Boring Thursday! Here's a link
-
@blakeyrat said:
The CLI is fucking awful
You're the only person I know who's ever preferred the Windows CLI to the Linux one, and I've spoken about this to many people over the past 5 years or so I've been using Linux as my main OS. The standard CLI tools available in Windows are pretty poor, it's a bit like comparing Paint (Windows CLI) with Photoshop (Linux CLI). I'm pretty sure it's a slamdunk as to which developers would prefer to use to get their job done.@blakeyrat said:
The difference is the process of getting SSH working hasn't changed, where Windows has.
Getting SSH on Windows isn't straightforward. First, Windows still doesn't include this by default, despite it being around for years and really fucking useful.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Have you ever used Remote Desktop in Windows?
So how does Remote Desktop work in the CLI, because that's what this was about? I'll bite though, Linux can quite happily handle the Windows Remote Desktop protocol, which kind of proves that it is (to paraphrase) @blakeyrat said:even fucking close
Of course, Windows has been missing out on a feature that Linux has had for a while: remote X. The software runs on the remote computer, but the window runs on my local system. The traffic can be encrypted, and it's quite light on network resources compared to Windows Remote Desktop. Sure, you can install XWindows on Windows, and then use a 3rd party tool like Putty, but Windows doesn't have anything like this on its own. To paraphrase again:@blakeyrat said:
Not even remotely fucking close.
-
@blakeyrat said:
1) If I'm making a purchasing decision, I'm making it in 2013, not 1997. It doesn't fucking matter what features Linux had in 1997. It could not possibly be less relevant to the issue at-hand. You immediately going to the "well Linux had it longer!" argument just tells me you got nothing. If you got nothing, just be a man and admit it.
Then there's no need for to mention how long Windows had Remote Desktop for while Linux didn't is there? We're talking about now, not the past. Of course, Linux still has X, and it still has features that cannot be replicated in Remote Desktop.@blakeyrat said:2) If Linux has had a equivalent feature for far longer than Windows, and it still sucks (which it does in this particular case, so much so that I didn't even bother to mention it in the comparison), that only backs-up my point that Linux developers don't give even a tiny shit about improving their product.
Not only does Linux have a similar feature, it also has the ability to use Windows Remote Desktop too. It's OK, you just don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.@blakeyrat said:Or maybe Linux users love the CLI so much they wanted to add CLI commands to even the process of remotely controlling a GUI?
I think the point is that experienced Linux users actually prefer the CLI in some case to the GUI. Need to restart a webserver or database server on a remote machine? Need to update a website with new files from SVN? Need to install something on a remote computer? All this is a lot quicker to do over a CLI, and I can even do it from my phone if I want without any trouble at all. Try saying the same for doing all that with only a GUI, go on, I dare you.
-
@blakeyrat said:
it was far easier to set up a simple web server in Windows XP or Server 2003 than it is in Ubuntu Server.
It might be far easier for you, but you have no idea at all what you're doing on a Linux system, as you've proved time and time again. Take anyone with equivalent experience in Linux as you have in Windows, and I can bet they are able to get a web server installed and set up with not only no trouble, but a darn sight quicker than you could.
-
@nonpartisan said:
Oooh! Oooh! Oooh!! A DSW to break the monotony!! My turn!
Here you go, a story about an average user who can use it for his daily tasks!! At the time of writing, using it for 6 years!!!
Let the flames begin about how the two situations are not comparable, Linux still blows goats, Linux is a heaping steaming pile of rancid dung, etc. etc. etc.
An average user doing his daily tasks on Linux? You are out of your mind! I am a power-user and I've been using only Linux for close to 8 years so far and I still can't do even one basic daily task with it! Look forward to my blog post on a decade spent with Linux and how it can't accomplish basic things.
-
@Mo6eB said:
An average user doing his daily tasks on Linux? You are out of your mind! I am a power-user and I've been using only Linux for close to 8 years so far and I still can't do even one basic daily task with it! Look forward to my blog post on a decade spent with Linux and how it can't accomplish basic things.
I can say that you're either a) an idiot, b) blakeyrat, or c) both a and b. I've been using it for less time, and it makes my daily tasks an absolute breeze so I can actually get on with some real work.
-
----------> the joke
-----------> you
-
@nonpartisan said:
Because based on Amazon's own documentation
If you expect Blakeyrat to read documentation, you haven't been paying attention.
-
Forgive me, I'd had a morning reading blakeys mumbling rantings and kinda got my blinkers stuck on.
-
@ASheridan2 said:
@blakeyrat said:
That's not to say that there's no difference between IIS and Apache, or that the difference between IIS and Apache doesn't matter at all. But it is to say it doesn't matter proportionally to the amount of time idiot developers spend debating it. IIS and Apache are responsibly for maybe 0.5% of your application's experience, so you shouldn't spend more than 0.5% of your development time talking about it. And that's being generous, it's probably far less than 0.5%.
There's a reason Apache is being run on about 60% of the web servers worldwide and IIS on only about 16%, so I'd say it's more than an implementation detail. Of course, given your rants on the forum when it comes to all things web showing a lack of knowledge, it's no surprise you don't know about the differences that make it a pretty important part of the decision making process.Wow. Could you have possibly missed my point more? It would be difficult.
-
@ASheridan2 said:
You're the only person I know who's ever preferred the Windows CLI to the Linux one,
What is "the" Windows CLI? Windows doesn't have a "the" CLI.
I do prefer PowerShell to Bash, if that's what you mean. If you're talking about CMD, that's... not quite accurate.
@ASheridan2 said:
Getting SSH on Windows isn't straightforward. First, Windows still doesn't include this by default, despite it being around for years and really fucking useful.
That's because Microsoft solved the same problem (remote-controlling a computer) with RDS, which is far more useful and usable than SSH.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Could you have possibly missed my point more? It would be difficult.
Nope, I think I hit the nail on the head. You seem to think that the web server a system is built on is far more minimal than it actually is, but you've clearly shown that web development is not your area of expertise, so any argument you give as to how much time should be spent on what can be a very important decision in the life cycle of a web application is worthless.
-
@ASheridan2 said:
Forgive me, I'd had a morning reading blakeys mumbling rantings and kinda got my blinkers stuck on.
So far I've read two of your posts, and they're all fucking wrong:
1) Somehow thinking that Apache's marketshare has anything to do with me saying it's an implementation detail... I still haven't figured out how the fuck you were relating those two things! Even if Apache had 100% marketshare, how would that address the point i was making? (Note: don't bother answering that. "You're a crazy person" is the answer I've decided on.)
2) Not realizing there is no "the" Windows CLI (something I've talked about at length over and over in these forums). Windows, depending on the version, has at least 4 CLIs and, unlike the Linux shells, they're all quite different. (Well, VBScript and JScript share the same API. But anyway.) BTW Linux also has no "the" CLI, but I usually assume people mean Bash.
3) Misrepresenting my position regarding "the" Windows CLI, which is inevitable I suppose for a moron who doesn't realize there is no "the" Windows CLI in the first place. Do I think CMD is better than Bash? Honestly I've never thought about it. It's certainly less powerful (or, it's more complex to make things that are equally powerful.) On the other hand, sitting down at CMD and typing "help" does something useful, so I do think it's slightly more usable than Bash for basic tasks. Of course that's really moot anyway, since CMD has been deprecated for a decade.
You're obviously not willing to read my posts or consider my position.
Please stop shitting all over the forums. I'm not going to bother reading the rest of the trash you posted, since you got the first two so fundamentally wrong.
-
@ASheridan2 said:
Nope, I think I hit the nail on the head. You seem to think that the web server a system is built on is far more minimal than it actually is, but you've clearly shown that web development is not your area of expertise, so any argument you give as to how much time should be spent on what can be a very important decision in the life cycle of a web application is worthless.
If I say, "it doesn't matter what brand of oil filter you use", and you come back with, "no it does matter! 60% of people use the $12 brand and 15% of people use the $20 brand!" how does that response address the point made? At all? All it says is, for decisions that don't matter much, people tend to pick the cheaper option. WELL DUH.
I can't even dumb my brain down enough to conceive of how you thought talking about market share addressed the point even remotely. I literally have no clue what you think you were arguing or what evidence you think you were providing to back it up.
If you have an argument to make, then by all means make it. But stop posting all this bullshit, man.
-
@blakeyrat said:
On the other hand, sitting down at CMD and typing "help" does something useful, so I do think it's slightly more usable than Bash for basic tasks.
What do you halucinate that typing "help" does in bash?
@blakeyrat said:
You're obviously not willing to read my posts or consider my position.
I think it's quite useless to try to argue about, in particular, the pros and cons of a CLI with someone with blakey's form of mental disability (i.e., dyslexia). But it's also not fair for him to flame people who don't take the time to read or understand his posts when he doesn't do that for his or anyone else's.
-
@blakeyrat said:
If you're talking about CMD, that's... not quite accurate.
Of course I'm talking about CMD. The bloody name comes from it's Command Prompt past. That's about as "the" CLI as you can get on Windows. The fact that Microsoft realised it was a pile of crap and added PowerShell just goes to show. But Powershell is fairly recent in terms of Windows command line.@blakeyrat said:
That's because Microsoft solved the same problem (remote-controlling a computer) with RDS, which is far more useful and usable than SSH.
Erm, you realise SSH is a protocol that is used for stuff other than remote desktop right?
-
@blakeyrat said:
1) Somehow thinking that Apache's marketshare has anything to do with me saying it's an implementation detail... I still haven't figured out how the fuck you were relating those two things! Even if Apache had 100% marketshare, how would that address the point i was making? (Note: don't bother answering that. "You're a crazy person" is the answer I've decided on.)
Because it clearly illustrates the need for both web servers. If Apache had 100% then there wouldn't be a need to discuss which one to use you fucking moron!@blakeyrat said:2) Not realizing there is no "the" Windows CLI (something I've talked about at length over and over in these forums). Windows, depending on the version, has at least 4 CLIs and, unlike the Linux shells, they're all quite different. (Well, VBScript and JScript share the same API. But anyway.) BTW Linux also has no "the" CLI, but I usually assume people mean Bash.
It would be fair to say at this point that I know nothing about PowerShell, as you know next to fucking nothing about Linux in general. Still, it doesn't stop you from moaning and generally making up bullshit about Linux.@blakeyrat said:
You're obviously not willing to read my posts or consider my position.
I read them, but you're a moron so they're obviously wrong. Besides, when was the last time you actually read what anybody wrote and considered their position?
-
@blakeyrat said:
If I say, "it doesn't matter what brand of oil filter you use", and you come back with, "no it does matter! 60% of people use the $12 brand and 15% of people use the $20 brand!" how does that response address the point made?
Although I know little about car oil, what that split says to me is that maybe people do know something about it that I don't and there's a valid reason for their choice on which one to use.@blakeyrat said:
I can't even dumb my brain down enough to conceive of how you thought talking about market share addressed the point even remotely. I literally have no clue what you think you were arguing or what evidence you think you were providing to back it up.
Again,the market share breakdown shows that there is a split and highlights that there is likely a reason for it to be that way. Need a web server to run .Net, go with IIS. Need it to run everything else, use Apache. Need a really light server that can respond more quickly, use Nginx. There's just a few reasons you moron.
-
@ASheridan2 said:
Because it clearly illustrates the need for both web servers. If Apache had 100% then there wouldn't be a need to discuss which one to use you fucking moron!
I never said there wasn't a need to discuss which one to use. If you scroll up, you'll see I actually said THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THAT.
It's impossible to have a rational discussion with you. Boomzilla, you'll be happy to learn that ASheridan2 makes you look like a genius of online debate in comparison.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Boomzilla, you'll be happy to learn that ASheridan2 makes you look like a genius of online debate in comparison.
Thanks, but I already have you and DaveK for that.
-
@blakeyrat said:
I never said there wasn't a need to discuss which one to use. If you scroll up, you'll see I actually said THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THAT.
You said there was little need to discuss it. You exact figure was that you should spend 0.5% of the time of a project discussion on it. I disagree, and pointed out that the clear divide in market share meant that other people also disagree. I assumed it would be simple to connect the two, but I forget you're not a real human and need every step explained out to you in simple terms.
-
@ASheridan2 said:
You exact figure was that you should spend 0.5% of the time of a project discussion on it. I disagree, and pointed out that the clear divide in market share meant that other people also disagree.
Market share of A vs B tells you how important a decision between A and B is?
I can think of an implicit reason of why that might be in some situation, but it's indirect. Market share in and of itself tells you nothing.
-
@dhromed said:
Yes, but I think it's worth while as a considering factor, an indicator if you will. I would think, "hey, people are obviously choosing one over the other, but not everyone is making that choice. Why?" and I'd look into it myself when faced with the same decision. I wouldn't throw my arms up like blakey and declare it's all a waste of time and an implementation detail that developers shouldn't worry their pretty little heads with.Market share of A vs B tells you how important a decision between A and B is?
I can think of an implicit reason of why that might be in some situation, but it's indirect. Market share in and of itself tells you nothing.
-
Your choice of server is pretty much locked-in by the skillset of your developers anyway, or some other requirement of the project. So I guess we're back to the 0.5%?
-
@dhromed said:
Your choice of server is pretty much locked-in by the skillset of your developers anyway, or some other requirement of the project. So I guess we're back to the 0.5%?
I think it's these requirements that necessitate the discussion as to what web server should be used. The length of the discussion depends on several things such as importance of the reasons for one server and not another, as well as costs (purchase and maintenance) among other things. Blakeyrat just hasn't shown enough knowledge in the area of web development to show he knows much about web development outside a Microsoft shop, so of course I'm less than inclined to blindly accept what he has to say.
-
@ASheridan2 said:
I think it's these requirements that necessitate the discussion as to what web server should be used.
I think that's a luxury position to be in, and not typical. Do you work at a company with two skilled teams, in IIS and Apache setups respectively? Or have super-skilled people who can simply do both with nearly equal competence?
-
@dhromed said:
No, but I work in a very small place right now. I am however moving in a couple of weeks to a job that does have a mix of .Net and PHP people who have skills across IIS/Apache, so it doesn't seem totally unnatural.@ASheridan2 said:
I think it's these requirements that necessitate the discussion as to what web server should be used.
I think that's a luxury position to be in, and not typical. Do you work at a company with two skilled teams, in IIS and Apache setups respectively? Or have super-skilled people who can simply do both with nearly equal competence?
-
@ASheridan2 said:
Blakeyrat just hasn't shown enough knowledge in the area of web development to show he knows much about web development outside a Microsoft shop, so of course I'm less than inclined to blindly accept what he has to say.
I'm about the last person to blindly accept anything coming from blakeyrat, but if you're spending much more than 0.05% of your project's time on this decision, then you've got a pretty trivial product. Of course, that 0.05% could still be a few days of research, discussion and possibly testing. Of course, it's also something that has massive consequences, so getting it right is likely far out of proportion than the amount of time spent on it.
So, I think blakeyrat is correct that it shouldn't take much time, but ASheridan2 has an important point about the decision itself. My shoulder aliens judge this to be a tie, but I break the tie in favor of blakeyrat, since he trolled ASheridan2 into the argument to begin with.
-
-
@ASheridan2 said:
Getting SSH on Windows isn't straightforward. First, Windows still doesn't include this by default, despite it being around for years and really fucking useful.
But it has included telnet server by default since Windows2000!
-
@ASheridan2 said:
I wouldn't throw my arms up like blakey and declare it's all a waste of time and an implementation detail that developers shouldn't worry their pretty little heads with.
I saw Blakey's point that some developers exhibit target blindness about details that shouldn't concern them - if it does, they'll (hopefully) be involved in the decision-making process. If it doesn't concern them then they they can progress with their assigned duties and not waste effort on things outside of their control.
I got the impression that the webserver stuff was simply an example: someone with photoshop/HTML/CSS skills doesn't need to worry if the underlying delivery technology is Apache/IIS/ngnix/etc
Blakey's prior post stated he encounters it a lot. I've encountered it occasionally - code developers hung up about DB details when that should be left to the PL/SQL bods, DB people wanting to know what application will be producing the TSV file they're expecting, etc.
I'm sure you (and dhromed) have encountered the same mentality somewhere along the line.
-
@dhromed said:
@boomzilla said:
0.05%
Am I seeing a thing that you did there?LOL. I think it was unintentional, but I think my figure is closer to reality than blakeyrat's.
-
Hey you goons, Shamus just made a post making fun of Windows, so there you go.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Hey you goons, Shamus just made a post making fun of Windows, so there you go.
I was going to say "That's the stupidest thing I've read today. I feel dumber than I was before." Then I realized who it was and that you probably posted it tongue-in-cheek. But it still made me feel dumber, and I hate you for it.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Hey you goons, Shamus just made a post making fun of Windows, so there you go.
That was mildly amusing, but there was nothing there that hasn't been said a million times before.
