just don't like how the use of terms related to each other has to
always be differentiated according to some meaningless BS,
File systems (ext*, NTFS, ZFS, btrfs) and file organization (codified in
the FHS document) are not related in any way.
File systems are software. The FHS is a just a standard for where files
on *nix should be stored, regardless of the file system being used.
file
organization is a distinct concept yes, but it's a component of how an
OS creates a live file system,
'Filesystem Hierarchy Standard' is a little bit of a confusing name;
File Layout Standard or File Placement Standard would be more intuitive.
you're not wrong that ext4 and NTFS are
more properly low level aspects of it, but what we think of as "NTFS"
includes the Windows organization structure, > as would the overall
"Linux file system" include that of Unix, even though it's not
dependent on ext4 as such.
Incorrect. NTFS- or ext*-partitioned devices do not include the OS file >organization - unless and until the OS places them on it.
Format a USB key as NTFS or ext4 and it has no knowledge whatsoever of
the OS.
I know the
difference between the terms you're using, they are meaningless here,
together the components of Unix and its flavors create a file system,
What the hell? Are you high and drunk now?
I stand by what I wrote.
OK. It's still nonsense.
organization is definitely a key part of that, as it is with NTFS.
The file system (ext4, NTFS, ZFS, etc) is irrelevant to the file layout.
And yet your initial reply talked about "file system hierarchy", as if
it's very closely related to what you're calling distinctly the file
system.
'Filesystem Hierarchy' isn't my terminology.
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.
Usually it's not imaginary - it's a fine OS experience. Plenty good
enough. It's gotten better with the new Windows Terminal and WSL. I
also like putting the icons in the middle bottom; on this wide screen
having them on the left means a lot of eyeball shifting or head turning.
The splitting of system controls between Control Panel and Settings is
bogus, but MS was between a rock (hundreds of millions of existing
users) and a hard place (moving toward the future).
Again, retard, just because you joined the group at the same time, in
which, I experimented with*returning to* Win10, in 2021, on my old
computer, that doesn't negate the two years*before* that, when I ran
Linux exclusively, and after the Win10 experiment until I built the
new computer, nor the fact that I am running it now on the new
computer.
Again, retard, just because you joined the group at the same time, in
which, I experimented with*returning to* Win10, in 2021, on my old
computer, that doesn't negate the two years*before* that, when I ran
Linux exclusively, and after the Win10 experiment until I built the
new computer, nor the fact that I am running it now on the new
computer.
That is some serious oxy-English.
On 2023-11-19 7:04 p.m., DFS wrote:
On 11/19/2023 6:01 PM, Joel wrote:
Again, retard, just because you joined the group at the same time, in
which, I experimented with*returning to* Win10, in 2021, on my old
computer, that doesn't negate the two years*before* that, when I ran
Linux exclusively, and after the Win10 experiment until I built the
new computer, nor the fact that I am running it now on the new
computer.
That is some serious oxy-English.
I guess that's what extended exposure to "girl cock" does to a person.
On 11/19/2023 6:01 PM, Joel wrote:
Again, retard, just because you joined the group at the same time, in
which, I experimented with*returning to* Win10, in 2021, on my old
computer, that doesn't negate the two years*before* that, when I ran
Linux exclusively, and after the Win10 experiment until I built the
new computer, nor the fact that I am running it now on the new
computer.
That is some serious oxy-English.
On 11/18/2023 8:00 PM, Joel wrote:
DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:I like is
On 11/18/2023 5:43 PM, Joel wrote:
DFS <nospam@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
Windows.that its file organization just seems to make more sense than
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).
On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 07:54:00 -0500, DFS wrote:
OLE's been around for 30+ years. In Word 2003: Insert | Object |
Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet and you can work with an Excel sheet object
right there in Word (default size 10x7). When you save the file, it's
one Word .doc (no need to save a separate Excel file).
The horror... COM has many bizarre features inherited from DDE that was developed with VB in mind, like BSTR.
The Unix system becomes a mess when you lose track of what files
belong to what programs. At least with DOS, you know that C:\GRAPHWIZ contained the program Graphwiz and if you wanted to remove it, you
just delete that directory. With Unix, you need either a package
manager, or to keep the original makefile so you can do a 'make
remove', otherwise you'll have real difficulty cleaning the program
out. Windows (mostly) follows the DOS way.
On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 09:34:44 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
The Unix system becomes a mess when you lose track of what files
belong to what programs. At least with DOS, you know that C:\GRAPHWIZ
contained the program Graphwiz and if you wanted to remove it, you
just delete that directory. With Unix, you need either a package
manager, or to keep the original makefile so you can do a 'make
remove', otherwise you'll have real difficulty cleaning the program
out. Windows (mostly) follows the DOS way.
The PATH and LD_LIBRARY_PATH variables would need to contain thousands
of directories for this to work.
But one could set variables during the build of a particular package
to point to different installation paths, i.e. --prefix=/usr/package
There is also GNU Stow:
https://www.gnu.org/software/stow/
GNU/Linux is very flexible.
On 2023-11-19, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
On 11/18/2023 8:00 PM, Joel wrote:
DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:I like is
On 11/18/2023 5:43 PM, Joel wrote:
DFS <nospam@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
Windows.that its file organization just seems to make more sense than
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).
The Unix system becomes a mess when you lose track of what files
belong to what programs. At least with DOS, you know that C:\GRAPHWIZ contained the program Graphwiz and if you wanted to remove it, you
just delete that directory. With Unix, you need either a package
manager, or to keep the original makefile so you can do a 'make
remove', otherwise you'll have real difficulty cleaning the program
out. Windows (mostly) follows the DOS way.
Now with Linux, you have /opt, which is a place to put programs that
install in their own directory, so now you have both programs in /bin,
/lib etc AND some which are just put all in their own directory. Then
on top of that, you have Flatpak and Snaps, and it becomes a mess!
The Unix system becomes a mess when you lose track of what files
belong to what programs. At least with DOS, you know that C:\GRAPHWIZ contained the program Graphwiz and if you wanted to remove it, you
just delete that directory. With Unix, you need either a package
manager, or to keep the original makefile so you can do a 'make
remove', otherwise you'll have real difficulty cleaning the program
out. Windows (mostly) follows the DOS way.
Now with Linux, you have /opt, which is a place to put programs that
install in their own directory, so now you have both programs in /bin,
/lib etc AND some which are just put all in their own directory. Then
on top of that, you have Flatpak and Snaps, and it becomes a mess!
DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
The well-structured Filesystem Hierarchy Standard used by Linux is, of >>>>>>>> course, derived from Unix from the late 70s.
specs
https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/fhs.shtml
File systems are a dime a dozen. Unix has a good one, though.
You might be confusing file system with file organization.
ext4 and NTFS are file systems.
Confusing them? Where do you get off talking such moronic crap, like >>>>> you're some guru who praises Microsoft, Winblows and Office daily in >>>>> the Linux advocacy group? You're a laughingstock.
I'm concerned about you, Jesus... I mean Joel. Why are you flying off >>>> the handle?
I just don't like how the use of terms related to each other has to
always be differentiated according to some meaningless BS,
File systems (ext*, NTFS, ZFS, btrfs) and file organization (codified in
the FHS document) are not related in any way.
File systems are software. The FHS is a just a standard for where files
on *nix should be stored, regardless of the file system being used.
Blah, blah, blah, that was even more boring than the French fuck's
rambling.
file
organization is a distinct concept yes, but it's a component of how an
OS creates a live file system,
'Filesystem Hierarchy Standard' is a little bit of a confusing name;
File Layout Standard or File Placement Standard would be more intuitive.
Oh, really, so their name supports my argument, and you decide to
overrule their name for their product. Another DFS narcissism fail.
you're not wrong that ext4 and NTFS are
more properly low level aspects of it, but what we think of as "NTFS"
includes the Windows organization structure, > as would the overall
"Linux file system" include that of Unix, even though it's not
dependent on ext4 as such.
Incorrect. NTFS- or ext*-partitioned devices do not include the OS file
organization - unless and until the OS places them on it.
Format a USB key as NTFS or ext4 and it has no knowledge whatsoever of
the OS.
Not even relevant to what I said.
I know theWhat the hell? Are you high and drunk now?
difference between the terms you're using, they are meaningless here, >>>>> together the components of Unix and its flavors create a file system, >>>>
I stand by what I wrote.
OK. It's still nonsense.
"Nonsense" that refuted you and the French fuck.
And yet your initial reply talked about "file system hierarchy", as iforganization 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. >>>
it's very closely related to what you're calling distinctly the file
system.
'Filesystem Hierarchy' isn't my terminology.
But you do see how it makes the point I'm making, I hope.
On 11/20/2023 4:34 AM, Borax Man wrote:
The Unix system becomes a mess when you lose track of what files
belong to what programs. At least with DOS, you know that C:\GRAPHWIZ
contained the program Graphwiz and if you wanted to remove it, you
just delete that directory. With Unix, you need either a package
manager, or to keep the original makefile so you can do a 'make
remove', otherwise you'll have real difficulty cleaning the program
out. Windows (mostly) follows the DOS way.
Now with Linux, you have /opt, which is a place to put programs that
install in their own directory, so now you have both programs in /bin,
/lib etc AND some which are just put all in their own directory. Then
on top of that, you have Flatpak and Snaps, and it becomes a mess!
Linux liars like to claim uninstalls are done perfectly, that no orphan
files are left behind, blah blah
Turns out there are about a dozen Linux apps built specifically to come behind the bogus uninstalls and fix what they screwed up.
BleachBit
Computer Janitor
Cruft
dupeclean
FSlint
GCleaner
Gconf-Cleaner
GtkOrphan/deborphan
KDE Sweeper
KleanSweep
Linux Disk Cleaner
lostfiles
Synaptic Residual Config
Ubuntu Cleaner
I just don't like how the use of terms related to each other has to
always be differentiated according to some meaningless BS,
File systems (ext*, NTFS, ZFS, btrfs) and file organization (codified in >>> the FHS document) are not related in any way.
File systems are software. The FHS is a just a standard for where files >>> on *nix should be stored, regardless of the file system being used.
Blah, blah, blah, that was even more boring than the French fuck's
rambling.
Stephane and I explained the difference. Do you understand yet?
You're not the only one that's confused. This article conflates the two >topics as well:
https://www.scaler.com/topics/linux-tutorial/file-system-of-linux/
* "The Linux file system is the structure that the Linux operating
system uses to organize and store files and data on a computer."
* "There is a wide range of file systems available in Linux..."
Both statements cannot be true. The first is false.
you're not wrong that ext4 and NTFS are
more properly low level aspects of it, but what we think of as "NTFS"
includes the Windows organization structure, > as would the overall
"Linux file system" include that of Unix, even though it's not
dependent on ext4 as such.
Incorrect. NTFS- or ext*-partitioned devices do not include the OS file >>> organization - unless and until the OS places them on it.
Format a USB key as NTFS or ext4 and it has no knowledge whatsoever of
the OS.
Not even relevant to what I said.
Joel: "what we think of as 'NTFS' includes the Windows organization >structure"
That's what YOU think of as NTFS, but that is not correct. The NTFS
file system is completely unrelated to the directory structure of Windows.
your initial reply talked about "file system hierarchy", as if
it's very closely related to what you're calling distinctly the file
system.
'Filesystem Hierarchy' isn't my terminology.
But you do see how it makes the point I'm making, I hope.
When you say "File systems are a dime a dozen. Unix has a good one,
though." you're displaying confusion. *nix doesn't have one file system
- it supports dozens. It does have one file layout standard, though.
Not that every distro or app developer follows it to the letter.
On 2023-11-21 7:09 a.m., DFS wrote:
I'll give you a quick story about how well Linux Mint just worked out
for my mother. To say the least, I am going to be driving across the
city through traffic today to put my mom's original hard disk back into
her Intel NUC because Mint fucked everything up for her.
1) Windows 11 was slow
2) I gave her my 512GB SSD with Linux Mint on it. It worked here.
3) Once she got home, her printer didn't work and she had no sound.
4) I painfully guided her through the process of installing TeamViewer
(she is shockingly bad at doing the simplest thing) and noticed that
while the distribution detects her internal sound chip, the sound
settings don't allow her to select it
5) Install pavucontrol and a few other things to allow myself to choose
the sound chip rather than the non-existent HDMI speakers the
distribution decided to use.
6) Installed the printer which was connected by USB by going into the Printers setting, choose to install a new printer and selecting USB. Why
the system didn't do this automatically when it detects network printers automatically and adds them without my permission is beyond me.
7) Checked the sound and printer. It works. Did updates, restarted. Disconnected
8) Get a call from my mom that the sound doesn't work again.
9) Connect to TeamViewer, realize that the sound indeed doesn't work and again can't be selected in the sound settings.
10) Go into pavucontrol, it fails at establishing any kind of connection
with the pulseaudio daemon (the daemon is frozen)
11) Kill the process, restart, allows me to select the right sound chip
but sound doesn't work
12) Reinstall pulseaudio components because every attempt to open
pulseaudio results in the system's inability to load the pulseaudio
daemon which was just restarted
13) Realize that for whatever reason, reinstalling pulseaudio caused the cinnamon-control-centre to disappear. Reinstall that too through
Synaptic package manager
14) It doesn't reappear and executing cinnamon-control-centre through
the command line results in only "Online Accounts" being available.
15) Assume that it might just need to be re-enabled through being logged
back in... log out, log back in.
16) Call mom, ask her to get into her computer. She logs in, cinnamon-control-centre gives her an error and the screen remains
completely black. No panels, no icons, no applications available.
This is where I say "I give up" and tell my mom that I'll drive the 35km
or whatever it is and just put her Windows system back. I give up with
this system. Sure Windows is shit, but it's not _this_ level of shit. As
bad as Windows can get, at least it can be fixed. This is some Dodge-car-level garbage. In one attempt to help my mom with what should
have been a trivial problem, the whole system goes down because:
a) The fucking idiotic system is unable to wrap its head around the possibility that despite the fact that the monitor is connected through
HDMI, the screen might not have speakers.
b) The fucking idiotic system is unwilling to allow a user to use analog speakers despite detecting them.
c) The fucking idiotic system believes that a re-installation of one component means that you want to purge an entirely unrelated component.
*I* *GIVE* *UP
I am going to be formatting every last key I have with Linux on it and I
am quitting this forum. I don't even want to think about this steaming
pile of garbage anymore. It was a fucking routine installation on a
basic computer and even THAT Linux manages to complete screw up. *I*
*GIVE* *UP* .
I no longer think that it is a coincidence that the people
advocating this shit are deranged social pariahs like Larry Pietraskiewicz.
On 2023-11-21 7:09 a.m., DFS wrote:
On 11/20/2023 4:34 AM, Borax Man wrote:
The Unix system becomes a mess when you lose track of what files
belong to what programs. At least with DOS, you know that C:\GRAPHWIZ
contained the program Graphwiz and if you wanted to remove it, you
just delete that directory. With Unix, you need either a package
manager, or to keep the original makefile so you can do a 'make
remove', otherwise you'll have real difficulty cleaning the program
out. Windows (mostly) follows the DOS way.
Now with Linux, you have /opt, which is a place to put programs that
install in their own directory, so now you have both programs in /bin,
/lib etc AND some which are just put all in their own directory. Then
on top of that, you have Flatpak and Snaps, and it becomes a mess!
Linux liars like to claim uninstalls are done perfectly, that no orphan
files are left behind, blah blah
Turns out there are about a dozen Linux apps built specifically to come
behind the bogus uninstalls and fix what they screwed up.
BleachBit Computer Janitor Cruft dupeclean FSlint GCleaner
Gconf-Cleaner GtkOrphan/deborphan KDE Sweeper KleanSweep Linux Disk
Cleaner lostfiles Synaptic Residual Config Ubuntu Cleaner
I'll give you a quick story about how well Linux Mint just worked out
for my mother. To say the least, I am going to be driving across the
city through traffic today to put my mom's original hard disk back into
her Intel NUC because Mint fucked everything up for her.
1) Windows 11 was slow 2) I gave her my 512GB SSD with Linux Mint on it.
It worked here.
3) Once she got home, her printer didn't work and she had no sound.
4) I painfully guided her through the process of installing TeamViewer
(she is shockingly bad at doing the simplest thing) and noticed that
while the distribution detects her internal sound chip, the sound
settings don't allow her to select it 5) Install pavucontrol and a few
other things to allow myself to choose the sound chip rather than the non-existent HDMI speakers the distribution decided to use.
6) Installed the printer which was connected by USB by going into the Printers setting, choose to install a new printer and selecting USB. Why
the system didn't do this automatically when it detects network printers automatically and adds them without my permission is beyond me.
7) Checked the sound and printer. It works. Did updates, restarted. Disconnected 8) Get a call from my mom that the sound doesn't work
again.
9) Connect to TeamViewer, realize that the sound indeed doesn't work and again can't be selected in the sound settings.
10) Go into pavucontrol, it fails at establishing any kind of connection
with the pulseaudio daemon (the daemon is frozen)
11) Kill the process, restart, allows me to select the right sound chip
but sound doesn't work 12) Reinstall pulseaudio components because every attempt to open pulseaudio results in the system's inability to load the pulseaudio daemon which was just restarted 13) Realize that for whatever reason, reinstalling pulseaudio caused the cinnamon-control-centre to disappear. Reinstall that too through Synaptic package manager 14) It
doesn't reappear and executing cinnamon-control-centre through the
command line results in only "Online Accounts" being available.
15) Assume that it might just need to be re-enabled through being logged
back in... log out, log back in.
16) Call mom, ask her to get into her computer. She logs in, cinnamon-control-centre gives her an error and the screen remains
completely black. No panels, no icons, no applications available.
This is where I say "I give up" and tell my mom that I'll drive the 35km
or whatever it is and just put her Windows system back. I give up with
this system. Sure Windows is shit, but it's not _this_ level of shit. As
bad as Windows can get, at least it can be fixed. This is some Dodge-car-level garbage. In one attempt to help my mom with what should
have been a trivial problem, the whole system goes down because:
a) The fucking idiotic system is unable to wrap its head around the possibility that despite the fact that the monitor is connected through
HDMI, the screen might not have speakers.
b) The fucking idiotic system is unwilling to allow a user to use analog speakers despite detecting them.
c) The fucking idiotic system believes that a re-installation of one component means that you want to purge an entirely unrelated component.
*I* *GIVE* *UP*
I am going to be formatting every last key I have with Linux on it and I
am quitting this forum. I don't even want to think about this steaming
pile of garbage anymore. It was a fucking routine installation on a
basic computer and even THAT Linux manages to complete screw up. *I*
*GIVE* *UP* . I no longer think that it is a coincidence that the people advocating this shit are deranged social pariahs like Larry
Pietraskiewicz.
On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 08:40:43 -0500, RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote in ><wr27N.63503$_Oab.59427@fx15.iad>:
*I* *GIVE* *UP*
I am going to be formatting every last key I have with Linux on it and I
am quitting this forum. I don't even want to think about this steaming
pile of garbage anymore. It was a fucking routine installation on a
basic computer and even THAT Linux manages to complete screw up. *I*
*GIVE* *UP* . I no longer think that it is a coincidence that the people
advocating this shit are deranged social pariahs like Larry
Pietraskiewicz.
Buh-bye.
For the benefit of anybody else running into this problem:
if you had asked for what could be wrong, I'd say,
go into power management and disable it turning off
the display. What I'll bet is the gentleman didn't
test that part at home -- that is to say, what the system
does when idle.
If the display gets shut down, so does the audio device.
When it re-awakens, it's a new audio device to the
system, and pulse can glom onto that.
Personally, I've also installed the venerable xscreensaver,
went into advanced settings, turned _on_ power managment, then slide
the time settings to "never/never/never". I'm a belt-and-suspenders
man.
I'm sorry he had to deal with the frustration. Knowledge is power.
On 2023-11-21 7:09 a.m., DFS wrote:
On 11/20/2023 4:34 AM, Borax Man wrote:
The Unix system becomes a mess when you lose track of what files
belong to what programs. At least with DOS, you know that C:\GRAPHWIZ
contained the program Graphwiz and if you wanted to remove it, you
just delete that directory. With Unix, you need either a package
manager, or to keep the original makefile so you can do a 'make
remove', otherwise you'll have real difficulty cleaning the program
out. Windows (mostly) follows the DOS way.
Now with Linux, you have /opt, which is a place to put programs that
install in their own directory, so now you have both programs in /bin,
/lib etc AND some which are just put all in their own directory. Then
on top of that, you have Flatpak and Snaps, and it becomes a mess!
Linux liars like to claim uninstalls are done perfectly, that no orphan
files are left behind, blah blah
Turns out there are about a dozen Linux apps built specifically to come
behind the bogus uninstalls and fix what they screwed up.
BleachBit
Computer Janitor
Cruft
dupeclean
FSlint
GCleaner
Gconf-Cleaner
GtkOrphan/deborphan
KDE Sweeper
KleanSweep
Linux Disk Cleaner
lostfiles
Synaptic Residual Config
Ubuntu Cleaner
I'll give you a quick story about how well Linux Mint just worked out
for my mother. To say the least, I am going to be driving across the
city through traffic today to put my mom's original hard disk back into
her Intel NUC because Mint fucked everything up for her.
1) Windows 11 was slow
2) I gave her my 512GB SSD with Linux Mint on it. It worked here.
3) Once she got home, her printer didn't work and she had no sound.
4) I painfully guided her through the process of installing TeamViewer
(she is shockingly bad at doing the simplest thing) and noticed that
while the distribution detects her internal sound chip, the sound
settings don't allow her to select it
5) Install pavucontrol and a few other things to allow myself to choose
the sound chip rather than the non-existent HDMI speakers the
distribution decided to use.
6) Installed the printer which was connected by USB by going into the Printers setting, choose to install a new printer and selecting USB. Why
the system didn't do this automatically when it detects network printers automatically and adds them without my permission is beyond me.
7) Checked the sound and printer. It works. Did updates, restarted. Disconnected
8) Get a call from my mom that the sound doesn't work again.
9) Connect to TeamViewer, realize that the sound indeed doesn't work and again can't be selected in the sound settings.
10) Go into pavucontrol, it fails at establishing any kind of connection
with the pulseaudio daemon (the daemon is frozen)
11) Kill the process, restart, allows me to select the right sound chip
but sound doesn't work
12) Reinstall pulseaudio components because every attempt to open
pulseaudio results in the system's inability to load the pulseaudio
daemon which was just restarted
13) Realize that for whatever reason, reinstalling pulseaudio caused the cinnamon-control-centre to disappear. Reinstall that too through
Synaptic package manager
14) It doesn't reappear and executing cinnamon-control-centre through
the command line results in only "Online Accounts" being available.
15) Assume that it might just need to be re-enabled through being logged
back in... log out, log back in.
16) Call mom, ask her to get into her computer. She logs in, cinnamon-control-centre gives her an error and the screen remains
completely black. No panels, no icons, no applications available.
This is where I say "I give up" and tell my mom that I'll drive the 35km
or whatever it is and just put her Windows system back. I give up with
this system. Sure Windows is shit, but it's not _this_ level of shit. As
bad as Windows can get, at least it can be fixed. This is some Dodge-car-level garbage. In one attempt to help my mom with what should
have been a trivial problem, the whole system goes down because:
a) The fucking idiotic system is unable to wrap its head around the possibility that despite the fact that the monitor is connected through
HDMI, the screen might not have speakers.
b) The fucking idiotic system is unwilling to allow a user to use analog speakers despite detecting them.
c) The fucking idiotic system believes that a re-installation of one component means that you want to purge an entirely unrelated component.
*I* *GIVE* *UP*
I am going to be formatting every last key I have with Linux on it and I
am quitting this forum. I don't even want to think about this steaming
pile of garbage anymore. It was a fucking routine installation on a
basic computer and even THAT Linux manages to complete screw up. *I*
*GIVE* *UP* . I no longer think that it is a coincidence that the people advocating this shit are deranged social pariahs like Larry Pietraskiewicz.
On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 21:07:18 -0000 (UTC), RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com>
wrote in <slrnulq706.tc5.ronb02NOSPAM@3020m.hitronhub.home>:
On 2023-11-21, RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
On 2023-11-21 7:09 a.m., DFS wrote:
On 11/20/2023 4:34 AM, Borax Man wrote:
The Unix system becomes a mess when you lose track of what files
belong to what programs. At least with DOS, you know that
C:\GRAPHWIZ contained the program Graphwiz and if you wanted to
remove it, you just delete that directory. With Unix, you need
either a package manager, or to keep the original makefile so you can >>>>> do a 'make remove', otherwise you'll have real difficulty cleaning
the program out. Windows (mostly) follows the DOS way.
Now with Linux, you have /opt, which is a place to put programs that >>>>> install in their own directory, so now you have both programs in
/bin, /lib etc AND some which are just put all in their own
directory. Then on top of that, you have Flatpak and Snaps, and it >>>>> becomes a mess!
Linux liars like to claim uninstalls are done perfectly, that no
orphan files are left behind, blah blah
Turns out there are about a dozen Linux apps built specifically to
come behind the bogus uninstalls and fix what they screwed up.
BleachBit Computer Janitor Cruft dupeclean FSlint GCleaner
Gconf-Cleaner GtkOrphan/deborphan KDE Sweeper KleanSweep Linux Disk
Cleaner lostfiles Synaptic Residual Config Ubuntu Cleaner
I'll give you a quick story about how well Linux Mint just worked out
for my mother. To say the least, I am going to be driving across the
city through traffic today to put my mom's original hard disk back into
her Intel NUC because Mint fucked everything up for her.
1) Windows 11 was slow 2) I gave her my 512GB SSD with Linux Mint on
it. It worked here.
3) Once she got home, her printer didn't work and she had no sound.
4) I painfully guided her through the process of installing TeamViewer
(she is shockingly bad at doing the simplest thing) and noticed that
while the distribution detects her internal sound chip, the sound
settings don't allow her to select it 5) Install pavucontrol and a few
other things to allow myself to choose the sound chip rather than the
non-existent HDMI speakers the distribution decided to use.
6) Installed the printer which was connected by USB by going into the
Printers setting, choose to install a new printer and selecting USB.
Why the system didn't do this automatically when it detects network
printers automatically and adds them without my permission is beyond
me.
7) Checked the sound and printer. It works. Did updates, restarted.
Disconnected 8) Get a call from my mom that the sound doesn't work
again.
9) Connect to TeamViewer, realize that the sound indeed doesn't work
and again can't be selected in the sound settings.
10) Go into pavucontrol, it fails at establishing any kind of
connection with the pulseaudio daemon (the daemon is frozen)
11) Kill the process, restart, allows me to select the right sound chip
but sound doesn't work 12) Reinstall pulseaudio components because
every attempt to open pulseaudio results in the system's inability to
load the pulseaudio daemon which was just restarted 13) Realize that
for whatever reason, reinstalling pulseaudio caused the
cinnamon-control-centre to disappear. Reinstall that too through
Synaptic package manager 14) It doesn't reappear and executing
cinnamon-control-centre through the command line results in only
"Online Accounts" being available.
15) Assume that it might just need to be re-enabled through being
logged back in... log out, log back in.
16) Call mom, ask her to get into her computer. She logs in,
cinnamon-control-centre gives her an error and the screen remains
completely black. No panels, no icons, no applications available.
This is where I say "I give up" and tell my mom that I'll drive the
35km or whatever it is and just put her Windows system back. I give up
with this system. Sure Windows is shit, but it's not _this_ level of
shit. As bad as Windows can get, at least it can be fixed. This is some
Dodge-car-level garbage. In one attempt to help my mom with what should
have been a trivial problem, the whole system goes down because:
a) The fucking idiotic system is unable to wrap its head around the
possibility that despite the fact that the monitor is connected through
HDMI, the screen might not have speakers.
b) The fucking idiotic system is unwilling to allow a user to use
analog speakers despite detecting them.
c) The fucking idiotic system believes that a re-installation of one
component means that you want to purge an entirely unrelated component.
*I* *GIVE* *UP*
I am going to be formatting every last key I have with Linux on it and
I am quitting this forum. I don't even want to think about this
steaming pile of garbage anymore. It was a fucking routine installation
on a basic computer and even THAT Linux manages to complete screw up.
*I* *GIVE* *UP* . I no longer think that it is a coincidence that the
people advocating this shit are deranged social pariahs like Larry
Pietraskiewicz.
Do an Internet search for "TeamViewer no sound" (without the quotes).
Lots of issues with sound not working when TeamViewer is installed, even
on Windows.
Good to know, thank you.
I am going to be formatting every last key I have with Linux on it and I
am quitting this forum. I don't even want to think about this steaming
pile of garbage anymore.
basic computer and even THAT Linux manages to complete screw up. *I*
*GIVE* *UP* . I no longer think that it is a coincidence that the people advocating this shit are deranged social pariahs like Larry Pietraskiewicz.
On 2023-11-21, RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
On 2023-11-21 7:09 a.m., DFS wrote:
On 11/20/2023 4:34 AM, Borax Man wrote:
The Unix system becomes a mess when you lose track of what files
belong to what programs. At least with DOS, you know that
C:\GRAPHWIZ contained the program Graphwiz and if you wanted to
remove it, you just delete that directory. With Unix, you need
either a package manager, or to keep the original makefile so you can
do a 'make remove', otherwise you'll have real difficulty cleaning
the program out. Windows (mostly) follows the DOS way.
Now with Linux, you have /opt, which is a place to put programs that
install in their own directory, so now you have both programs in
/bin, /lib etc AND some which are just put all in their own
directory. Then on top of that, you have Flatpak and Snaps, and it
becomes a mess!
Linux liars like to claim uninstalls are done perfectly, that no
orphan files are left behind, blah blah
Turns out there are about a dozen Linux apps built specifically to
come behind the bogus uninstalls and fix what they screwed up.
BleachBit Computer Janitor Cruft dupeclean FSlint GCleaner
Gconf-Cleaner GtkOrphan/deborphan KDE Sweeper KleanSweep Linux Disk
Cleaner lostfiles Synaptic Residual Config Ubuntu Cleaner
I'll give you a quick story about how well Linux Mint just worked out
for my mother. To say the least, I am going to be driving across the
city through traffic today to put my mom's original hard disk back into
her Intel NUC because Mint fucked everything up for her.
1) Windows 11 was slow 2) I gave her my 512GB SSD with Linux Mint on
it. It worked here.
3) Once she got home, her printer didn't work and she had no sound.
4) I painfully guided her through the process of installing TeamViewer
(she is shockingly bad at doing the simplest thing) and noticed that
while the distribution detects her internal sound chip, the sound
settings don't allow her to select it 5) Install pavucontrol and a few
other things to allow myself to choose the sound chip rather than the
non-existent HDMI speakers the distribution decided to use.
6) Installed the printer which was connected by USB by going into the
Printers setting, choose to install a new printer and selecting USB.
Why the system didn't do this automatically when it detects network
printers automatically and adds them without my permission is beyond
me.
7) Checked the sound and printer. It works. Did updates, restarted.
Disconnected 8) Get a call from my mom that the sound doesn't work
again.
9) Connect to TeamViewer, realize that the sound indeed doesn't work
and again can't be selected in the sound settings.
10) Go into pavucontrol, it fails at establishing any kind of
connection with the pulseaudio daemon (the daemon is frozen)
11) Kill the process, restart, allows me to select the right sound chip
but sound doesn't work 12) Reinstall pulseaudio components because
every attempt to open pulseaudio results in the system's inability to
load the pulseaudio daemon which was just restarted 13) Realize that
for whatever reason, reinstalling pulseaudio caused the
cinnamon-control-centre to disappear. Reinstall that too through
Synaptic package manager 14) It doesn't reappear and executing
cinnamon-control-centre through the command line results in only
"Online Accounts" being available.
15) Assume that it might just need to be re-enabled through being
logged back in... log out, log back in.
16) Call mom, ask her to get into her computer. She logs in,
cinnamon-control-centre gives her an error and the screen remains
completely black. No panels, no icons, no applications available.
This is where I say "I give up" and tell my mom that I'll drive the
35km or whatever it is and just put her Windows system back. I give up
with this system. Sure Windows is shit, but it's not _this_ level of
shit. As bad as Windows can get, at least it can be fixed. This is some
Dodge-car-level garbage. In one attempt to help my mom with what should
have been a trivial problem, the whole system goes down because:
a) The fucking idiotic system is unable to wrap its head around the
possibility that despite the fact that the monitor is connected through
HDMI, the screen might not have speakers.
b) The fucking idiotic system is unwilling to allow a user to use
analog speakers despite detecting them.
c) The fucking idiotic system believes that a re-installation of one
component means that you want to purge an entirely unrelated component.
*I* *GIVE* *UP*
I am going to be formatting every last key I have with Linux on it and
I am quitting this forum. I don't even want to think about this
steaming pile of garbage anymore. It was a fucking routine installation
on a basic computer and even THAT Linux manages to complete screw up.
*I* *GIVE* *UP* . I no longer think that it is a coincidence that the
people advocating this shit are deranged social pariahs like Larry
Pietraskiewicz.
Do an Internet search for "TeamViewer no sound" (without the quotes).
Lots of issues with sound not working when TeamViewer is installed, even
on Windows.
Linux liars like to claim uninstalls are done perfectly, that no orphan
files are left behind, blah blah
On 11/19/2023 6:24 PM, Joel wrote:
Blah, blah, blah, that was even more boring than the French fuck's
rambling.
Stephane and I explained the difference. Do you understand yet?
Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
I just don't like how the use of terms related to each other has to
always be differentiated
Because there is nothing in common. Stop showing every one you don't >>understand what you are speaking of. It's not about what you like, it's >>about what is.
"Nothing in common" except composing the file system,
idiot.
I stand by what I wrote.
You shouldn't. It's like saying a road and a car are exactly the same
thing and you don't like to differentiate them because the only thing
that matter is the possibility to go from a point to another.
Here you are not alone in your own world, you are speaking to others. So >>you need to have the same way to express yourself.
I'm speaking to others like you
who are stupid.
And yet your initial reply talked about "file system hierarchy", as if
it's very closely related to what you're calling distinctly the file
system.
It is. On the same file system hierarchy, you can have your hard drive, >>with some partition, the RAM and some USB sticks. And with only one file >>system hierarchy, you can have many filesystem.
And the USB stick can go from a file system hierarchy to another (from a
VM to another or from a computer to another) and its file system will stay >>the same.
That was a lot of words to say jack shit.
Windows is in that way "WinDOS" as Chris would say, but it works fine.
The first step. Last time you didn't speak about Windows but about
Winblows or something like that.
I call it Winblows because
it does suck. It's hardware-hungry.
I just like Linux because it doesn't get in my way,
For how long?
Again,
retard,
just because you joined the group at the same time, in
which, I experimented with *returning to* Win10, in 2021, on my old
computer, that doesn't negate the two years *before* that, when I ran
Linux exclusively, and after the Win10 experiment until I built the
new computer, nor the fact that I am running it now on the new
computer.
So shut your French ass the fuck up, MORON.
I'm not sacrificing anything for the imaginary Windows quality of
experience.
Wait and see.
I already saw,
dipshit.
DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
Both statements cannot be true. The first is false.
Asked and answered, I'm not going to explain again.
Joel: "what we think of as 'NTFS' includes the Windows organization >>structure"
That's what YOU think of as NTFS, but that is not correct. The NTFS
file system is completely unrelated to the directory structure of Windows.
It's clear you don't really understand how it operates.
You're making a distinction with a very small difference, Windows uses
NTFS because it knows what NTFS is and does, Linux can mount an NTFS
drive easily, but it has to treat it in a somewhat special way, it
doesn't meld as organically as a drive formatted by Linux.
Le 21-11-2023, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> a écrit :
On 11/19/2023 6:24 PM, Joel wrote:
Blah, blah, blah, that was even more boring than the French fuck's
rambling.
Stephane and I explained the difference. Do you understand yet?
No, he can't understand because he is racist and as I'm French he can't believe I can be right.
And as he is using his dick instead of his brain to answer, it
won't help.
You're making a distinction with a very small difference, Windows uses
NTFS because it knows what NTFS is and does, Linux can mount an NTFS
drive easily, but it has to treat it in a somewhat special way, it
doesn't meld as organically as a drive formatted by Linux.
You are really confusing things. For Linux, either it knows the
file system or it doesn't. If it knows the file system, be it NTFS, FAT, >ext4, btrfs or anything you like, it treat it the same way. There is
nothing inside Linux which tells it: "be careful it's a Windows file
system, it's not a Linux file system and can't be managed the same way."
Le 21-11-2023, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> a écrit :
On 11/19/2023 6:24 PM, Joel wrote:
Blah, blah, blah, that was even more boring than the French fuck's
rambling.
Stephane and I explained the difference. Do you understand yet?
No, he can't understand because he is racist and as I'm French he can't >believe I can be right. And as he is using his dick instead of his brain
to answer, it won't help.
On 11/24/2023 4:54 PM, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
Le 21-11-2023, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> a écrit :
On 11/19/2023 6:24 PM, Joel wrote:
Blah, blah, blah, that was even more boring than the French fuck's
rambling.
Stephane and I explained the difference. Do you understand yet?
No, he can't understand because he is racist and as I'm French he can't
believe I can be right.
Joel claims he lived a past life as an African, so he's just self-hating
his current life as a White man.
And as he is using his dick instead of his brain to answer, it
won't help.
A malady endemic to poofters.
Le 19-11-2023, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> a écrit :I forget:
So shut your French ass the fuck up, MORON.
With only one sentence, you show me, you have a lot of things to learn:
- I do what I want and it's not a brain dead dictator who will tell me
what to do.
- You are racist.
- You are not as tough as you claim, because you can't stand
contradictions.
DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
On 11/24/2023 4:54 PM, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
Le 21-11-2023, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> a écrit :
On 11/19/2023 6:24 PM, Joel wrote:
Blah, blah, blah, that was even more boring than the French fuck's
rambling.
Stephane and I explained the difference. Do you understand yet?
No, he can't understand because he is racist and as I'm French he can't
believe I can be right.
Joel claims he lived a past life as an African, so he's just self-hating
his current life as a White man.
I no longer have any issue with my own whiteness.
And as he is using his dick instead of his brain to answer, it
won't help.
A malady endemic to poofters.
You're a really lame fuck at times.
Who taught you to EVER have any issues with being a biological member of
the greatest race in history? Self-hating loser parents? Hope not.
I no longer have any issue with my own whiteness.
Who taught you to EVER have any issues with being a biological member of
the greatest race in history? Self-hating loser parents? Hope not.
For example: tell me about some programming languages designed or
created by non-Whites. I'm not saying there aren't a few, but I only
know of one: Ruby.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programming_languages
That's a list of 692 programming languages, big and little.
Or narrow it down to the most widely used languages: >https://www.statista.com/statistics/793628/worldwide-developer-survey-most-used-languages/
I predict your response will be a stupid insult.
A malady endemic to poofters.
You're a really lame fuck at times.
What lameness are you referring to?
Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
Le 21-11-2023, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> a écrit :
On 11/19/2023 6:24 PM, Joel wrote:
Blah, blah, blah, that was even more boring than the French fuck's
rambling.
Stephane and I explained the difference. Do you understand yet?
No, he can't understand because he is racist and as I'm French he can't >>believe I can be right. And as he is using his dick instead of his brain
to answer, it won't help.
You started the heat,
if you can't take the heat,
get out of the kitchen, as the saying in English goes.
You are a little brainless toy, don't imagine I'm touched by anything
you can claim. When I'm saying your racism stops you to understand my >explanations, I just claim a fact. Personally, I don't care about your >opinion. as Georges Courteline said: « passer pour un idiot aux yeux
d'un imbécile est une volupté de fin gourmet ». Which could be
translated as something like "to appear as an idiot in the eyes of a
moron is a gourmet pleasure".
Who taught you to EVER have any issues with being a biological member of
the greatest race in history? Self-hating loser parents? Hope not.
For example: tell me about some programming languages designed or
created by non-Whites.
On 11/24/2023 6:24 PM, DFS wrote:
Who taught you to EVER have any issues with being a biological member
of the greatest race in history? Self-hating loser parents? Hope not.
For example: tell me about some programming languages designed or
created by non-Whites.
You cro-magnon sound like you did finger yourself after all. You come
across a bit optimistic :) Hehe :)
You've temporarily settled with the shit for human that you are.
If you're serious about your true abilities, go back to your "Roman"
numbers :)
On 11/25/2023 7:01 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
On 11/24/2023 6:24 PM, DFS wrote:
Who taught you to EVER have any issues with being a biological member
of the greatest race in history? Self-hating loser parents? Hope not. >>>
For example: tell me about some programming languages designed or
created by non-Whites.
You cro-magnon sound like you did finger yourself after all. You come
across a bit optimistic :) Hehe :)
You've temporarily settled with the shit for human that you are.
If you're serious about your true abilities, go back to your "Roman"
numbers :)
You sound upset that no inferior sand chimps invented a programming language. Or did they? It's a long list. Get to eeking and ooking and prove me wrong.
On 11/25/2023 8:35 PM, DFS wrote:
On 11/25/2023 7:01 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
On 11/24/2023 6:24 PM, DFS wrote:
Who taught you to EVER have any issues with being a biological
member of the greatest race in history? Self-hating loser parents?
Hope not.
For example: tell me about some programming languages designed or
created by non-Whites.
You cro-magnon sound like you did finger yourself after all. You come
across a bit optimistic :) Hehe :)
You've temporarily settled with the shit for human that you are.
If you're serious about your true abilities, go back to your "Roman"
numbers :)
You sound upset that no inferior sand chimps invented a programming
language. Or did they? It's a long list. Get to eeking and ooking
and prove me wrong.
Don't change the subject. Try writing a working program by exclusively
using your Roman numbers. That's what a cro-magnon encounters, after
removing the Modern Humans around him.
DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
I might be working with the core of WinNT or the Linux kernel, today,
if I had pursued what I wanted in college and potentially beyond. I
had a mile wide path to transfer to UMD College Park, one of the most advanced computer science programs in the world.
But drugs were a higher calling.
A malady endemic to poofters.
You're a really lame fuck at times.
What lameness are you referring to?
Bigotry.
On 11/25/2023 10:00 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
On 11/25/2023 8:35 PM, DFS wrote:
On 11/25/2023 7:01 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
On 11/24/2023 6:24 PM, DFS wrote:
Who taught you to EVER have any issues with being a biological
member of the greatest race in history? Self-hating loser parents? >>>>> Hope not.
For example: tell me about some programming languages designed or
created by non-Whites.
You cro-magnon sound like you did finger yourself after all. You
come across a bit optimistic :) Hehe :)
You've temporarily settled with the shit for human that you are.
If you're serious about your true abilities, go back to your "Roman"
numbers :)
You sound upset that no inferior sand chimps invented a programming
language. Or did they? It's a long list. Get to eeking and ooking
and prove me wrong.
Don't change the subject. Try writing a working program by exclusively
using your Roman numbers. That's what a cro-magnon encounters, after
removing the Modern Humans around him.
The subject was "In this VERY long list of programming languages, which
were created by non-Caucasians".
Quit dragging your knuckles, Koochik.
Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
You are a little brainless toy, don't imagine I'm touched by anything
you can claim. When I'm saying your racism stops you to understand my >>explanations, I just claim a fact. Personally, I don't care about your >>opinion. as Georges Courteline said: « passer pour un idiot aux yeux
d'un imbécile est une volupté de fin gourmet ». Which could be >>translated as something like "to appear as an idiot in the eyes of a
moron is a gourmet pleasure".
Your government had a moral objection to the 2003 war in Iraq, and a
sweet deal in the, then, "oil for food" program. Your brain operates
a lot like the previous sentence.
If that makes me racist,
well, I'd not be the first.
You are a little brainless toy, don't imagine I'm touched by anything
you can claim. When I'm saying your racism stops you to understand my >>>explanations, I just claim a fact. Personally, I don't care about your >>>opinion. as Georges Courteline said: « passer pour un idiot aux yeux >>>d'un imbécile est une volupté de fin gourmet ». Which could be >>>translated as something like "to appear as an idiot in the eyes of a >>>moron is a gourmet pleasure".
Your government had a moral objection to the 2003 war in Iraq, and a
sweet deal in the, then, "oil for food" program. Your brain operates
a lot like the previous sentence.
You see, you consider that you can look at the way my government acts to
know how I act.
If that makes me racist,
Of course it does. You consider every French share the same way of life
and ideas. Like DFS considers all the Blacks are acting the same way.
There is no difference between your racist vision and his racist vision.
well, I'd not be the first.
I never said you were the first racist. I'm only saying you are the
stupidest one.
I might be working with the core of WinNT or the Linux kernel, today,
if I had pursued what I wanted in college and potentially beyond. I
had a mile wide path to transfer to UMD College Park, one of the most
advanced computer science programs in the world.
It would be fairly epic to have a cola reg that worked on an OS kernel.
But drugs were a higher calling.
That is one sick belief. More likely you were afraid of competing in
life at a higher level, and tried to suicide yourself.
DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
I might be working with the core of WinNT or the Linux kernel, today,
if I had pursued what I wanted in college and potentially beyond. I
had a mile wide path to transfer to UMD College Park, one of the most
advanced computer science programs in the world.
It would be fairly epic to have a cola reg that worked on an OS kernel.
But drugs were a higher calling.
That is one sick belief. More likely you were afraid of competing in
life at a higher level, and tried to suicide yourself.
But I was late to the game. Windows 2000 and Linux both existed
around the time I'd be starting out, what was there left to conquer,
there? Linus and Bill Gates were the winners, of the OS wars. But
I'm giving Donald J. Trump a defeat, *that* is what counts.
Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
Of course it does. You consider every French share the same way of life
and ideas.
Like DFS considers all the Blacks are acting the same way.
There is no difference between your racist vision and his racist vision.
Ah, but he doesn't really think that's how blacks are, he's one of
these shit talking guys. He can't possibly be stupid enough,
unexposed enough, not to know some regular, normal black people.
On 11/26/2023 5:21 PM, Joel wrote:
Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
Of course it does. You consider every French share the same way of life
and ideas.
That's not racism - that's a form of White nationalism. But he's just baselessly attacking you because you schooled him on some things.
Like DFS considers all the Blacks are acting the same way.
They do.
There is no difference between your racist vision and his racist vision.
Joel's not racist.
Ah, but he doesn't really think that's how blacks are, he's one of
these shit talking guys. He can't possibly be stupid enough,
unexposed enough, not to know some regular, normal black people.
unexposed? I grew up in the South and have lived here my whole life.
They're all whiny, mean, illiterate bitches wanting $5M in reparations
each for being born black and dumb. I'd have some respect if most of
them moved to African countries and created successful societies...
dream on.
go back to where your ancestors came from , ok , bye
Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
Nope. You might actually have your own views, in fact you seem to be
pretty willing to drink Pepsi,
but there is an uncanny genetic
tendency in people of French descent to self-importance.
If that makes me racist,
Of course it does. You consider every French share the same way of life
and ideas. Like DFS considers all the Blacks are acting the same way.
There is no difference between your racist vision and his racist vision.
Ah, but he doesn't really think that's how blacks are, he's one of
these shit talking guys. He can't possibly be stupid enough,
unexposed enough, not to know some regular, normal black people. Nor
would I be expecting not to find some cool people, like you, in
France.
On 11/26/2023 5:21 PM, Joel wrote:
Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
Of course it does. You consider every French share the same way of life
and ideas.
That's not racism - that's a form of White nationalism.
There is no difference between your racist vision and his racist vision.
Joel's not racist.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 04:58:09 |
| Calls: | 6,706 |
| Files: | 12,236 |
| Messages: | 5,350,366 |