Another confused CS student
-
@Bumble Bee Tuna said:
perhaps in the future you will take the time to do a 10 second google query before working yourself into a rage that the OS X UI isn't exactly the same as the Windows UI.
I wouldn't bet on it.
Edit: I want to assure the Mac users in the audience that I *used* to be a huge Apple fan. Back when they didn't suck. So if you're trying to stereotype me as the typical Windows user who's never sat down at a Mac before today, I assure you I probably have more "Apple cred" than you do-- I have a certificate at home for a registered Application Creator Code, dated 1997. (Wow, which still exists, apparently.)
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Mason Wheeler said:
Why not just use FileZilla?
FileZilla is a huge pile of WTF. The only good SFTP client I've found in Windows is WinSCP. And even it's only acceptable, not great.
Really? I've been using FileZilla for a few years now and never had any problems with it. I consider it a very well-designed program. What issues do you have?
-
@Mason Wheeler said:
@blakeyrat said:
@Mason Wheeler said:
Why not just use FileZilla?
FileZilla is a huge pile of WTF. The only good SFTP client I've found in Windows is WinSCP. And even it's only acceptable, not great.
Really? I've been using FileZilla for a few years now and never had any problems with it. I consider it a very well-designed program. What issues do you have?
Do we really have to go through this again? The awful UI. Of course. The same problem I have with 90% of open source software.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Mason Wheeler said:
@blakeyrat said:
@Mason Wheeler said:
Why not just use FileZilla?
FileZilla is a huge pile of WTF. The only good SFTP client I've found in Windows is WinSCP. And even it's only acceptable, not great.
Really? I've been using FileZilla for a few years now and never had any problems with it. I consider it a very well-designed program. What issues do you have?
Do we really have to go through this again? The awful UI. Of course. The same problem I have with 90% of open source software.
Details, please? Because I find the UI quite intuitive.
-
@blakeyrat said:
It's been there as long as I've been using Windows. (Which is to say, Windows 98.)
I came in via Win95,so I guess I just never bothered looking because, hey, that's what FTP clients are for.@blakeyrat said:
I can't tell you where it "was". But if you open up "Help and Support" in Windows 7, and type in FTP, it pops right up.
I suspect this goes back to the days of yore as well, but why the fuck would my first instinct to find anything out be "Check Windows Help" - which, I will note, was never fucking helpful the last time I bothered trying.@blakeyrat said:
The Map Network Drive dialog has a big-ass paragraph that basically says "Map an FTP Site"
Yeah. But that means I have to open the dialog for some reason. The only way you'll know about the FTP feature is if you know about it in advance, or go through that dialog for another purpose. It's also worth noting that Windows 7 has changed the wording of "Map a network drive" to "Add a network location" which is kinda-sorta better (FTP is not on my, or anyone I know's list of network filesystems. However, if you're familiar with the old wording, the new wording appears to say the exact same thing, except less scary)
It would be pretty cool if Microsoft gave us a comprehensive, categorized changelist so the two or three years after a new OS release aren't filled entirely with "OMFG GUYS DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN NOW [X]" whenever someone stumbles over something new.
-
@Mason Wheeler said:
@blakeyrat said:
The problem I have is the inordinate amount of space wasted in the UI. With the file area maximised 1/2 local, 1/2 remote in Filezilla, the most number of files I can see at any one time is 20. In another file browser I use (Dolphin under Linux) it's 28 in detailed view, 45 in 'icon' view.Do we really have to go through this again? The awful UI. Of course. The same problem I have with 90% of open source software.
Details, please? Because I find the UI quite intuitive.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Bumble Bee Tuna said:
perhaps in the future you will take the time to do a 10 second google query before working yourself into a rage that the OS X UI isn't exactly the same as the Windows UI.
I wouldn't bet on it.
Edit: I want to assure the Mac users in the audience that I *used* to be a huge Apple fan. Back when they didn't suck. So if you're trying to stereotype me as the typical Windows user who's never sat down at a Mac before today, I assure you I probably have more "Apple cred" than you do-- I have a certificate at home for a registered Application Creator Code, dated 1997. (Wow, which still exists, apparently.)
I don't care about "Apple Cred", or Windows, or OS X, or Apple for that matter aside from hoping that their stock continues to make it rain for my meager stock portfolio. I only care about ridiculing people who are supposed to be professionals skilled with computers for not having the basic computer skill of USING THE FUCKING GOOGLE. Christ, even my mother has learned that the appropriate course of action when she doesn't know how to do task X with software Y is to type "task X software Y" into the google before calling her son (or raging on message boards, in this case). If she can do it, I'm sure with sufficient training you can too.
Your rage was essentially like saying "I do task X by clicking the start menu in Windows. But there is no start menu in OS X, so TASK X MUST BE IMPOSSIBLE IN OS X WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH APPLE DIE DIE STEVE JOBS".
-
@Bumble Bee Tuna said:
I only care about ridiculing people who are supposed to be professionals skilled with computers for not having the basic computer skill of USING THE FUCKING GOOGLE.
I used THE FUCKING GOOGLE, you fucking asshat. I just didn't use the exact search string that gave the results yours did. Fine! You win at Google! You're the king and master of Google! BOW before the king and master of Google!
@Bumble Bee Tuna said:
Christ, even my mother has learned that the appropriate course of action when she doesn't know how to do task X with software Y is to type "task X software Y" into the google before calling her son (or raging on message boards, in this case).
Oh you mean like this? You fucking asshat?
You're also conveniently ignoring the fact that I asked a (self-proclaimed, admittedly) OS X expert before posting that. One who WORKS AT APPLE.
@Bumble Bee Tuna said:
Your rage was essentially like saying "I do task X by clicking the start menu in Windows. But there is no start menu in OS X, so TASK X MUST BE IMPOSSIBLE IN OS X WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH APPLE DIE DIE STEVE JOBS".
No, no it's not.
Look, FTP's discoverability in Windows is shit. It's also shit in OS X. It's just shit in a slightly different way. I'm not saying Windows is better, nor do I have any clue where you're pulling that from. The only claim I made about Windows' FTP support in this thread is that it exists.
-
You mean you people need GUIs to use FTP?
-
@intertravel said:
The other day the boss of Apple came barging into my house, went to the cupboard under the sink, ransacked the cleaning supplies, and walked out with a can of Mr Sheen. Fucking Jobs, coming over here and stealing our polish...
This is the funniest thing I've read in some time. Well, EVER, on this site.
-
@TheChewanater said:
You mean you people need GUIs to use FTP?
You mean you people need a browser to use HTTP?
-
@TheChewanater said:
Not need, no. But it's a lot more convenient if the tools I'm using to change the file can handle ftp/scp/sftp/webdavs/etc.You mean you people need GUIs to use FTP?
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Bumble Bee Tuna said:
I only care about ridiculing people who are supposed to be professionals skilled with computers for not having the basic computer skill of USING THE FUCKING GOOGLE.
I used THE FUCKING GOOGLE, you fucking asshat. I just didn't use the exact search string that gave the results yours did. Fine! You win at Google! You're the king and master of Google! BOW before the king and master of Google!
@Bumble Bee Tuna said:
Christ, even my mother has learned that the appropriate course of action when she doesn't know how to do task X with software Y is to type "task X software Y" into the google before calling her son (or raging on message boards, in this case).
Oh you mean like this? You fucking asshat?
You're also conveniently ignoring the fact that I asked a (self-proclaimed, admittedly) OS X expert before posting that. One who WORKS AT APPLE.
@Bumble Bee Tuna said:
Your rage was essentially like saying "I do task X by clicking the start menu in Windows. But there is no start menu in OS X, so TASK X MUST BE IMPOSSIBLE IN OS X WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH APPLE DIE DIE STEVE JOBS".
No, no it's not.
Look, FTP's discoverability in Windows is shit. It's also shit in OS X. It's just shit in a slightly different way. I'm not saying Windows is better, nor do I have any clue where you're pulling that from. The only claim I made about Windows' FTP support in this thread is that it exists.
I'm having trouble believing that Blakey and Bumble Bee Tuna are not the same person. Well done to both, if they're not. Fine ranting - at least 6/10, and only so low because I docked points for CAPITALS.
-
@rudraigh said:
That's much what I thought when I read it on Sickipedia.@intertravel said:
The other day the boss of Apple came barging into my house, went to the cupboard under the sink, ransacked the cleaning supplies, and walked out with a can of Mr Sheen. Fucking Jobs, coming over here and stealing our polish...
This is the funniest thing I've read in some time. Well, EVER, on this site.
-
@Bumble Bee Tuna said:
Your rage was essentially like saying "I do task X by clicking the start menu in Windows. But there is no start menu in OS X, so TASK X MUST BE IMPOSSIBLE IN OS X WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH APPLE DIE DIE STEVE JOBS".
You left out a DIE.
-
@blakeyrat said:
HEY! More people post this! It's already in the thread 4 times, but maybe another 5-6 will help us all understand that OS X does indeed have built-in FTP support!Hey thanks guys, I appreciate it.FTFY
-
@blakeyrat said:
Do we really have to go through this again? The awful UI. Of course. The same problem I have with 90% of open source software.
I have real difficulties understanding that.FileZilla's UI looks fine, is pretty obvious, so ...
One explanation would be that you're so strongly adverse to open source software that in your eyes, the actual UI doesn't play a role: it's OSS, therefore it sucks.
But before I move that explanation from 'possible' to 'probable', I'd like to see some examples of UIs you find good. Could you post/link to a couple of screenshots of those?
-
@intertravel said:
The other day the boss of Apple came barging into my house, went to the cupboard under the sink, ransacked the cleaning supplies, and walked out with a can of Mr Sheen. Fucking Jobs, coming over here and stealing our polish...
You win the internet today, hands down.
-
@blakeyrat said:
I used THE FUCKING GOOGLE, you fucking asshat. I just didn't use the exact search string that gave the results yours did. Fine! You win at Google! You're the king and master of Google! BOW before the king and master of Google!
Ah yes. You searched for OS X FTP and THE FUCKING GOOGLE returned some options for OS X FTP. Then you thought "ok, fine, Google, when I searched for an OS X FTP client, you returned me an OS X FTP client. but what if I want a i]built-in[/i] OS X FTP client? Well, the normal step at this point would be to add "built in" to your query, but apparently you prefer to hope Google develops mind-reading technology. I like their R&D as much as the next guy, but that's probably not going to happen.
I hardly feel that knowing to input the search terms I am actually searching for makes me a king and master of Google, but...thanks, I guess. How on earth do you use databases? "Man, my query kept returning all the rows in the table! How did you get just the subset you were looking for...a where clause? WHOA! You're the king and master of SQL!"
@blakeyrat said:
You're also conveniently ignoring the fact that I asked a (self-proclaimed, admittedly) OS X expert before posting that. One who WORKS AT APPLE.
It's true I have thus far ignored your imaginary conversations, and I probably will continue to do so.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Bumble Bee Tuna said:
I only care about ridiculing people who are supposed to be professionals skilled with computers for not having the basic computer skill of USING THE FUCKING GOOGLE.
I used THE FUCKING GOOGLE, you fucking asshat. I just didn't use the exact search string that gave the results yours did. Fine! You win at [b]THE FUCKING GOOGLE[/b]! You're the king and master of [b]THE FUCKING GOOGLE[/b]! BOW before the king and master of [b]THE FUCKING GOOGLE[/b]!
FTFY.
Also love the "I'll ignore imaginary conversations" quote, since clearly it really means "I will ignore any information presented that makes me look like an asshat".
-
@Ilya Ehrenburg said:
@blakeyrat said:
Do we really have to go through this again? The awful UI. Of course. The same problem I have with 90% of open source software.
I have real difficulties understanding that.FileZilla's UI looks fine, is pretty obvious, so ...
One explanation would be that you're so strongly adverse to open source software that in your eyes, the actual UI doesn't play a role: it's OSS, therefore it sucks.
But before I move that explanation from 'possible' to 'probable', I'd like to see some examples of UIs you find good. Could you post/link to a couple of screenshots of those?
It's usually safe to simply ignore blakeyrat's UI rants. I'm sure he's sometimes correct, but so are broken clocks. He's got a very picky idea of what a good interface is, and it doesn't always seem to be well correlated with, "It makes sense and is easy to figure out and use." At least as far as people other than him are concerned. I'd guess that he has a similar impression of non-OSS, but he probably uses/tries fewer of those than he does OSS (don't we all?).
And no command line interface is good. Personally, I only use WinSCP until I can install gnuwin32 or something similar.
-
@boomzilla said:
And no command line interface is good.
yes they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
they are!
^C
-
-
@Xyro said:
@boomzilla said:
Heh. Should have been clearer. I meant to write that according to blakeyrat, no command line interface is good. Well, maybe Powershell, because that interface was no doubt developed with teh Science.And no command line interface is good.
yes they are!
-
@boomzilla said:
@Ilya Ehrenburg said:
@blakeyrat said:
Do we really have to go through this again? The awful UI. Of course. The same problem I have with 90% of open source software.
I have real difficulties understanding that.FileZilla's UI looks fine, is pretty obvious, so ...
One explanation would be that you're so strongly adverse to open source software that in your eyes, the actual UI doesn't play a role: it's OSS, therefore it sucks.
But before I move that explanation from 'possible' to 'probable', I'd like to see some examples of UIs you find good. Could you post/link to a couple of screenshots of those?
It's usually safe to simply ignore blakeyrat's UI rants. I'm sure he's sometimes correct, but so are broken clocks. He's got a very picky idea of what a good interface is, and it doesn't always seem to be well correlated with, "It makes sense and is easy to figure out and use." At least as far as people other than him are concerned. I'd guess that he has a similar impression of non-OSS, but he probably uses/tries fewer of those than he does OSS (don't we all?).
And no command line interface is good. Personally, I only use WinSCP until I can install gnuwin32 or something similar.
Blakey quite rightly puts look&feel ahead of everything else. Too many people put it last, resulting in the kind of UIs that Blakey correctly points out are unusably hideous.
-
-
@boomzilla said:
@Xyro said:
@boomzilla said:
Heh. Should have been clearer. I meant to write that according to blakeyrat, no command line interface is good. Well, maybe Powershell, because that interface was no doubt developed with teh Science.And no command line interface is good.
yes they are!Nope.
The concept is good, the execution sucks... the CLI most fans praise is an unusable mess pulled out of someone's ass in 1975 and bloated up since then with hundreds of tiny tools, most of which have different syntaxes, some of which have their own parsers, and the rare few that actually pretend to be a GUI-- oh, and it's based on the utterly wrong assumption that all data is/can be represented by text. The only reason people think it's good is because they're used to it, and if you suggest any improvement to it you're burned at the stake as a blasphemer.
Yes, there's a small set of tasks the CLI is better for than a GUI, even a really good GUI. Now imagine if those CLI tasks were accessible by people who didn't spend their entire career worshiping a mainframe system decommissioned in 1980, or a half-OS that was designed to run on an 8080. Wouldn't that be great?
If the Linux geeks *really* cared about how great the CLI is, they'd be working their asses off to make it more accessible and more usable. But they don't. Instead then they bitch and moan about people who write long, complicated scripts in VBA or AppleScript... gee, why do you think people might be using those tools!?
I like PowerShell because:
1) It was actually designed
2) It's newThat doesn't mean PowerShell is great, or even good frankly. And to be even more honest, I haven't spent a ton of time working in it. But at least they acknowledged that the existing CLIs sucked shit, and that's the first step in fixing things.
Now, if you design a CLI that my mom can use to do a mail-merge for her historic homes club, without my teaching her-- that would be something great.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Yes, there's a small set of tasks the CLI is better for than a GUI, even a really good GUI.
No. A good GUI would make those things even easier than (or, worst case, only as easy as) doing so with the CLI. A really good GUI will also shine my shoes and bring me coffee.
-
@intertravel said:
@blakeyrat said:
Yes, there's a small set of tasks the CLI is better for than a GUI, even a really good GUI.
No. A good GUI would make those things even easier than (or, worst case, only as easy as) doing so with the CLI. A really good GUI will also shine my shoes and bring me coffee.Possibly. Frankly, I think Apple was on the right track with the AppleScript/AppleEvents combination-- but their app developers never embraced it, and they seem to have flushed it down the toilet with OS X. Like so many hundreds of other great things they flushed down the toilet with OS X. Nobody else has really even bothered to try.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@intertravel said:
@blakeyrat said:
Yes, there's a small set of tasks the CLI is better for than a GUI, even a really good GUI.
No. A good GUI would make those things even easier than (or, worst case, only as easy as) doing so with the CLI. .Possibly. Frankly, I think Apple was on the right track with the AppleScript/AppleEvents combination-- but their app developers never embraced it, and they seem to have flushed it down the toilet with OS X.
Never played with Applescript/AppleEvents - don't you know that Apple stuff smells of wee? As for 'possibly': no, by definition it has to do so. A good GUI provides all the functionality of the CLI it replaces, and in a more accessible format. Put another way, if it doesn't rub people's noses into how superior it is over CLI, it's at best only passable.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@pjt33 said:
You can't change FTP to be "secure by default". SFTP isn't simply FTP over SSH, it's an entirely different protocol with similar features to FTP. FTPS is FTP with security added, but the design of FTP makes this option of limited use.@blakeyrat said:
Anyway, I just got pissed as the feature should BE IN THE FUCKING OS WHAT THE FUCK HOW DO APPLE USERS STAND THE FACT THAT THEIR OS DOESN'T FUCKING DO ANY OF THE MOST COMMON THINGS PEOPLE WANT THEIR OS TO DO AND EVERY OTHER OS DOES!
People wanting to send passwords in plain text are TRWTF.
I don't want to send passwords in plain text. I want to upload files to my domain.
If the geeky types who do open source OS X development think security is so great, then they should change the FTP code to do secure FTP by default... as long as the most usable way is the insecure way, you can't complain about people using the insecure way.
Not that the geeky types who care about security also care even a small amount about usability, or they'd already have done this five years ago. They'd rather just keep pumping out unusable shit, then point and laugh when someone has a security problem-- they'd rather be snide and condescending than to fix the problem!
FTP has a handful of fatal flaws:
1. It uses random ports on the server side. This makes it really hard to properly configure a firewall that is put in front of an FTP server. Firewall vendors responded to this by doing deep-packet inspection and dynamically opening ports, but FTPS makes deep-packet inspection impossible. Even when properly configured, it's fairly easy to port-scan an FTP server and steal everybody's downloads.
2. The responses to some commands are not standardized. FTP was designed to be used interactively. So, things like directory listings are human-readable, but can sometimes be difficult for a machine. They also can be different in every implementation.
3. There is an entire RFC dedicated to the security problems of FTP and how to minimize their impact.
So, use FTP if you want compatibility and don't care about security. If you want security, abandon FTP and choose something else. Attempting to secure FTP simply leaves you with a result that is neither secure nor widely compatible.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Yes, there's a small set of tasks the CLI is better for than a GUI, even a really good GUI. Now imagine if those CLI tasks were accessible by people who didn't spend their entire career worshiping a mainframe system decommissioned in 1980, or a half-OS that was designed to run on an 8080. Wouldn't that be great?
I agree with you that there is a subset of tasks that are easier with a GUI. Which is not to say that CLIs have no room for improvement. But it just takes a bit of getting used to, and learning the system, not unlike most GUIs (a few of which are genuinely discoverable by normal people). Let us know when you have the paradigm shifting idea (and no, I don't think powershell is it) for a CLI, though the object model is interesting.
@blakeyrat said:Now, if you design a CLI that my mom can use to do a mail-merge for her historic homes club, without my teaching her-- that would be something great.
Actually, a CLI is a lot easier to communicate about complicated tasks than a GUI. Explaining some non-trivial task regarding a GUI is pulling teeth to the equivalent with a CLI. "Ok, now look for this button, it should say....Alright, now find the File menu...etc, etc." Especially given how many interfaces are configurable, so your toolbars are different than mine, and they're in a different place, etc.
Another benefit is that it's usually easier to be more precise with a CLI, since you can see exactly what you're doing and review it before you commit to executing, as opposed to missing some widget's hot spot by a few pixels, or not double clicking fast enough, or too fast. You've also got your history of what happened right there, built into the interface.
I'm not aware of any CLIs that do mail merging, but then, I wouldn't have a clue how to start doing it with any GUI program, either.
-
@boomzilla said:
Let us know when you have the paradigm shifting idea for a CLI.
A GUI. Not my idea, sadly.@boomzilla said:
Actually, a CLI is a lot easier to communicate about complicated tasks than a GUI. Explaining some non-trivial task regarding a GUI is pulling teeth to the equivalent with a CLI. "Ok, now look for this button, it should say....Alright, now find the File menu...etc, etc."
I'd disagree. If you are giving clear directions, the only problem will be with the person you're directing. It's quite possible they'll be the type who doesn't understand or follow your directions, but then you're fucked whether it's CLI or GUI. Assuming some reasonable level of co-operation, it's easier (in my book) to say 'Click File | Open and browse to the file you want' than to explain 'Type open see colon backslash et cetera' and then review for errors before commit.@boomzilla said:
Another benefit is that it's usually easier to be more precise with a CLI, since you can see exactly what you're doing and review it before you commit to executing, as opposed to missing some widget's hot spot by a few pixels, or not double clicking fast enough, or too fast.
In any minimally-acceptable GUI, you have all those options, and more clearly presented. What do you think the 'Cancel' button on a dialogue box is?@boomzilla said:
I'm not aware of any CLIs that do mail merging, but then, I wouldn't have a clue how to start doing it with any GUI program, either.
Oh fuck. Wordstar. Or, more specifically, the original MailMerge. If I remember rightly, that was all done from the command line, but I might be wrong - it's been a while...
-
@Jaime said:
So, use FTP if you want compatibility and don't care about security. If you want security, abandon FTP and choose something else. Attempting to secure FTP simply leaves you with a result that is neither secure nor widely compatible.
Ok, so SFTP isn't FTP, but it does the same fucking shit, yes? So the way to fix FTP to be secure by default would be to replace it with SFTP, which is secure by default, yes?
When I say "secure FTP" I don't mean "secure protocol that opens a random port on the service side which is impossible to use deep packet inspection and has an RFC about blah blah blah". I mean a secure file transfer protocol. I'm an end-user, I don't give a flying shit how it works. It could require blowing up a star in an alternate dimension for all I care... all I want is a file transfer protocol that's secure by default.
It's like you're SO pedantic that it's made you blind to the OBVIOUS solution here. And pedants piss me off. Pragmatism, motherfucker, do you speak it?
@boomzilla said:
I agree with you that there is a subset of tasks that are easier with a GUI. Which is not to say that CLIs have no room for improvement. But it just takes a bit of getting used to, and learning the system, not unlike most GUIs (a few of which are genuinely discoverable by normal people).
A "bit" of learning the system. A bit of learning the system. To use Bash?! You have got to be shitting me. If that's a "bit", what is a "lot" in your world?
@boomzilla said:
Let us know when you have the paradigm shifting idea (and no, I don't think powershell is it) for a CLI, though the object model is interesting.
Well, at the minimum, it'd have rigid, well-defined rules for syntax and parsing, it would get rid of the retarded concept that the only type of data is text (PowerShell has done both of those), it should also be tightly integrated with GUI apps and the OS in general. There'd be some form of auto-completion, and hopefully some form of previewing the results of a script/command you're writing (think something like the way Word will change the font temporarily as you hover over font selections, but with script commands).
I don't know exactly what it would look like, but if you can run it in a traditional line-based console like Bash or DOS/Batch/CMD/whatever that language is called now, then that's not it.
@boomzilla said:
Actually, a CLI is a lot easier to communicate about complicated tasks than a GUI. Explaining some non-trivial task regarding a GUI is pulling teeth to the equivalent with a CLI.
Not buying it.
Of course, I concede that if you are using a really shitty GUI, yes, it's hard to explain how to do things because the way to do things is fucked. But if you're using a good GUI, all you ever need to explain is the metaphors used by the system, and then the user can figure out what they want to do on their own. Since 95% of GUI metaphors are shared among all apps, you have very little to teach, and the little you teach stretches much further.
Part of the problem is that people who like CLIs:
1) Usually are using Linux, or some other OS with a really shitty GUI.
2) Are shitty at talking to other human beings
3) Usually have the idea in their head that the only help anybody needs are the four letters "RTFM"
4) Usually have an ego the size of that UFO boss at the end of Earth Defense Force 2017So the reason you prefer to "help" people by using the CLI are:
1) You genuinely believe the GUI is going to suck before you even start
2) You want a method where you can rely on copy and paste, minimizing the amount of talking to humans you have to do
3) You want a method that's over as soon as possible, because frankly you hate helping anybody ever
4) You want the helpee to come back to you when they have problems, because that gives you an ego boost@boomzilla said:
Especially given how many interfaces are configurable, so your toolbars are different than mine, and they're in a different place, etc.
Even Microsoft has finally caught on to the idea that configurable UIs are more trouble than they're worth... they only ever benefit the geekiest of the geeky, and harm literally everybody else. How many support calls have you gotten about Office 2003, saying "the menu bar disappeared!" (I can't even imagine why the holy shit they thought anybody would want to MOVE the menu bar. Dumbshits.)
The Mac world had that figured out in, oh, 1986 or so. The Linux world will catch on in another decade, maybe.
@boomzilla said:
Another benefit is that it's usually easier to be more precise with a CLI, since you can see exactly what you're doing and review it before you commit to executing, as opposed to missing some widget's hot spot by a few pixels, or not double clicking fast enough, or too fast. You've also got your history of what happened right there, built into the interface.
But, if your CLI had "Undo" you wouldn't need that. The argument is based on CLI usability sucking shit... if the CLI didn't suck shit, you wouldn't need to closely examine every character to see if you made a typo that will wipe out your user folder... and if you did make that typo, you'd shrug and hit "Undo".
@boomzilla said:
I'm not aware of any CLIs that do mail merging, but then, I wouldn't have a clue how to start doing it with any GUI program, either.
Welcome to my point. Which was, basically: right now CLIs are terrible at things they should by all rights be good at, like mail merge (since it requires integrating tightly with two GUI apps.) In addition to all the arguments about them not being usable, they're also not very good at all.
My point was that a CLI that let my mom do a mail merge without outside help would be simultaneously more powerful, and more usable, than any CLI that currently exists.
Incidentally, mail merge was something that AppleScript could do like a fucking champ, although I doubt my mom would have been able to do it without help.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@boomzilla said:
Actually, a CLI is a lot easier to communicate about complicated tasks than a GUI. Explaining some non-trivial task regarding a GUI is pulling teeth to the equivalent with a CLI.
Not buying it.
Well, let me know when you can copy and paste GUI actions.
@blakeyrat said:
So the reason you prefer to "help" people by using the CLI are:
1) You genuinely believe the GUI is going to suck before you even start
2) You want a method where you can rely on copy and paste, minimizing the amount of talking to humans you have to do
3) You want a method that's over as soon as possible, because frankly you hate helping anybody ever
4) You want the helpee to come back to you when they have problems, because that gives you an ego boostProject much? No, CLI help is easy, because the user can see exactly what to do. Even copy and paste. Can study the directions to understand it and learn from it. Obviously, CLI work is a bit more abstract, and I get that a lot of people just can't handle that. I use GUIs all the time, and like anyone, some I like, some I don't. But I just also happen to appreciate the strengths of a CLI. I'm not the one saying this is an either or thing. But I definitely enjoy getting the anti-CLIs up in arms.
@blakeyrat said:
@boomzilla said:
I have no clue how this makes your point. It was just my ignorance about mail merge, something that I've never had to do, except once, I think over 10 years ago. This is just more of your strawman garbage.I'm not aware of any CLIs that do mail merging, but then, I wouldn't have a clue how to start doing it with any GUI program, either.
Welcome to my point. Which was, basically: right now CLIs are terrible at things they should by all rights be good at, like mail merge (since it requires integrating tightly with two GUI apps.) In addition to all the arguments about them not being usable, they're also not very good at all.
My point was that a CLI that let my mom do a mail merge without outside help would be simultaneously more powerful, and more usable, than any CLI that currently exists.
Incidentally, mail merge was something that AppleScript could do like a fucking champ, although I doubt my mom would have been able to do it without help.
-
@blakeyrat said:
It's like you're SO pedantic that it's made you blind to the OBVIOUS solution here. And pedants piss me off.
But we love you, blakey!
-
@boomzilla said:
@blakeyrat said:
@boomzilla said:
Actually, a CLI is a lot easier to communicate about complicated tasks than a GUI. Explaining some non-trivial task regarding a GUI is pulling teeth to the equivalent with a CLI.
Not buying it.
Well, let me know when you can copy and paste GUI actions.
Congratulations, you completely missed the point.
@boomzilla said:
Project much? No, CLI help is easy, because the user can see exactly what to do. Even copy and paste.
Yesss...
@boomzilla said:
Can study the directions to understand it and learn from it.
Noooo...
The user sees only gibberish. Frequently, the user will get errors that you (the teacher) didn't get because your computer is set up differently. Or you would have gotten, but you left out some important step that you assume "everybody knows" (usually, using sudo for certain actions.) There's no way the user can learn from it, because there's no explanation from you as to what it actually does, or how it works. And the system certainly isn't providing any context-sensitive help for them.
@boomzilla said:
Obviously, CLI work is a bit more abstract, and I get that a lot of people just can't handle that.
Here's that phrase "a bit" again.
@boomzilla said:
I use GUIs all the time, and like anyone, some I like, some I don't. But I just also happen to appreciate the strengths of a CLI. I'm not the one saying this is an either or thing. But I definitely enjoy getting the anti-CLIs up in arms.
Fair enough, I can respect good old-fashioned trolling.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Jaime said:
It's not just being pedantic. FTP is popular for only one reason; it's widely used. If nobody else used FTP, then no one would ever start using it because it's such a horrible protocol. People don't simply want a way to transfer files, they want a tool that connects to their FTP server. SFTP doesn't do that.So, use FTP if you want compatibility and don't care about security. If you want security, abandon FTP and choose something else. Attempting to secure FTP simply leaves you with a result that is neither secure nor widely compatible.
Ok, so SFTP isn't FTP, but it does the same fucking shit, yes? So the way to fix FTP to be secure by default would be to replace it with SFTP, which is secure by default, yes?When I say "secure FTP" I don't mean "secure protocol that opens a random port on the service side which is impossible to use deep packet inspection and has an RFC about blah blah blah". I mean a secure file transfer protocol. I'm an end-user, I don't give a flying shit how it works. It could require blowing up a star in an alternate dimension for all I care... all I want is a file transfer protocol that's secure by default.
It's like you're SO pedantic that it's made you blind to the OBVIOUS solution here. And pedants piss me off. Pragmatism, motherfucker, do you speak it?
SFTP is like a car that gets 200mpg and has perfect safety, but doesn't work on our current roads. It's great, but also useless, unless you want to build your own infrastructure. How pragmatic is a solution that you can't use?
-
@boomzilla said:
@blakeyrat said:
That's called a macro. It's been around since the 1980s.@boomzilla said:
Well, let me know when you can copy and paste GUI actions.Actually, a CLI is a lot easier to communicate about complicated tasks than a GUI. Explaining some non-trivial task regarding a GUI is pulling teeth to the equivalent with a CLI.
Not buying it.
-
@Jaime said:
@boomzilla said:
Well, let me know when you can copy and paste GUI actions.
That's called a macro. It's been around since the 1980s.Yes, that's true, of course (I was wondering if someone would bring this up), but it's not exactly built-in to a GUI the way it is for a CLI. It's an application specific feature.
If you consider the applications that could reasonably have CLI and GUI analogs (file managers, SCM clients, package managers, file compressors, etc.), do many of those have such macro capabilities? Or the ability to combine them together? I guess there are things like AutoIt that are designed to fill this gap.
-
@boomzilla said:
Yes, that's true, of course (I was wondering if someone would bring this up), but it's not exactly built-in to a GUI the way it is for a CLI.
It was in Mac Classic. AppleEvents was the IPC part of it, and AppleScript was the scripting portion of it-- the OS even shipped with a macro recorder that (in theory) worked in every app.
This isn't an "invention" we're talking about here, it's a lost technology. Apple stopped giving a fuck when the usability-hating geeks at NeXT took over development.
-
@Jaime said:
It's not just being pedantic.
True; it could also be a terrible lack of imagination.
@Jaime said:
FTP is popular for only one reason; it's widely used. If nobody else used FTP, then no one would ever start using it because it's such a horrible protocol. People don't simply want a way to transfer files, they want a tool that connects to their FTP server. SFTP doesn't do that.
Ok; so we need a new version of FTP that does a handshake and, if both ends support SFTP, switches to using SFTP instead. Again: the solution is obvious.
You talk as if there's some immutable law in the universe that makes it literally impossible for FTP and SFTP to co-exist.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@boomzilla said:
Yes, that's true, of course (I was wondering if someone would bring this up), but it's not exactly built-in to a GUI the way it is for a CLI.
It was in Mac Classic. AppleEvents was the IPC part of it, and AppleScript was the scripting portion of it-- the OS even shipped with a macro recorder that (in theory) worked in every app.
This isn't an "invention" we're talking about here, it's a lost technology. Apple stopped giving a fuck when the usability-hating geeks at NeXT took over development.
I've never used Mac's much, but according to wiki, AppleScript is still around. Apple thinks so, too. Maybe it just "sucks too much shit" for people to care or use it. Or perhaps no one bothers to build support for it into their applications (wiki talks about scripting dictionaries distributed with apps). Though I see there in 10.5, they did make it easy to run from the command line.
Presumably, that was the inspiration for stuff like AutoIt, which looks like more of a PITA, but probably more versatile and useful, since it doesn't rely on applications being AutoIt-aware.
These bugs fixed for 10.5 look like WTFs of their own:
- The delay command uses less CPU. [3178086]
- Impossible object specifiers in math expressions, such as 1 + character 2 of "9", produce an error instead of a random result. [4029175]
-
@BC_Programmer said:
@blakeyrat said:
@Bumble Bee Tuna said:
I only care about ridiculing people who are supposed to be professionals skilled with computers for not having the basic computer skill of USING THE FUCKING GOOGLE.
I used THE FUCKING GOOGLE, you fucking asshat. I just didn't use the exact search string that gave the results yours did. Fine! You win at THE FUCKING GOOGLE! You're the king and master of THE FUCKING GOOGLE! BOW before the king and master of THE FUCKING GOOGLE!
FTFY.
Also love the "I'll ignore imaginary conversations" quote, since clearly it really means "I will ignore any information presented that makes me look like an asshat".
Well, I'm sure blakeyrat's imaginary conversations would make me look like an asshat. He's antagonistic towards me, so it would be rather strange if his imaginary conversations made me look good. But I can't really know for sure, because, being imaginary, those conversations are not readable even if I wanted to. Anyway, I'm pretty sure I can provide enough material to make myself look like an asshat without needing any assistance from blakeyrat's conversations, imaginary or otherwise.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Jaime said:
So, you wish for a magic client that allows you to access your FTP server securely. You don't care if it implements the FTP protocol, as long as you can get your files, and you're pragmatic. I mention that FTP has flaws so fundamental that any client that could be considered reasonably secure wouldn't work with existing FTP servers, and I'm pedantic.FTP is popular for only one reason; it's widely used. If nobody else used FTP, then no one would ever start using it because it's such a horrible protocol. People don't simply want a way to transfer files, they want a tool that connects to their FTP server. SFTP doesn't do that.
Ok; so we need a new version of FTP that does a handshake and, if both ends support SFTP, switches to using SFTP instead. Again: the solution is obvious.
You talk as if there's some immutable law in the universe that makes it literally impossible for FTP and SFTP to co-exist.
The hypothetical client you mention would be worthless from a security standpoint. It would simply fall back to FTP for 99.9% of the Internet while simultaneously giving a false sense of security. It's much more effective to simply get people to stop using FTP.
This argument has been made a thousand times already. SFTP falling back to FTP would have to be disabled just like all the previous insecure fall-back mechanisms have been disabled. For example, Windows 2000 and above won't make an SMB connection to an unpatched Windows 95 computer because doing so would require falling back to an insecure authentication mechanism. Microsoft tried it for a while, then realized that many of their customers were being compromised by Windows 95 computers set up as honeypots.
-
@Jaime said:
I mention that FTP has flaws so fundamental that any client that could be considered reasonably secure wouldn't work with existing FTP servers, and I'm pedantic.
Authenticated POP3 and SMTP didn't work with a lot of email servers either, when we started rolling it out, guess what people did? They fucking fixed it.
The reason I say you're pedantic is that you seem to interpret the word "FTP" as being exactly "the file transfer service described by RFC 959, utilizing a control port and a transfer port and with both text mode and binary mode of file transfer." When all that shit is implementation detail I don't care about.
@Jaime said:
This argument has been made a thousand times already. SFTP falling back to FTP would have to be disabled just like all the previous insecure fall-back mechanisms have been disabled. For example, Windows 2000 and above won't make an SMB connection to an unpatched Windows 95 computer because doing so would require falling back to an insecure authentication mechanism. Microsoft tried it for a while, then realized that many of their customers were being compromised by Windows 95 computers set up as honeypots.
You're taking the wrong lesson from this. Here's what Microsoft didn't do: say "oh this is hard" and fucking GIVE UP. Which seems to be what everybody providing plain-jane insecure FTP has done.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Jaime said:
I mention that FTP has flaws so fundamental that any client that could be considered reasonably secure wouldn't work with existing FTP servers, and I'm pedantic.
Authenticated POP3 and SMTP didn't work with a lot of email servers either, when we started rolling it out, guess what people did? They fucking fixed it.
The reason I say you're pedantic is that you seem to interpret the word "FTP" as being exactly "the file transfer service described by RFC 959, utilizing a control port and a transfer port and with both text mode and binary mode of file transfer." When all that shit is implementation detail I don't care about.
There are so many alternatives to FTP, that it is much easier to abandon FTP than it is to fix it. However, the fact that these alternatives exist and FTP isn't dead proves that the world wants compatibility more than it wants security. The people get what the people want.
Expanding the acronym FTP to mean anything other than RFC 959 and its descendants will only serve to muddy the waters. Today, all of us that actually care know that if FTP comes up in a project proposal, we should sick the security auditors on it. Fixing FTP would make the job harder and would really serve no purpose other than to allow people to not have to learn a new acronym. Different stuff should have different names.
@blakeyrat said:@Jaime said:
Microsoft was able to salvage SMB for a few reasons. First, they designed the protocol well and part of the handshake defined allowed authentication protocols. The technical side of the fix was to simply remove the clear text authentication method from the list. Second, the security message was clear. Windows 2000, out of the box, refused to talk to any SMB device that only offered clear text as an authentication protocol. There was a registry key to disable this behavior if desired. Few people were negatively affected and the path was clear for those that had an issue. It had nothing to do with not giving up and more to do with doing what's best for the customer.This argument has been made a thousand times already. SFTP falling back to FTP would have to be disabled just like all the previous insecure fall-back mechanisms have been disabled. For example, Windows 2000 and above won't make an SMB connection to an unpatched Windows 95 computer because doing so would require falling back to an insecure authentication mechanism. Microsoft tried it for a while, then realized that many of their customers were being compromised by Windows 95 computers set up as honeypots.
You're taking the wrong lesson from this. Here's what Microsoft didn't do: say "oh this is hard" and fucking GIVE UP. Which seems to be what everybody providing plain-jane insecure FTP has done.
Following an analogous path here would mean creating an FTP client that refused to connect to FTP servers, but would connect to SFTP servers. This would obviously be an un-clear message and would not be well received by the world. Also, due to the heavy reliance on FTP, it would screw almost everyone up. 50% of those people would turn the "insecure" switch back on, the other 50% would call the software crap and go download FileZilla. Oh, and I know you don't like FileZilla, but it does already exactly what you want -- it supports FTP, FTPS, and SFTP simultaneously. However, the mere fact that the client supports a secure protocol does nothing to address the fact that 99% of the servers don't.
-
@Jaime said:
Yada yada yada, it's too hard, I give up.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Mason Wheeler said:
Why not just use FileZilla?
FileZilla is a huge pile of WTF. The only good SFTP client I've found in Windows is WinSCP. And even it's only acceptable, not great.
SmartFTP is pretty good, but they stopped with the free version 2 years or so ago.
Also your lack of understanding of these kind of things while still proving willing to bash everyone and everything around you on the subject is very disturbing.
-
@dtech said:
Also your lack of understanding of these kind of things
It's not a lack of understanding, it's not giving a shit about implementation details paired with an intense hatred of weak excuses to maintain the status quo, even though pretty much everybody agrees the status quo sucks ass.
If email could get authentication without the world ending, then FTP could get always-on encryption without the world ending. The only thing lacking is will.
