Oh yes, because the whole idea was you couldn't remember the argument syntax and hence needed to run man find first, and then edit a conveniant example in the manpage to do you find the files modified after this date, between these sizes, and whatever else, and then of course only wanted to open one of the returned files not all of them.
Obviously there's nothing you can do in acme that you can't do with vi and the shell - both vi and the shell provide you with fully functional programming languages after all.
If you hate the mouse you will hate acme, It is absolutely mouse dependant. It doesn't just use the mouse - it depends on the mouse, you can't change active windows, save, open files, etc without using the mouse (well you could do something like "echo put |/mnt/acme/12/ctl" in a shell but that'd be a litte excessive).
It is different than emacs because it has a very small set of commands which interact very well with each other to provide all the functionality that emacs provides. It also has a completely different work flow to most editors. The plan9 "the application is a filesystem too" approach means instead of having an embedded lisp interpreter the whole os is acme's language. Open the file/mnt/acme/23/event and any application can intercept all the acme commands that act on the window with ID=23 and hence change their behaviour (basically other than cut and paste and mouse text selection operations commands are instead output to the file and the file reader does whatever it wants instead), commands can be sent to acme (with or without events being intercepted) by writing to/mnt/acme/23/ctl. "grep foo/mnt/acme/*/body" will search all the text in all the acme windows. Work-alikes such as Wily miss out on the whole filesystem thing since they don't run under plan9 like operating systems - Wily replaces it with a unix domain socket, which just isn't as conveniant.
Most people *hate* it though. Those who don't like the mouse especially so. Those who like the mouse also tend not to like it since it uses the mouse the a very different way to "the norm".
If it happens to fit your brain and workflow though, it's mana from heaven.
Re:Still not clear.
on
Acme for Windows
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I absolutely love playing with new technology - can't get enough arcane, bizare and downright weird programs that do stuff that's novel or just plain strange. I hope ACME fits into this category, but as the above list shows, it has tough cometition before it qualifies as new & interesting (at least to me). Being able to store scriptlets in one window to apply to another might qualify, if there's some new tangent to it. Oh, and I'd have to be sure that the method used to apply scripts in this way did not pose a security issue -- the vast majority of all the viruses currently for Windows are macro viruses, and the early (AT&T) history of Unix includes tales of viral backdoors.
In acme *all* text is a potential command. You middle click and it executes the selection you clicked on (expanding if the "selection" was nothing - ie. if you click a on anywhere on the word make it runs the make command), you can chord to select a region and execute it in one go.
Of course that means that anytime the text "rm -rf $HOME" appears in a document if you are stupid enough to select and middle click it bad things will happen. Of course the target audience knows better.
Because everything is editable and executable text you end up doing things like typing the command you can't quite remember the arguments for (find for example), selecting it, chording on the word man somewhere, editing the example text in the displayed man page to be the command you want and then chording it to run that command. Then of course you right click the output of that find command to open the file you were looking for.
Very. The poster pointed to a better reference but copying that into wikipedia would be a copyright violation. And the article already contains a reference to that paper.
Is it really that hard to understand that some people might not be able to write a better description than is already available and hence just point to that existing well written publically available document?
It's the anti-christ for people who complain about having to use a mouse or who love keybaord short cuts.
I spent the bulk of my time in my honours year with wily (an acme "clone" for unix/X11) running full screen - well I guess the bulk of the time was really spent playing risk, bulk of my working time... If you happen to like the interface and it suits you way of doing things it's an extremely productive environment.
Of course anyone who fits in that category already uses it, and hence this slashdot article is pointless. Plus of course it's the inferno version not the plan9 version. That's like using vim instead of vi...
By definition a subsidy acts as a barrier to trade, is artificially decreases the costs of one party making their less efficient production able to compete with other more efficient parties. This of course reduces trade - the foreign producers can't compete with the subsidised local producers and so production allocation in the country with the subsidy is made less optimal (resources are used to produce things when they could be used to produce other things more efficiently). There is no difference between a subsidy and a tariff from the perspective of the foreign producer (except of course a subsidy is worse as it can lead to the subsidised party exporting at an artificially low cost, but that's irrelevant to the topic at hand).
Your argument sounds like a neoliberal talking point used to justify denying the right of underdeveloped nations from fostering their own economies at the expense of America.
How observant of you, I'm arguing that American Government should buy foreign products which is obviously in order to prevent other nations from developing their economies. Oh wait, it's the exact opposite. Yes I would also apply the argument in the other direction, the other country should import US products when they are cheaper - their economy will benefit from doing so.
Trade is beneficial because absolute and comparative advantage show that it increases the overall production and is beneficial to both parties. Any economics text will explain it, I'm sure wikipedia does to if you're lazy. I'm certainly to lazy to do the math in a slashdot comment text box. More modern economists would just say "opportunity cost", but I'm not an economist.
If you had any objective evidence that the government buying locally would hurt the local economy then it would be persuasive to a communist just as easily as it would to a non-communist.
It's a subsidy which has an adverse affect on trade. There are about 43 million arguments for why trade is a good thing for both parties.
Yes, you want the US government to spend more money buying things from less efficient US producers, meaning of course their expenditure is larger, meaning of course taxes must be higher. And there's no incentive for the companies they buy from to become more productive since the government is effectively subsidising them anyway. And of course both the US and China end up worse off due to missing out on the economic benefits of trade.
Alternatively they could buy the goods at the price the market sets, spending less money, needing to bring in less revenue in taxes, leaving more money in the pockets of American tax payers, and not reduce the productivity of American industry due to subsidising their ineffiecencies.
Your way just means the government is taking the amount of money that the American products cost over the imports from the pockets of tax payers and giving it to inefficient US companies. Corporate welfare at its finest.
There are perfectly valid security reasons for not being dependant on foreign sources for some products, and not using foriegn products in some sensitive areas if they can't be audited properly first. Of course Israel and Germany are just as likely to spy on the US as China.
Probably because you ran firefox via sudo - or via a 'sudo sh', and hence it followed your instructions of having $HOME set to the original user's home directory.
Don't run things as root that don't need to be - and firefox *never* needs to be. 'sudo su' is a good habit to get into if you usually use 'sudo sh'.
So they should spend more money than they need to, buy from less efficient producers, and reduce the productivity of the US?
I take it you're a communist? Since you want the government to be bigger - higher taxes and higher expenditure, want the government to subsidise less efficient producers so they don't need to become more productive, and if that reduces the productivity and overall income/wealth of the country then it's worth it.
That's irrelevant. There's nothing problematic with a software producer expecting people to buy hardware in order to run their software. There's also nothing forcing people to do so if they don't care about using the software in question.
I think you'll find the vast majority of people buy the hardware in order to run some software on it (such as Windows).
Running an operating system because you happen to have some hardware lying around that you don't know what to do with might be common in the amongst computer geeks, but it's not the norm.
So when they find "the books" of some probable criminal activity during a search the standard search warrant means I have to tell them "Johnny" is code for "Mr William Banks of 123 43rd St"?
The problem isn't when they actually have the "bad guy", the problem is when they have the wrong guy. It's suddenly a crime to forget my pass phrase. I'm sure somewhere in my mail from 1996 there's something encrypted for which I no longer have the private key for, let alone remember the pass phrase for the no longer existing private key. In fact I know there's an encrypted file I can't decrypt I was trying out one of those encrypt your huge list of passwords program and I didn't like it - I have no idea what I used for the pass phrase, but the file is probably still lying around.
So I go to jail for 5 years because I didn't bother keeping an encryption key across half a dozen data transfers and also didn't bother cleaning out decade old mail for things that aren't readable now. There's lots of telephone traffic to and from Iran on my home phone so the "terrorist suspects" clause probably kicks in.
But when the police search your house with a search warrant, you don't have to point out where you've hidden what they're looking for. You just have to let them search for it.
Instead of checking boxes with a pencil the voter has to use some wierdo software program and check the output it produces. And I don't care about the "but US voting is more complicated... we have multiple votes for a bunch of different things on election day" - I voted in the 1999 NSW state (Australia) election - the Upper House ballot had 264 candidates divided amongst 81 groups (parties plus the independant group), making the paper ballot have a physical size of 3'4" by 2'3" (101cm by 72cm). And remember preferential voting in Oz - sure you could just vote for one of the groups and use the preferences that they lodged or you could number all the candidates in order - I didn't like any of the group lodgements so that was fun to number...
Instead of having a computer add some numbers people have to look at the ballot papers decipher them and count them (lets ignore scanners and bar codes and so on - that adds the problem of how does the voter veriphy that the computer readable portion mathes the human readable portion).
Up until Fortran 90 you couldn't write recursive functions in FORTRAN (well not without doing evil things to trick the compiler). The language did not allow a function to call itself - iterative quicksort isn't so much fun:)
Putting milk in tea is just pain old wrong - there must be a seomething mentioning it in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Maybe the Geneva Convention...
I have lots of emails written in Farsi from and to Iran sitting on my US based mail server. None of them has been censored. And since phone calls are also made to and from Iran it's not like they've been censored with no one noticing.
Sure the phone calls probably get listened in on, but nothing is getting censored.
Slashdot Mirror
Without the typo might work better of course.
Why not just type vi `fine . -iname comment.txt`?
Oh yes, because the whole idea was you couldn't remember the argument syntax and hence needed to run man find first, and then edit a conveniant example in the manpage to do you find the files modified after this date, between these sizes, and whatever else, and then of course only wanted to open one of the returned files not all of them.
Obviously there's nothing you can do in acme that you can't do with vi and the shell - both vi and the shell provide you with fully functional programming languages after all.
If you hate the mouse you will hate acme, It is absolutely mouse dependant. It doesn't just use the mouse - it depends on the mouse, you can't change active windows, save, open files, etc without using the mouse (well you could do something like "echo put | /mnt/acme/12/ctl" in a shell but that'd be a litte excessive).
/mnt/acme/23/event and any application can intercept all the acme commands that act on the window with ID=23 and hence change their behaviour (basically other than cut and paste and mouse text selection operations commands are instead output to the file and the file reader does whatever it wants instead), commands can be sent to acme (with or without events being intercepted) by writing to /mnt/acme/23/ctl. "grep foo /mnt/acme/*/body" will search all the text in all the acme windows. Work-alikes such as Wily miss out on the whole filesystem thing since they don't run under plan9 like operating systems - Wily replaces it with a unix domain socket, which just isn't as conveniant.
It is different than emacs because it has a very small set of commands which interact very well with each other to provide all the functionality that emacs provides. It also has a completely different work flow to most editors. The plan9 "the application is a filesystem too" approach means instead of having an embedded lisp interpreter the whole os is acme's language. Open the file
Most people *hate* it though. Those who don't like the mouse especially so. Those who like the mouse also tend not to like it since it uses the mouse the a very different way to "the norm".
If it happens to fit your brain and workflow though, it's mana from heaven.
I absolutely love playing with new technology - can't get enough arcane, bizare and downright weird programs that do stuff that's novel or just plain strange. I hope ACME fits into this category, but as the above list shows, it has tough cometition before it qualifies as new & interesting (at least to me). Being able to store scriptlets in one window to apply to another might qualify, if there's some new tangent to it. Oh, and I'd have to be sure that the method used to apply scripts in this way did not pose a security issue -- the vast majority of all the viruses currently for Windows are macro viruses, and the early (AT&T) history of Unix includes tales of viral backdoors.
In acme *all* text is a potential command. You middle click and it executes the selection you clicked on (expanding if the "selection" was nothing - ie. if you click a on anywhere on the word make it runs the make command), you can chord to select a region and execute it in one go.
Of course that means that anytime the text "rm -rf $HOME" appears in a document if you are stupid enough to select and middle click it bad things will happen. Of course the target audience knows better.
Because everything is editable and executable text you end up doing things like typing the command you can't quite remember the arguments for (find for example), selecting it, chording on the word man somewhere, editing the example text in the displayed man page to be the command you want and then chording it to run that command. Then of course you right click the output of that find command to open the file you were looking for.
Very. The poster pointed to a better reference but copying that into wikipedia would be a copyright violation. And the article already contains a reference to that paper.
Is it really that hard to understand that some people might not be able to write a better description than is already available and hence just point to that existing well written publically available document?
Mouse chording and sam commands.
It's the anti-christ for people who complain about having to use a mouse or who love keybaord short cuts.
I spent the bulk of my time in my honours year with wily (an acme "clone" for unix/X11) running full screen - well I guess the bulk of the time was really spent playing risk, bulk of my working time... If you happen to like the interface and it suits you way of doing things it's an extremely productive environment.
Of course anyone who fits in that category already uses it, and hence this slashdot article is pointless. Plus of course it's the inferno version not the plan9 version. That's like using vim instead of vi...
Subsidies are neither good nor bad for trade
By definition a subsidy acts as a barrier to trade, is artificially decreases the costs of one party making their less efficient production able to compete with other more efficient parties. This of course reduces trade - the foreign producers can't compete with the subsidised local producers and so production allocation in the country with the subsidy is made less optimal (resources are used to produce things when they could be used to produce other things more efficiently). There is no difference between a subsidy and a tariff from the perspective of the foreign producer (except of course a subsidy is worse as it can lead to the subsidised party exporting at an artificially low cost, but that's irrelevant to the topic at hand).
Your argument sounds like a neoliberal talking point used to justify denying the right of underdeveloped nations from fostering their own economies at the expense of America.
How observant of you, I'm arguing that American Government should buy foreign products which is obviously in order to prevent other nations from developing their economies. Oh wait, it's the exact opposite. Yes I would also apply the argument in the other direction, the other country should import US products when they are cheaper - their economy will benefit from doing so.
Trade is beneficial because absolute and comparative advantage show that it increases the overall production and is beneficial to both parties. Any economics text will explain it, I'm sure wikipedia does to if you're lazy. I'm certainly to lazy to do the math in a slashdot comment text box. More modern economists would just say "opportunity cost", but I'm not an economist.
If you had any objective evidence that the government buying locally would hurt the local economy then it would be persuasive to a communist just as easily as it would to a non-communist.
It's a subsidy which has an adverse affect on trade. There are about 43 million arguments for why trade is a good thing for both parties.
Yes, you want the US government to spend more money buying things from less efficient US producers, meaning of course their expenditure is larger, meaning of course taxes must be higher. And there's no incentive for the companies they buy from to become more productive since the government is effectively subsidising them anyway. And of course both the US and China end up worse off due to missing out on the economic benefits of trade.
Alternatively they could buy the goods at the price the market sets, spending less money, needing to bring in less revenue in taxes, leaving more money in the pockets of American tax payers, and not reduce the productivity of American industry due to subsidising their ineffiecencies.
Your way just means the government is taking the amount of money that the American products cost over the imports from the pockets of tax payers and giving it to inefficient US companies. Corporate welfare at its finest.
There are perfectly valid security reasons for not being dependant on foreign sources for some products, and not using foriegn products in some sensitive areas if they can't be audited properly first. Of course Israel and Germany are just as likely to spy on the US as China.
Probably because you ran firefox via sudo - or via a 'sudo sh', and hence it followed your instructions of having $HOME set to the original user's home directory.
Don't run things as root that don't need to be - and firefox *never* needs to be. 'sudo su' is a good habit to get into if you usually use 'sudo sh'.
So they should spend more money than they need to, buy from less efficient producers, and reduce the productivity of the US?
I take it you're a communist? Since you want the government to be bigger - higher taxes and higher expenditure, want the government to subsidise less efficient producers so they don't need to become more productive, and if that reduces the productivity and overall income/wealth of the country then it's worth it.
That's irrelevant. There's nothing problematic with a software producer expecting people to buy hardware in order to run their software. There's also nothing forcing people to do so if they don't care about using the software in question.
I think you'll find the vast majority of people buy the hardware in order to run some software on it (such as Windows).
Running an operating system because you happen to have some hardware lying around that you don't know what to do with might be common in the amongst computer geeks, but it's not the norm.
So when they find "the books" of some probable criminal activity during a search the standard search warrant means I have to tell them "Johnny" is code for "Mr William Banks of 123 43rd St"?
The problem isn't when they actually have the "bad guy", the problem is when they have the wrong guy. It's suddenly a crime to forget my pass phrase. I'm sure somewhere in my mail from 1996 there's something encrypted for which I no longer have the private key for, let alone remember the pass phrase for the no longer existing private key. In fact I know there's an encrypted file I can't decrypt I was trying out one of those encrypt your huge list of passwords program and I didn't like it - I have no idea what I used for the pass phrase, but the file is probably still lying around.
So I go to jail for 5 years because I didn't bother keeping an encryption key across half a dozen data transfers and also didn't bother cleaning out decade old mail for things that aren't readable now. There's lots of telephone traffic to and from Iran on my home phone so the "terrorist suspects" clause probably kicks in.
But when the police search your house with a search warrant, you don't have to point out where you've hidden what they're looking for. You just have to let them search for it.
:)
At least that's what the TV cop shows tell me
Isn't that the worst of both worlds?
Instead of checking boxes with a pencil the voter has to use some wierdo software program and check the output it produces. And I don't care about the "but US voting is more complicated... we have multiple votes for a bunch of different things on election day" - I voted in the 1999 NSW state (Australia) election - the Upper House ballot had 264 candidates divided amongst 81 groups (parties plus the independant group), making the paper ballot have a physical size of 3'4" by 2'3" (101cm by 72cm). And remember preferential voting in Oz - sure you could just vote for one of the groups and use the preferences that they lodged or you could number all the candidates in order - I didn't like any of the group lodgements so that was fun to number...
Instead of having a computer add some numbers people have to look at the ballot papers decipher them and count them (lets ignore scanners and bar codes and so on - that adds the problem of how does the voter veriphy that the computer readable portion mathes the human readable portion).
Oh wait, no it's not. Malaria, obviously.
Don't let the Chinese know about this technicality, they'd only been drinking the stuff for 5000 years or so before Europeans added milk to it...
Up until Fortran 90 you couldn't write recursive functions in FORTRAN (well not without doing evil things to trick the compiler). The language did not allow a function to call itself - iterative quicksort isn't so much fun :)
Putting milk in tea is just pain old wrong - there must be a seomething mentioning it in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Maybe the Geneva Convention...
I have lots of emails written in Farsi from and to Iran sitting on my US based mail server. None of them has been censored. And since phone calls are also made to and from Iran it's not like they've been censored with no one noticing.
Sure the phone calls probably get listened in on, but nothing is getting censored.
Which law is that? Statute and section numbers please.
Yeah, that's be useful - you'd reflect none of the laser instead of the some of it you would with a dirty mirror...
It isn't needless, it produces something that some people find tasty.
It can be. The standard allows both. There are arguments for both ways, so of course the standard said "either way is fine".
C++ tightened it up and requires 0 (ie. the argument was won by one side in the C++ committee).