Abso-freakin-lutely. That is TOTALLY the point (besides "freedom") of Open Source. Just because something has become complicated does not mean that people are necessarily excluded from it. It's possible that there are numerous "simple" bugs in some OSS software, albeit unlikely, given the number of "professional" coders working on it.
Rexx??? Does anything even support it any more? I'm amazed to even hear it mentioned. ARexx on the Amiga was the first language (besides BASIC) that I learned. I'd be interested in relearning it, if it's useful.
> Remember when we used to insert pauses or slow down programs with a loop
Oh, twist the dagger, why don't you. A few days ago I found a program that I wrote in C (when I was slightly-past beginner) 8 years ago and saw one of these in the middle. For shame...
Not to sound like a jerk, but write me a word processor (with even the most basic features of Word '97) in BASIC in a day and I'll give you $200 (I ain't rich). Even without a GUI.
> what happened to those days?
I think you answered your own question. Ignoring the OS (APIs have certainly made extremely complex tasks easier), the least-yet-acceptable solution is many times more complicated than the least-acceptable-solution of years gone by. People expect more. I have had recent experiences with this. A few days ago, I found a game that I wrote 8 years ago. It was pretty damned complicated and took me months (of work-time, not "real" time) to make. Today, it would be a joke.
> what i can tell you want is a client that will read "dir" as you type it in and on the remote machine run "ls -lh" or something. i have never seen anything that would allow you to do that.
If it were telnet, a MUD client (eg, GMud) would do what he wants. However, I do not know of any SSH MUDs.
> What's so hard about tossing out a [...] default login script?
I think the problem with that is that he wants a solution across multiple servers and multiple users. IMWO, I would guess he needs a SSH client that will automatically send a list of commands (contents of your suggested script, from some a central location) after the user is authenticated. But he would have to ensure evereyone's SSH client ran those commands. So I guess it's not a solution at all, unless he could force all of 'his' clients to do the same. At least then, he can change the centralized source to change everyone. That, of course, assumes that he can find a central location that every workstation's SSH client can read that file from (ie, LDAP). Err, I guess getting the servers to read that file would be far easier, which would require the access/convenience that he doesn't have. Uhhh... how about an automated SSH client script that creates the server script? Then all he has to do is log into each one of his servers... all 1200 of them.
How about a corporate-wide memo explaining that UNIX isn't DOS? Maybe some doc links.
> it can cause problems when people realise the commands, even aliased, don't work in the way that they'd expect. > Unless you could offer a 100% compatible environment it would be best to let people realise that Unix is different and work with it as it should be.
Perhaps I don't understand what you are saying, but how would it cause problems that don't already exist? If it is a case of people not understanding UNIX vs. DOS, it would be people not understanding aliases v. not understanding the UNIX command. Eitheir way, it's an education issue. Unless, of course, the aliased command replaces an existing UNIX command (as an extreme example, alias rm='rm -rf/*')
> Your website is worst shit I've seen in 10 years.
Then you haven't looked at too many sites. It's certainly not beautiful, but it doesn't have an animated background, blinking text, or inconsistent layout.
I wouldn't get too worked up about it, they can't even afford a decent digital camera. The picture on the site looks like it was taken with a 'disposable' CVS camera.
You have this obsession over calling people liberal. Some of my opinions would be called liberal, some would be called extremely conservative. If you were truly a Libertarian at some point (which I am beginning to doubt) you would know this. Hell, if you had ever questioned your own political opinions, you would know this.
> Why don't you cite some examples
There's this cool new website called Google that lets you search for things on the Internet. And really, if you didn't already know that Bush commonly says very stupid things, you have no intention of accepting reality (or, at least admitting it).
> People can't take care of themselves
I did not say that at all; you have a knack for rewriting peoples' words in an attempt to discredit them. What I said is that the general public doesn't understand the stock market. There are economists that can't figure out the stock market, so why the heck do you expect Joe Smith the farmer to?
> I'm not the one running for president, making dumb ass remarks in the public sphere. John Kerry is
What does that say about Bush, who says things far dumber on almost a weekly basis?
> I don't follow the RIAA, I don't think it's a big deal and doesn't really apply
It applies perfectly: it is a collection of big businesses in the pockets of Democrats (as well as Republicans). It is exactly the counterexample to your point. For you to shrug it off by saying you don't "follow" it seems strange (given that this most recent message, on the whole, doesn't sound trollish). There's nothing to "follow," except to know that they still exist, still make boatloads of money, and are supported by people (Liberals) that you claim hate them. Liberals obviously do not hate ALL big businesses. Just the ones for which hate give them some advantage (political or financial). Same as Conservatives.
> more of a judicial matter if you ask me
I don't understand what you're trying to say with this, I didn't bring up the legality or illegality of anything. I didn't mention or insinuate anything about file sharing, their lawsuits, I didn't even give any overt indication whether I am "for" or "against" them. I only said they were "big business."
> people would be much better off if they managed their own money instead of the government doing it for them.
I believe you seriously overestimate the thinking ability of the general public. Most of the people I work with would have no idea how to manage retirement investments if it wasn't an automatically-managed part of their benefits package at work. And seriously, very few of them have any idea how the stock market works (heck, even what "volatility" means). Are you going to tell these people "too bad if you're to stupid to understand stocks?" Will you tell them just to get a financial advisor? These people can't afford to pay someone else to manage their money when it should be an extremely simple process, when done "correctly" (IMO).
If there were to be a retirement system suggested that was easy enough to understand and use by the less intelligent adults but manageable enough to be useful for those that DO understand, I would support it. Bush's SS changes are not.
> You said liberals were for big government as opposed to conservatives. Then you went on to say that this is not really the case any more. That's contradicting yourself.
You misinterpreted what I wrote. I meant the "not really the case" W/R/T Conservatives.
> You implied I was an imbecil for spelling mistakes
Holy crap, are you keeping track of everything I say? That was an entirely different thread! OK, yes I did. I am sorry. Didn't realize that was you and forgot I said it. The point of that post was to show the hypocrisy, not to correct spelling. Regardless, I did do it.
> Look at social security, their big argument was "Look what happened at ENRON! That could be your social security check going out with the trash!"
I don't believe that was "their big argument," and I think it's B.S. anyway. There are better arguments than that kind of scaremongering. But because some people who fall under a certain label believe something, it does not automatically follow that everyone with that label believes it. It could be said that they are scared of people willing to do that kind of thing, and not the business itself (I don't believe it, but it could be said).
Is the RIAA not a coalition of Big Businesses? Most Liberal Democrats seem just fine supporting them... No, you are attributing to fear that which is probably just political attacks. After all, Enron execs were bigger supporters of Republicans than Democrats (which is not to say that the SS statement is correct).
> once you use the F word you're name calling
Huh? Using a "swear word" is not, by itself, name-calling.
> The biggest muslim bashers tend to be right wing. Would you really argue there is no correlation.
I would have to be a complete moron to deny that, but still: something being statistically probable does not imply that it is necessarily true in one particular instance. After posting that, though, I thought a bit more about it and realized that he probably wouldn't be a very successful "Conservative talk show host" if he didn't say the things most conservatives would want to hear. So it is quite possible that it was a ploy to cast Muslims in a less favorable light, I just don't like jumping to conclusions. It could have also been a ploy to get people to think that conservatives aren't necessarily hate-filled warmongers. If so, it wasn't well executed.
> I used to vote libertarian, but these days I see things through the lense of war
I still vote Libertarian because my political leanings and concept of liberty do not change with the wind.
> you pretty much stated and invalidated your point in one short paragraph. Most liberals are for bigger government, there are still some conservatives who are for smaller government.
And you said "Liberals hate business." How does my statement support that in any way? Not wanting everything under the sun privatized doesn't mean you hate business. You still haven't shown how I was wrong.
> If you had anything useful to say, you wouldn't be correcting my spelling
Please point out where I did that and I will apologize. A grammar/spelling troll is one of the worse types. I, however, am not a troll. I am stating my opinion and backing it up with reason. You are simply saying "you're a fool," "you're a troll," instead of backing anything up. I have hesitated until now -- because I (unlike you, apparently) do not like to make accusations that could be explained by something else (ie, rational opinion) -- to call you a troll, but I can see that I was wasting my patience.
And from your other message: > Troll is used as a verb in this instance. You're very keen on spelling, but could use a few lessons in grammar
So, for instance, saying that you fuck your mother is not the same as calling you a mother fucker? Even more interesting. While me grammar may not be perfect, it has nothing to do with anything said in this thread. At all. As I said before, I did not correct your grammar, you are retaliating against something I did not do. Hence the new "troll" label for you. Are you even trying to make sense?
> Liberals are anti-capitalism. They fear big business. That's the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives in this country, fool.
Figured I'd add this for further clarification: you are either not paying attention or are letting your own agenda get in the way of the truth. The biggest difference between L's and C's have nothing to do with the size of a business, it has to do with the size of the government. Even so, Liberals (supposedly) want MORE government involvement in peoples' welfare and less intrusion in their personal lives. Conservatives have traditionally wanted smaller government, although that has doesn't really happen any more.
Fool? Strange that, of the two of us, I am the one who knows what those words mean. The definition of a word, however, does not affect the actions of those who label themselves with those words. There certainly are self-proclaimed liberals who hate businesses, but that is not because they are liberal, it is because they are anti-capitalist. Those two terms are not interchangeable.
> Nobody's name calling here
Can't believe I missed this... See the last word of the text I quoted. Not too quick on the draw there, buddy.
> Someone who probably bashes Muslims in every other sentence
It is ludicrous to suggest that just because someone is "right-wing" that they bash Muslims. It may be true, as I have never heard of him, but unless you have, you have no basis for your statement.
> I propose that sysadmins in the modern world start blackholing Muslim nations > It's clear that as a people, they have no respect for [...] any semblance of free speech > Why should the modern world have to tiptoe around these assholes?
So, your answer to their ignorance is to block them from sources of learning? They need MORE exposure to the Internet and other peoples' opinions, not to be blocked from it, further entrenching them in ignorance.
Don't get me wrong, I understand why someone would be frustrated with other peoples' ignorance, I'm just not sure your suggestion makes a whole lot of sense. Unless you were joking, in which case I apologize; you don't appear to be.
Slashdot Mirror
> Couldn't Lisp be the answer? For simple spreadsheet expressions [it's] as simple and easy-to-learn as Excel macros.
Can LISP make modifications to an Excel document?
Abso-freakin-lutely. That is TOTALLY the point (besides "freedom") of Open Source. Just because something has become complicated does not mean that people are necessarily excluded from it. It's possible that there are numerous "simple" bugs in some OSS software, albeit unlikely, given the number of "professional" coders working on it.
> Any good books you would recommend for reference?
Hmm, I'm poor. Any websites that anyone would recommend for the same?
Rexx??? Does anything even support it any more? I'm amazed to even hear it mentioned. ARexx on the Amiga was the first language (besides BASIC) that I learned. I'd be interested in relearning it, if it's useful.
> They rarely need more than 1 user, and security, performance, and maintainability don't matter
NO DOUBT! If I had to create every Crystal Report that someone wants at work, I'd shoot myself.
While CR isn't a language, it's not much less complex than VB.
> Remember when we used to insert pauses or slow down programs with a loop
Oh, twist the dagger, why don't you. A few days ago I found a program that I wrote in C (when I was slightly-past beginner) 8 years ago and saw one of these in the middle. For shame...
Not to sound like a jerk, but write me a word processor (with even the most basic features of Word '97) in BASIC in a day and I'll give you $200 (I ain't rich). Even without a GUI.
> what happened to those days?
I think you answered your own question. Ignoring the OS (APIs have certainly made extremely complex tasks easier), the least-yet-acceptable solution is many times more complicated than the least-acceptable-solution of years gone by. People expect more. I have had recent experiences with this. A few days ago, I found a game that I wrote 8 years ago. It was pretty damned complicated and took me months (of work-time, not "real" time) to make. Today, it would be a joke.
> what i can tell you want is a client that will read "dir" as you type it in and on the remote machine run "ls -lh" or something. i have never seen anything that would allow you to do that.
If it were telnet, a MUD client (eg, GMud) would do what he wants. However, I do not know of any SSH MUDs.
> What's so hard about tossing out a [...] default login script?
I think the problem with that is that he wants a solution across multiple servers and multiple users. IMWO, I would guess he needs a SSH client that will automatically send a list of commands (contents of your suggested script, from some a central location) after the user is authenticated. But he would have to ensure evereyone's SSH client ran those commands. So I guess it's not a solution at all, unless he could force all of 'his' clients to do the same. At least then, he can change the centralized source to change everyone. That, of course, assumes that he can find a central location that every workstation's SSH client can read that file from (ie, LDAP). Err, I guess getting the servers to read that file would be far easier, which would require the access/convenience that he doesn't have. Uhhh... how about an automated SSH client script that creates the server script? Then all he has to do is log into each one of his servers... all 1200 of them.
How about a corporate-wide memo explaining that UNIX isn't DOS? Maybe some doc links.
> it can cause problems when people realise the commands, even aliased, don't work in the way that they'd expect.
/*')
> Unless you could offer a 100% compatible environment it would be best to let people realise that Unix is different and work with it as it should be.
Perhaps I don't understand what you are saying, but how would it cause problems that don't already exist? If it is a case of people not understanding UNIX vs. DOS, it would be people not understanding aliases v. not understanding the UNIX command. Eitheir way, it's an education issue. Unless, of course, the aliased command replaces an existing UNIX command (as an extreme example, alias rm='rm -rf
> Your website is worst shit I've seen in 10 years.
Then you haven't looked at too many sites. It's certainly not beautiful, but it doesn't have an animated background, blinking text, or inconsistent layout.
Which one? I don't use any of them: Java is bloated crap.
> It's meaningless in imperial measurements.
How can one unit of distance be "meaningless" while another unit of distance is supposedly correct?
> with that broad's eyes, BOO! certainly came to mind.
I'm sorry, "she's trying to drink my blood!" was the correct answer. "She's trying to drink my blood."
I wouldn't get too worked up about it, they can't even afford a decent digital camera. The picture on the site looks like it was taken with a 'disposable' CVS camera.
> you're not a liberal.
You have this obsession over calling people liberal. Some of my opinions would be called liberal, some would be called extremely conservative. If you were truly a Libertarian at some point (which I am beginning to doubt) you would know this. Hell, if you had ever questioned your own political opinions, you would know this.
> Why don't you cite some examples
There's this cool new website called Google that lets you search for things on the Internet. And really, if you didn't already know that Bush commonly says very stupid things, you have no intention of accepting reality (or, at least admitting it).
> People can't take care of themselves
I did not say that at all; you have a knack for rewriting peoples' words in an attempt to discredit them. What I said is that the general public doesn't understand the stock market. There are economists that can't figure out the stock market, so why the heck do you expect Joe Smith the farmer to?
Bye.
> I'm not the one running for president, making dumb ass remarks in the public sphere. John Kerry is
What does that say about Bush, who says things far dumber on almost a weekly basis?
> I don't follow the RIAA, I don't think it's a big deal and doesn't really apply
It applies perfectly: it is a collection of big businesses in the pockets of Democrats (as well as Republicans). It is exactly the counterexample to your point. For you to shrug it off by saying you don't "follow" it seems strange (given that this most recent message, on the whole, doesn't sound trollish). There's nothing to "follow," except to know that they still exist, still make boatloads of money, and are supported by people (Liberals) that you claim hate them. Liberals obviously do not hate ALL big businesses. Just the ones for which hate give them some advantage (political or financial). Same as Conservatives.
> more of a judicial matter if you ask me
I don't understand what you're trying to say with this, I didn't bring up the legality or illegality of anything. I didn't mention or insinuate anything about file sharing, their lawsuits, I didn't even give any overt indication whether I am "for" or "against" them. I only said they were "big business."
> people would be much better off if they managed their own money instead of the government doing it for them.
I believe you seriously overestimate the thinking ability of the general public. Most of the people I work with would have no idea how to manage retirement investments if it wasn't an automatically-managed part of their benefits package at work. And seriously, very few of them have any idea how the stock market works (heck, even what "volatility" means). Are you going to tell these people "too bad if you're to stupid to understand stocks?" Will you tell them just to get a financial advisor? These people can't afford to pay someone else to manage their money when it should be an extremely simple process, when done "correctly" (IMO).
If there were to be a retirement system suggested that was easy enough to understand and use by the less intelligent adults but manageable enough to be useful for those that DO understand, I would support it. Bush's SS changes are not.
How the fuck is defending someone from unfair, unproven criticism "flamebait?"
> You said liberals were for big government as opposed to conservatives. Then you went on to say that this is not really the case any more. That's contradicting yourself.
You misinterpreted what I wrote. I meant the "not really the case" W/R/T Conservatives.
> You implied I was an imbecil for spelling mistakes
Holy crap, are you keeping track of everything I say? That was an entirely different thread! OK, yes I did. I am sorry. Didn't realize that was you and forgot I said it. The point of that post was to show the hypocrisy, not to correct spelling. Regardless, I did do it.
> Look at social security, their big argument was "Look what happened at ENRON! That could be your social security check going out with the trash!"
I don't believe that was "their big argument," and I think it's B.S. anyway. There are better arguments than that kind of scaremongering. But because some people who fall under a certain label believe something, it does not automatically follow that everyone with that label believes it. It could be said that they are scared of people willing to do that kind of thing, and not the business itself (I don't believe it, but it could be said).
Is the RIAA not a coalition of Big Businesses? Most Liberal Democrats seem just fine supporting them... No, you are attributing to fear that which is probably just political attacks. After all, Enron execs were bigger supporters of Republicans than Democrats (which is not to say that the SS statement is correct).
> once you use the F word you're name calling
Huh? Using a "swear word" is not, by itself, name-calling.
> The biggest muslim bashers tend to be right wing. Would you really argue there is no correlation.
I would have to be a complete moron to deny that, but still: something being statistically probable does not imply that it is necessarily true in one particular instance. After posting that, though, I thought a bit more about it and realized that he probably wouldn't be a very successful "Conservative talk show host" if he didn't say the things most conservatives would want to hear. So it is quite possible that it was a ploy to cast Muslims in a less favorable light, I just don't like jumping to conclusions. It could have also been a ploy to get people to think that conservatives aren't necessarily hate-filled warmongers. If so, it wasn't well executed.
> I used to vote libertarian, but these days I see things through the lense of war
I still vote Libertarian because my political leanings and concept of liberty do not change with the wind.
> you pretty much stated and invalidated your point in one short paragraph. Most liberals are for bigger government, there are still some conservatives who are for smaller government.
And you said "Liberals hate business." How does my statement support that in any way? Not wanting everything under the sun privatized doesn't mean you hate business. You still haven't shown how I was wrong.
> If you had anything useful to say, you wouldn't be correcting my spelling
Please point out where I did that and I will apologize. A grammar/spelling troll is one of the worse types. I, however, am not a troll. I am stating my opinion and backing it up with reason. You are simply saying "you're a fool," "you're a troll," instead of backing anything up. I have hesitated until now -- because I (unlike you, apparently) do not like to make accusations that could be explained by something else (ie, rational opinion) -- to call you a troll, but I can see that I was wasting my patience.
And from your other message:
> Troll is used as a verb in this instance. You're very keen on spelling, but could use a few lessons in grammar
So, for instance, saying that you fuck your mother is not the same as calling you a mother fucker? Even more interesting. While me grammar may not be perfect, it has nothing to do with anything said in this thread. At all. As I said before, I did not correct your grammar, you are retaliating against something I did not do. Hence the new "troll" label for you. Are you even trying to make sense?
> Liberals are anti-capitalism. They fear big business. That's the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives in this country, fool.
Figured I'd add this for further clarification: you are either not paying attention or are letting your own agenda get in the way of the truth. The biggest difference between L's and C's have nothing to do with the size of a business, it has to do with the size of the government. Even so, Liberals (supposedly) want MORE government involvement in peoples' welfare and less intrusion in their personal lives. Conservatives have traditionally wanted smaller government, although that has doesn't really happen any more.
Fool? Strange that, of the two of us, I am the one who knows what those words mean. The definition of a word, however, does not affect the actions of those who label themselves with those words. There certainly are self-proclaimed liberals who hate businesses, but that is not because they are liberal, it is because they are anti-capitalist. Those two terms are not interchangeable.
> Nobody's name calling here
Can't believe I missed this... See the last word of the text I quoted. Not too quick on the draw there, buddy.
> Nobody's name calling here
> go troll someone else.
Interesting...
> Someone who probably bashes Muslims in every other sentence
It is ludicrous to suggest that just because someone is "right-wing" that they bash Muslims. It may be true, as I have never heard of him, but unless you have, you have no basis for your statement.
> I propose that sysadmins in the modern world start blackholing Muslim nations
> It's clear that as a people, they have no respect for [...] any semblance of free speech
> Why should the modern world have to tiptoe around these assholes?
So, your answer to their ignorance is to block them from sources of learning? They need MORE exposure to the Internet and other peoples' opinions, not to be blocked from it, further entrenching them in ignorance.
Don't get me wrong, I understand why someone would be frustrated with other peoples' ignorance, I'm just not sure your suggestion makes a whole lot of sense. Unless you were joking, in which case I apologize; you don't appear to be.