Should have mentioned that while PowerShell is generally better at handling the pipeline and variables, and gives you access to the.NET framework to use, its not exactly speedy. It's a tradeoff
In v3.0, it gets shorter because you don't need the { } or the $_ for the filter expression. So it's more like this:
ls $home | ? Length -gt 2KB
I won't try to claim it's perfect because it's not, but it's better than Bash (though it owes most of its heritage to Bash et al) because you don't have to drop in awk and sed commands to parse the output of the last command in the pipeline. Though pointing that out will probably get me flamed.
PowerShell has the concept of pipes, and takes them a bit further than *nix because the stuff that moves along the pipeline is an object. You don't need to parse it, because you can query against its properties.
Get-Process | Sort-Object -desc cpu | Select-Object -First 10
Get a list of processes, sort by the CPU property on each one, then get the first 10 in the list
Re:For those of us who don't follow mozilla.org...
on
SeaMonkey 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
I'm sorry, Firefox just looks all candied out and simplified. Like something that people who finally started using 'Linux' in 2002 or so would like.
Now, that sounds elitist
Re:For those of us who don't follow mozilla.org...
on
SeaMonkey 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
You're confusing English with a language that respects Boolean logic.
It's entirely a personal preference. If I want to collate a load of information with the intention of reviewing it at a later date (and yes, that is something you need to do in class), a computer is the way to go. If I'm just jotting down ideas which I may keep or discard, a pad is better.
But that's just me. Maybe other people can organise their work better on paper, or maybe they find a computer better for throwing around ideas. Do whatever works for you.
I never used a laptop, in fact I've never owned one and have no intention of owning one. My only reasoning for this, however, is that they are very hard to upgrade compared to a desktop.
Personally, I'd make a very simple game. Doesn't really matter what language, as long as it's something fairly simple to learn. BASIC is a good one, even though it's not that representative of modern coding. Personally I'd go for Java or C#. Maybe VB.
As for what you should program, I think some simple games would be a good way to go - number-guessing games, Tetris, maybe Chess, and if you get adventurous, a Tamigotchi (if that's how you spell it).
POVRay was suggested, which is an interesting idea. I always found it a little heavy on the numbers (hey, it's 3D graphics, what did I expect) and kids might get fustrated with it fairly quickly, but it might work.
Then I pity you - most of the people I help are grateful and it's on a "when I can be bothered" arrangement. Or maybe it's just my generous nature.....
I'm a geek, really. I just don't see geeks as better than everyone else, and I don't see being a geek as a requirement for using a PC. to me, that's just arrogance, and I hate arrogance. If something doesn't work, I don't mind helping them to understand why, if I can.
Depends to what level. I don't know every nut and bolt of my computer because I don't need to know, and it's unreasonable to expect me to know. At the other end of the scale you have knowing what the power button does (i.e. turning the computer on) which you can reasonably expect someone to know.
Though from your answer, I'm guessing that yes you do think only nerds should be allowed computers. Wake up to the real world, computers are used in just about every office, for everything from software development to typing letters to vehicle tracking. People are not going to go on a three year course to learn how to do the simplest things, nor are companies going to pay for that, as well as having their employees out of action for so long.
Similarly, more and more homes are coming with pcs, and we're not talking nerds here. Kids use it for their homework instead of going to the library, people order things online rather than by phone or going to the shop, and computer gaming is growing rapidly as an industry. (I heard somewhere that Halo2 did better in its first week than The Incredibles, the latest Disney movie). You think those people want to face a technical challenge setting up their box, then have to remember the CLI commands or battle through poor GUIs? You think they want to have to recompile their kernel or tweak around with the source code to get what they want? No, they don't, and Linux could beat MS into the dust if only they'd realise that, but no, you think that only nerds should be allowd computers.
Oftentimes the real difference between a n00b and l33t is that a newbie sits terrified, too afraid to even try, while the guru will start to test the problem and possible solutions systematically.
No, the real difference between a n00b and a l33t is that a n00b has better things to do with their time than find the difficult way around something, while a l33t thinks choosing the most difficult path elevates him above the rest of humanity.
Just doing everyday stuff should not be a technical challenge.
No, because I'm using an OS with a well-designed UI so it doesn't have to be. Not to say I don't like a technical challenge (I'm a software developer after all) but unless there's a point to it, I really can't be bothered.
Someone flaming you on Slashdot would only prove that there are flamethrowers on Slashdot; it would not prove your point, since your point was not about being flamed on Slashdot.
Actually that one was. My point was that flaming me for not being bothered to face technical challenge my WHOLE life would prove that you (or whoever was flaming me) was l33t
I might agree with you if there was no alternative, but there is - there are OS's that are easier to use, and are therefore better in that aspect. Being difficult to use does not make an OS better.
No OS is perfect. Remember that.
You've just displayed the exact kind of attitude that the original comment about elitism was talking about.
First thing, most people in the world don't know how their computer works, they don't want to know. That's what geeks are for. Or should only the nerdiest of nerds be allowed within 50ft of anything with a microchip?
Furthermore, I'm not exactly a n00b to the world of computing, though I've never really worked on anything else apart from Windows and DOS. But even I don't always want to think technically. Just doing everyday stuff should not be a technical challenge.
I suppose you will probably flame me now, but that would only prove my point
Re:Easy of Linux vs Complexity of Windows Updates
on
Point and Click Linux
·
· Score: 1
Now, that makes more sense. Personally, playing games and browsing the web is what I usually use my computer for. Browsing the web is fine, but Linux isn't very good on the games front, at least not the games that I want to play. So by that token, Linux doesn't do what I look for in an OS, while Windows does, which is why I use Windows. It's also possible that my Minidisc player only has software for Windows (I haven't looked for Linux software for it).
For that reason, I'm willing to go through the extra hassle of large updates.
Re:Easy of Linux vs Complexity of Windows Updates
on
Point and Click Linux
·
· Score: 1
Believe me, I could manage what you describe with Windows or Linux with equal ease. The only reason it's harder to install bad software on Linux is that it's harder to install software, full stop.
Just because you don't run Windows doesn't mean you don't need security measures. I seriously doubt that your Linux system is as secure, as efficient, or as stable as my Windows XP system, just because I've taken sensible security and maintenance measures.
Re:Easy of Linux vs Complexity of Windows Updates
on
Point and Click Linux
·
· Score: 1
Set up your computer to have anti-spy protection. You have antivirus protection and a firewall don't you?
Re:Easy of Linux vs Complexity of Windows Updates
on
Point and Click Linux
·
· Score: 1
Let me get this straight - you find Windows Updates complex? Well, let's see now... Go to www.windowsupdate.com. Wow, that was hard, wasn't it?
That's a good point. But if I choose something else, I run a higher risk of coming up against a bad example of the genre and deciding to stick with my sci-fi books.
I'll just have to see what happens, eh?
Like I said in my other post, I haven't read it, but there are some reviews here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0930289234/ qid=1101226455/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/002-9936225- 2718426
hope that helps
I would have said it's because of the status that comics get in general - they're seen as something kids should read and not for "serious" adults.
I'm not a comic-book reader myself, though I've considered it before and probably will pick up something - The Watchmen would be my starting point, I think. I'm more commenting because I'm a sci-fi/fantasy book fan, and a computer game fan, and both those media are also seen as stuff for kids.
I think this is all changing in recent years - Halo 2 outsold the new Disney movie, and movies like The Hulk and Spiderman give comics a higher profile.
The fact that a comic-book is on a university reading list for a course like English Literature I think shows an encouraging shift in trends. This is likely because todays adults were yesterday's kids, and the fact that they are a few years older doesn't stop them liking what they like.
Well, I think that our chances of actually having a probe (or manned spacecraft) make it out there and see something interesting are harmed considerably by us reinventing the wheel the whole time.
You are right though that exploration missions will naturally be more risky and expensive than commercial missions.
But who uses the Vostok apart from the Russians? Besides, we seem to have more problems with landing probes than launching them (as in my two examples of probes which have crashed on landing).
I agree that we should look for better solutions all the time. But at the moment we're not doing that - we're looking for different solutions. That's not the same thing. Was the Beagle 2 landing system any better than the Viking systems? I don't think it was.
Spacecraft have always been custom built for the task. While this may have its advantages, it also means that you are constantly reinventing the wheel - a costly and often unreliable process (Witness the Genesis and Beagle 2 probes).
I have always believed that the way to reign in costs of space missions is to use standardised components - you use the same delivery/landing system until you have something thta's proven to be better.
That means that companies can make thousands of the same components cheaper because they don't have to spend money redesigning them or resetting their production machines. The problems with each component are also well understood and can be planned for because of the extra experience with them, meaning a higher chance of success with each mission.
Slashdot Mirror
Should have mentioned that while PowerShell is generally better at handling the pipeline and variables, and gives you access to the .NET framework to use, its not exactly speedy. It's a tradeoff
You should learn more about what you're mocking. The long names are for scripts and people learning to use the shell.
Get-ChildItem -Path $home | Where-Object -FilterScript { $_.Length -gt 2KB }
or
ls $home | ?{ $_.Length -gt 2KB }
In v3.0, it gets shorter because you don't need the { } or the $_ for the filter expression. So it's more like this:
ls $home | ? Length -gt 2KB
I won't try to claim it's perfect because it's not, but it's better than Bash (though it owes most of its heritage to Bash et al) because you don't have to drop in awk and sed commands to parse the output of the last command in the pipeline. Though pointing that out will probably get me flamed.
Sigh.
PowerShell has the concept of pipes, and takes them a bit further than *nix because the stuff that moves along the pipeline is an object. You don't need to parse it, because you can query against its properties. Get-Process | Sort-Object -desc cpu | Select-Object -First 10 Get a list of processes, sort by the CPU property on each one, then get the first 10 in the list
I'm sorry, Firefox just looks all candied out and simplified. Like something that people who finally started using 'Linux' in 2002 or so would like.
Now, that sounds elitist
You're confusing English with a language that respects Boolean logic.
It's entirely a personal preference. If I want to collate a load of information with the intention of reviewing it at a later date (and yes, that is something you need to do in class), a computer is the way to go. If I'm just jotting down ideas which I may keep or discard, a pad is better. But that's just me. Maybe other people can organise their work better on paper, or maybe they find a computer better for throwing around ideas. Do whatever works for you. I never used a laptop, in fact I've never owned one and have no intention of owning one. My only reasoning for this, however, is that they are very hard to upgrade compared to a desktop.
Personally, I'd make a very simple game. Doesn't really matter what language, as long as it's something fairly simple to learn. BASIC is a good one, even though it's not that representative of modern coding. Personally I'd go for Java or C#. Maybe VB. As for what you should program, I think some simple games would be a good way to go - number-guessing games, Tetris, maybe Chess, and if you get adventurous, a Tamigotchi (if that's how you spell it). POVRay was suggested, which is an interesting idea. I always found it a little heavy on the numbers (hey, it's 3D graphics, what did I expect) and kids might get fustrated with it fairly quickly, but it might work.
Then I pity you - most of the people I help are grateful and it's on a "when I can be bothered" arrangement. Or maybe it's just my generous nature.....
I'm a geek, really. I just don't see geeks as better than everyone else, and I don't see being a geek as a requirement for using a PC. to me, that's just arrogance, and I hate arrogance. If something doesn't work, I don't mind helping them to understand why, if I can.
Though from your answer, I'm guessing that yes you do think only nerds should be allowed computers. Wake up to the real world, computers are used in just about every office, for everything from software development to typing letters to vehicle tracking. People are not going to go on a three year course to learn how to do the simplest things, nor are companies going to pay for that, as well as having their employees out of action for so long.
Similarly, more and more homes are coming with pcs, and we're not talking nerds here. Kids use it for their homework instead of going to the library, people order things online rather than by phone or going to the shop, and computer gaming is growing rapidly as an industry. (I heard somewhere that Halo2 did better in its first week than The Incredibles, the latest Disney movie). You think those people want to face a technical challenge setting up their box, then have to remember the CLI commands or battle through poor GUIs? You think they want to have to recompile their kernel or tweak around with the source code to get what they want? No, they don't, and Linux could beat MS into the dust if only they'd realise that, but no, you think that only nerds should be allowd computers.
No, the real difference between a n00b and a l33t is that a n00b has better things to do with their time than find the difficult way around something, while a l33t thinks choosing the most difficult path elevates him above the rest of humanity. No, because I'm using an OS with a well-designed UI so it doesn't have to be. Not to say I don't like a technical challenge (I'm a software developer after all) but unless there's a point to it, I really can't be bothered. Actually that one was. My point was that flaming me for not being bothered to face technical challenge my WHOLE life would prove that you (or whoever was flaming me) was l33t
I might agree with you if there was no alternative, but there is - there are OS's that are easier to use, and are therefore better in that aspect. Being difficult to use does not make an OS better.
No OS is perfect. Remember that.
You've just displayed the exact kind of attitude that the original comment about elitism was talking about.
First thing, most people in the world don't know how their computer works, they don't want to know. That's what geeks are for. Or should only the nerdiest of nerds be allowed within 50ft of anything with a microchip?
Furthermore, I'm not exactly a n00b to the world of computing, though I've never really worked on anything else apart from Windows and DOS. But even I don't always want to think technically. Just doing everyday stuff should not be a technical challenge.
I suppose you will probably flame me now, but that would only prove my point
Now, that makes more sense. Personally, playing games and browsing the web is what I usually use my computer for. Browsing the web is fine, but Linux isn't very good on the games front, at least not the games that I want to play. So by that token, Linux doesn't do what I look for in an OS, while Windows does, which is why I use Windows. It's also possible that my Minidisc player only has software for Windows (I haven't looked for Linux software for it).
For that reason, I'm willing to go through the extra hassle of large updates.
Believe me, I could manage what you describe with Windows or Linux with equal ease. The only reason it's harder to install bad software on Linux is that it's harder to install software, full stop. Just because you don't run Windows doesn't mean you don't need security measures. I seriously doubt that your Linux system is as secure, as efficient, or as stable as my Windows XP system, just because I've taken sensible security and maintenance measures.
Set up your computer to have anti-spy protection. You have antivirus protection and a firewall don't you?
Let me get this straight - you find Windows Updates complex? Well, let's see now... Go to www.windowsupdate.com. Wow, that was hard, wasn't it?
Sorry
Reviews at Amazon
That's a good point. But if I choose something else, I run a higher risk of coming up against a bad example of the genre and deciding to stick with my sci-fi books. I'll just have to see what happens, eh?
Like I said in my other post, I haven't read it, but there are some reviews here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0930289234/ qid=1101226455/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/002-9936225- 2718426
hope that helps
I would have said it's because of the status that comics get in general - they're seen as something kids should read and not for "serious" adults. I'm not a comic-book reader myself, though I've considered it before and probably will pick up something - The Watchmen would be my starting point, I think. I'm more commenting because I'm a sci-fi/fantasy book fan, and a computer game fan, and both those media are also seen as stuff for kids. I think this is all changing in recent years - Halo 2 outsold the new Disney movie, and movies like The Hulk and Spiderman give comics a higher profile. The fact that a comic-book is on a university reading list for a course like English Literature I think shows an encouraging shift in trends. This is likely because todays adults were yesterday's kids, and the fact that they are a few years older doesn't stop them liking what they like.
Hey, don't knock it - maybe they'll leave them there!
Well, I think that our chances of actually having a probe (or manned spacecraft) make it out there and see something interesting are harmed considerably by us reinventing the wheel the whole time. You are right though that exploration missions will naturally be more risky and expensive than commercial missions.
But who uses the Vostok apart from the Russians? Besides, we seem to have more problems with landing probes than launching them (as in my two examples of probes which have crashed on landing). I agree that we should look for better solutions all the time. But at the moment we're not doing that - we're looking for different solutions. That's not the same thing. Was the Beagle 2 landing system any better than the Viking systems? I don't think it was.
Spacecraft have always been custom built for the task. While this may have its advantages, it also means that you are constantly reinventing the wheel - a costly and often unreliable process (Witness the Genesis and Beagle 2 probes).
I have always believed that the way to reign in costs of space missions is to use standardised components - you use the same delivery/landing system until you have something thta's proven to be better.
That means that companies can make thousands of the same components cheaper because they don't have to spend money redesigning them or resetting their production machines. The problems with each component are also well understood and can be planned for because of the extra experience with them, meaning a higher chance of success with each mission.
Really? I thought it ws a song by The Who.
And if you do...? Point taken though.
Views don't let you change the format of the data, all they allow you to do is to present data from multiple tables as if they were in one table.