Linux vs Windows

This is a discussion on Linux vs Windows within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Oh for crying out loud! I wasn't the one saying GUIs sucked. I even gave you examples of when GUIs ...

  1. #91
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,535
    Oh for crying out loud!

    I wasn't the one saying GUIs sucked. I even gave you examples of when GUIs are useful. You were the one saying CLIs sucked and I made a point of trying to tell you they aren't. Sheesh Elysia. You can remove the patience from a saint!

    And I believe I did it honestly. You were the one that to try to prove whatever point you have came up with an example of a software that doesn't exist. If anything you were intellectually dishonest.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  2. #92
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,918
    I could easily write such a software! So real or fiction is irrelevant.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  3. #93
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,535
    Do it. Until then what is irrelevant is what you have to say.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  4. #94
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Sooo... how about them replublicans?
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  5. #95
    Disrupting the universe Mad_guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    258
    I'm not trying to [re]start a debate but I'll point out why I really like the command line - or more specifically my keyboard - and I can sum it up in about one word:

    Efficiency.

    After a little configuration of my window manager and editor and editor of choice (see signature,) I can be extremely productive in terms of coding, and my general computer usage; far more than I can using graphical tools. I normally even run Firefox with vimperator so I have to rely on my mouse less. I don't need to click anything; I can control my entire computer from my keyboard and it is in general much more productive I feel. Again, I do not use it because I feel it is elite or due to any similar illusions, I feel it is honestly a better way to use my time.

    I can have irssi interface to bitlbee so IM is just an extension of my IRC client; I don't need to waste time and memory using pidgin or another console based client, I can just extend. I use sup as my mail client. Music? cmus is cool. Browser? w3m for pure console or when x11 is available, firefox + vimperator. Editor? Emacs with a few nice extensions. My window manager is xmonad and does tiling by default, so all window movement/interaction is done by keyboard (note: contains floating layer for those special cases.) These are all keyboard activated, command line driven applications (exception with firefox.) Naturally many GUIs can be keyboard controlled as well, but there is functionality missing from those keyboard commands that you might not be able to script, meaning you'll have to use the mouse. This includes the firefox+vimperator thing; I have yet to find a way to enumerate/click links sans using the mouse, and it does indeed annoy me.

    Anyway, using all of this provides an extremely streamlined, efficient and at the same time, usable desktop. Is it true that consoles are a little more foreign and initially scary than some graphical interfaces, and I can't do anything but completely agree on that note. But, the time you put into it can truly pay off and in my case I firmly believe it has.

    This is a bit of the reason I use the command line stuff, as it is naturally more prone to using your keyboard, and getting rid of mouse usage can be a good time saver I've found. So I use it almost exclusively.

    Having said all of that, I will point at some things that can make GUI software much more valuable:

    * It normally will have an advantage in terms of being intuitive if done right. In many cases you may be working with someone who isn't a programmer and far removed from your typical environment; having a GUI interface here can be vital for, example, using version control software, e.g. TortoiseSVN/TortoiseHG.
    * Interface design. Zero luck with this on consoles; I would much rather be able to have a window in which I can draw what my GUI should look like than do it with my own code. If someone could create a declarative language in which you write code to generate code to make an interface for certain UI kits & languages (even for a small number of kits and languages,) I would be much happier. But currently, GUIs dominate this area, and being able to just draw what you want your application to look like is a huge time-win.
    * It - in certain examples - can be easier to configure. For example, in Eclipse to get packages you just have to use the tools to install C or Ruby development kits or something; in emacs I would need to download a ruby major-mode and put it in my ~/.emacs.

    I'm sure I'm missing a few things here.

    Regardless, I am quite happy with using consoles: they are familiar, they are efficient and they work. This outweighs most of the cons I've ever found, so, yeah.

    Note, this is all coming from a person who for about 6 months straight instead of using my linux box physically with X11, instead just ssh'd to it via putty and used screen to manage everything, so I admit to bits of bias since I'm quite at home with the setup.
    Last edited by Mad_guy; 04-04-2008 at 04:15 PM.
    operating systems: mac os 10.6, debian 5.0, windows 7
    editor: back to emacs because it's more awesomer!!
    version control: git

    website: http://0xff.ath.cx/~as/

  6. #96
    Unregistered User Yarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,678
    I'm personally quite fond of command lines, they allow you to do more, faster. I really need to (and will) 'discover' linux much more than I have. Although, I do think GUIs are more intuitive than command lines. But the fact the linux gives the option of one or the other makes it real nice IMO.
    My complaint about linux is support. It doesn't seem to want to mess with anything foreign (I guess all OSes are stubborn in that way)
    But yeah...
    Command Line: Like
    GUI: Like, but ONLY because it's more intuitive and prettier.
    A class that doesn't overload all operators just isn't finished yet. -- SmugCeePlusPlusWeenie
    A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God. -- Alan J. Perlis

  7. #97
    glo
    glo is offline
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    169
    Did any of you try YubNub?

  8. #98
    Super unModrator
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    Yes to all of that. That's exactly what I had to do.
    I even had to get the kernel source and have the installer compile it, and heck, even specify the path manually I think. Not what I call very user friendly.
    Regardless if you say it must be done or not, the proof that I had to do it shows that either there's lack of information or lack of options in the distro or something else. Not user friendly. Linux has its own little devils that haunts it, just as Windows. It's not perfect. Nor is Windows.
    Why did you get the kernel source?

    I just downloaded the live CD, clicked on install, followed the wizard, rebooted and installed graphics through envy (GUI)....and the system was up and running.

  9. #99
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,918
    Quote Originally Posted by abk View Post
    Why did you get the kernel source?
    Had to, when compiling drivers manually. Especially when you had a graphics card not supported by the latest official drivers (only the latest beta).
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  10. #100
    Woof, woof! zacs7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,459
    BTW, What distro did you try Elysia?

  11. #101
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,918
    OpenSUSE
    Ah, still working on that app. 80&#37; finished I reckon.
    I'm taking my sweet time here to fix up other things and not just rush it out.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  12. #102
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    OpenSUSE
    Not the best of distros if indeed you have some new shiny hardware that is still waiting for drivers. You may want to try some more actively supported distros. However, I'm still not sure why you felt you had to compile some drivers... what's the hardware in question? Most offer alternative drivers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    Ah, still working on that app. 80&#37; finished I reckon.
    I don't think you understood the arguments. I suggest you don't finish those 20%, you are going to be wasting your time since I can then prove to you in one post how useless that application can quickly become. But... be my guest.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  13. #103
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,918
    I did say it's possible to do the same via a GUI and just as fast. And here is the proof.
    Attached the application and needed files. DLLs can be copied into win\system32 without problems.

    Program, for those interested: http://www.mediafire.com/?jhsre5y2cju
    And for those who do not have Visual Studio 2008 with TR1 update applied, here is the runtime libraries: http://www.mediafire.com/?zcsjzncbmm1

    The application in ANSI and only works with ANSI-type files because of (a bug) in Microsoft's C Library.
    UTF-8 is not supported. Only ANSI.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Not the best of distros if indeed you have some new shiny hardware that is still waiting for drivers. You may want to try some more actively supported distros. However, I'm still not sure why you felt you had to compile some drivers... what's the hardware in question? Most offer alternative drivers.
    It was Geforce 9600GT, which at the time was not supported by nVidia official drivers.

    I don't think you understood the arguments. I suggest you don't finish those 20%, you are going to be wasting your time since I can then prove to you in one post how useless that application can quickly become. But... be my guest.
    Be my guest and punch hole in the application. I will fix them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  14. #104
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    Uh, how about the source?
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

  15. #105
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,918
    No one said they wanted the source.
    But there's the source: http://www.mediafire.com/?3cdlmdxzjyj
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. windows .dll vs. linux .so - global static objects
    By pheres in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-23-2010, 01:29 PM
  2. Thinking of upgrading to linux...
    By Yarin in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 07-24-2009, 12:40 PM
  3. Build linux on windows
    By baash05 in forum Linux Programming
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-19-2008, 10:12 PM
  4. Why can't Windows run Linux binary executables?
    By Kleid-0 in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 12-04-2005, 11:44 PM
  5. Linux and Windows Duel Boot
    By The15th in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-26-2002, 05:59 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21