Or just keep two emails - one for registrations on various websites which for some reason require your email,
I use mailinator.com for such sites :)
Posts made by gilhad
-
RE: Clever spam almost got me
-
RE: This Slashdot article
@kilroo said:
It's like two groups of people, with each group having an argument with the other group, except neither group is having the same argument that the other group is having back with them...
I see it more like 3 groups:
1) there are people, who have problem, they want to solve, so they make tools to solve the problem (with UI good enought for them) - like Linus with git - and offers the result for free
2) there are people, who say: "Great, I have similar problem, which I can solve with your tools.Thank you. I may even contritribute a little, take this, what helped me better, if you want" - like me
3) there are people who say: "You all are idiots, I want YOU to spend a lot of time for FREE to solve MY problems the way I like to have solved them. No, I will not contribute nothing, it is YOUR work to make ME happy" - like Blakey (with chorus)
-
RE: This Slashdot article
@blakeyrat said:
@gilhad said:
It is already usable for intented users. It was not developed for *anybody and his dog* and was not presented as such.
Right. That's the problem.
The only problem is, that YOU are trying to use something, what was not developed for such users as you. It is the same problem, as Excel not working on Raspberry Pi.
@blakeyrat said:
@gilhad said:
As you did not pay for git nothing, you are already given much more, than you paid for.
It's free, so it doesn't matter that it's crap!
It is not crap, it is perfect tool for the work, for which it was constructed. If you do not like it, do not use it. If you want it to use for something, for what it was not intended, then the problem is you, not the tool.
Would you say, that Excel is total crap, because it sucks on editing photos?
-
RE: This Slashdot article
@blakeyrat said:
Wouldn't it be great if Git were actually usable, so that *anybody* could do the type of scripting and customization you can?
It is already usable for intented users. It was not developed for *anybody and his dog* and was not presented as such.
If you want some versioning system with GUI only and workflow easy for beginners, who do not read manuals, you are free to write such system.
You even are free to use git code for that, as long as you confirm with it licence (GPL). Or you can pay anybody willing to do it for you. (Or rise foundation and collect mony from others to hire someone like that ... or anything else)
As you did not pay for git nothing, you are already given much more, than you paid for.
Also note, that other GUI tools mentioned here (Excel, Beyond Compare, "some randome GUI renamingutility, that google offered me", ...) do not even offer such possibility of reworking/customizing/forking/rewriting.
As for me - it is easy usable and scriptable for me, so I have no needs to change the git. I make some simple scripts around that and they are free to use (under GPL).
-
RE: This Slashdot article
@dkf said:
Though git will still work correctly with CAD files (and any other structured or binary data you might care to mention). The only real issue is that the default diff — a part of the UI, really — is much better at showing the differences in plain text than in anything else. Use a different difference display strategy and it will work better for CAD files, or whatever.
What I would like is a better GUI for git so that I'm exposed to less of the convention complexities while still having a sane workflow (branches for things being worked on, tags for marking particular states like releases, general sharing of state between a small group of people). Right now, I have to understand way too much of git to work like that…
You are right, but my point was, that git was developed for one concrete purpose and for that purpose works perfectly.
The other thing is, that we (other users than kernel developers) are using it for other purposes, where it works also good, but it is not, for what it was developed. Still we have the right and possibility to change it to our needs, which is much more, that any proprietary GUI tool can offer.
(And as my needs are similar to those of intended user group, I am satisfied with I got (for free) and I do not feel urge to change anything - apart from using .gitconfig for some convenient shortcuts as ci = commit, co = checkout and so, and for some scripts to fit my need of managing ~75 repositories
alias gom='git merge origin/master'
gl() { git log --graph --oneline --decorate=full "$@" |sed "s#refs/[a-z/]*/##g;s#tag: ##g" ; }
and scrit to apply one git command (with params) to all repositories - usual use is "ga fetch", "ga push" "ga status", but also "ga merge origin/master" or others are possible)
-
RE: This Slashdot article
@Mason Wheeler said:
I have only seen one, ever, that did not absolutely suck: Beyond Compare.
I am using vim (vimdiff), as I work with textfiles in git and it works good for me.
I looked on Beyond Compare, but (in comparing textfiles) it seems to do the same as vimdiff - maybe there is some difference, I did not seen, but on their pages it was not enhanced.
-
RE: This Slashdot article
@blakeyrat said:
What is the "one thing" a spreadsheet application should do well? And here's a bonus tip: the reason Excel took over this space ion the first place is it started to do things other than simulating a financial spreadsheet well, while its competitors did not.
Excel sucks - it does not run well on my new Raspberry Pi. The authors of Excel are all idiots, because they did write it so, that it would not run smoohtly on this 700MHz ARM procesor.
-
RE: This Slashdot article
Git was developed for working with text files and not CAD files just because git was developed to help with developing linux kernel, which source contains lot of text files, but none CAD files.
So there was no reason to work with CAD files.
Also there was no reason to make git in DLL, when it was ment to be used on linux as CLI program.
If you do not like that, you do not have use git at all - it was not developed to please some blakeye rats. (Unless your boss tell you, that you will use it, if you want be payd, because people more important for your company than you decided, that the company will use it - but we all know, that you are in shitty position, where you cannot choose your tools, because nobody think, you are importatnt for your company enought to be allowed so)
So git was developed for some particular reason (developing linux kernel) and proved to be usefull even in other areas, so authors allowed others to use it anywhere the others want. I do not see, why they should add GUI, when they do not need it. All mentioned users (linux kernel developers) use it with CLI, so it is made with CLI in mind.
You got, what you paid for - if you are not satisfied, return git and ask for the money you paid for it. And simply download some GUI program, which can do the same with nice shiny buttons for clicking on. (As you recomended to do instead using the devil "move *.blah *.blah2")
-
RE: This Slashdot article
@blakeyrat said:
[Guess what? If people spend weeks in a cell after being kidnapped, they start to like their kidnappers!
I spend years stuck with Windows and learned to hate Windows to the bones.
Conclusion: Being stuck with Windows is much worse than being kidnapped.
-
RE: Someone somewhere thought this was a good idea
My old notebook has touchpad, which is really unreliable under more humid air, so I had to disable it in BIOS on holydays (otherwise it generate stream of random movement and cliks). Usually I just attach usb mouse (and keyboard and monitor if possible), but sometimes the mouse would be really inconvenient all the time. There is also possibility to move mouse with numpad-cursor-keys, but it is also inconvenient on notebook keaybord. So no-mouse situation is not such rare for me. (not mentioning, that shortcuts are way faster, than mouse and the possibility to set the shortcuts in menu is really convenient too. Maybe Windows will have that in some future version too, as they get all ideas from other sources and then they announce them as their unique invention, but I do not care about Windows for long time)
-
RE: Blakeyrant on another site - indie game To The Moon
@Mike Hunt said:
@gilhad said:
So the game is fucked as Win8 - no more, no less.
Only if Windows 8 defaulted to 640x480Nope. Win8 sucks more, as ToTheMoon is[b]not[/b] by default installed on majority of laptops
-
RE: Blakeyrant on another site - indie game To The Moon
So you pruchased game and you are not happy with it. So look in your licence 9you read it before buying, or at least you should read it) and according to it you follow the rules for getting money back or make official request for fixing your problem. if the licence do not allow you to ask money back nor is giving you right to unpaid fixes to the PRODuCT, then maybe you can take source code and fix it yourself (if licence allow you to so). if not, and the licence prohibits you from all above solution, it is just your problem, that you byu it anyway, knowing, that there are no warranties for help. i/f authors sell it "as is", then they are not under any way bounded to fix anything you not like. it is your problem, that you agreed. You are i the same position as if you bought win8 and asked MS to fix it so the Metro and iE are not included and it runs fluxbox instead. So the game is fucked as Win8 - no more, no less.
-
RE: "We don't use SVN and stuff here"
Yes, without good source control soft it is hard to work and I would refuse even try it :)
Also one time I was working at company, where SVN was used. I later learned Git, but was not able to force it company-wide. So I was using it on my comp only, carefully preparing my commits and when it merged flawlessly, I commited the result to SVN. This way I had nearly all comfort from Git and my SVN commits was nice, clean, consistent and merged everytime :)
-
RE: Windows 8.1
Actually, if the person is smart enougth, then s/he does not run Windows at all and so does not have this kind of problems.
-
RE: Guess I should have seen that coming
They sold stickers for keyboard with national chars. Some contained "ANY KEY" in place of spacebar :)
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@boomzilla said:
@gilhad said:
So all your rants about how WINDOWS INI files are fucked, because the definition of WINDOWS INI files is fucked is totally irrelevant to this debate. Also all your arguments why are text config files wrond, based on how SPECIFIC WINDOWS INI files are totatlly fucked.
Yeah, but also, don't forget that at some point, Microsoft defined something and associated it with the extension "ini", so anyone who comes after that is either stupid for using Microsoft's stupid file format or stupid for ignoring Microsoft's stupid file format.
MS asociated a lot of previously used extensions with something stupid. I can do that too. Anybody can.
Who cares about MS? Not me.
Should all MS based products disapper in one moment, nothing important would came to me. Maybe 2 or 3 servers I use for relaxation would have some downtime - oh, big deal.
OTOH should all unix based products disapper in one moment, then Internet would stopped totally too (and lot of tablets, TVs and other devices). So why care about how one fucked company is fucking co called "standards" which nobody else need?
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@blakeyrat said:
@gilhad said:
@BC_Programmer said:
php.ini. Again. I repeat: why is it called php.ini, and not php.config. Give me ONE good reason. There isn't one.
Maybe because it contains some values to INItialize the PHP?That's bullshit and you know it. He was ripping-off Microsoft's INI file format without bothering to actually read the file format documentation.
Gilhad, I'm done with you. You keep typing these posts full of bullshit, with zero self-awareness. You're not fooling anybody.
Question was, why somebody named some file some way. I think it is the reason, why he named it this way. I would not name it this way and I would structured it different way too (and for sure not by those botched WINDOWS INI rules). But I am not autor PHP and I was not consulted him, how he should name his INItialization file. It seems to me, that the autor just wanted his config file this way, so he did it. If you do not like it, then do not use it. Your problem.
Anyway I can name config of my program JPG.INI.COM.EXE.ELF.BIN.XML.TXT.DOC.truskavec and you cannot do anything about it. You can refuse to use my program, but you cannot stop me from using such name. So live with it.
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@nonpartisan said:
@Salamander said:
@nonpartisan said:
The file is an application configuration file that got hit during an ungraceful shutdown. CHKDSK says the filesystem is clean save for an orphan cluster that held part of the configuration file in question. Now my application isn't working.But it IS possible to corrupt the file without corrupting the entire filesystem and making the system unusable.
Cite a reason where a file gets corrupted and the system is not in an undefined state.
When I was teching in an emergency department many years back, I had a PC at one of our trauma/resuscitation rooms that corrupted for reasons unknown. Registry was corrupt, wouldn't boot, BSOD. Last Known Config wouldn't work. With text files, I may have been able to get it back up and running until I could schedule a downtime for it. As it was, I couldn't do anything and had to reimage/rebuild at an inopportune time.
Things are not as black and white/absolute as you seem to want to think they are. Welcome to the real world.
I second that. I take (as part of my work) care of a lot of computers, which run non-critical, but visible tasks. Those computers are spread geografically. Because of being non-critical, any and all cost-cuts was probabelly applied, starting from cheap HW going thru no redundancy and endind with bad treating (like not stabilized power (forget UPS totally), hot temperature, dirt, accidental poweerouts, just name it ...). No wonder, that sometimes some files get corrupted (with or without FS). Many times there is possibility to reapear the FS automatically/remotely.Then there are working FS and maybe some corupted files.
Usually I am able to fast fix things so it runs again, just by repairing/restoring one or two files.
Granted, there is no guaratee, that there is nothing other broken. But given the choise between:
A) having the computer taken out to repair for days
B) having only few minutes outage (and low possibility of later problems)
the customer, who pay for it choose B) all times. His money, his problems, but usually it just works months or years after without visible glitch.
It is not ideal world and being able repair system to some functionality now andfix everything over that later is sometimes really usefull.
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@BC_Programmer said:
@gilhad said:
And who cares about idiotic ways WINDOWS shoot themself to leg? If there is text based config file, then it can contain anything, the author of the file/program consider usefull, regardless of some Windows stupidity. Text config files was here before Windows, text config files will be here after windows and your stupid restrictions will be abnomination, which hit only the fuking shitty Windows.
So why in the name of FUCK is it called "php.ini"? If it's not an ini file, it shouldn't be called a fucking ini file.
Maybe because it contains some values to INItialize the PHP? Initialization files was here long before Gates bought Quick and Disty OS and rename that to MS DOS.
@BC_Programmer said:
That would be like saying "oh, the configuration file is happy.doc and it is in XML format.
And why not? I had seen a lot of files ending in .DOC (like a DOCument) log before Miscrosoft even start to writing his Word.@BC_Programmer said:
Ideally the file extension- even on Linux
There are not extensions on Linux, there are fileneames, which can contain a lot of characters, like alhabet, dots and so.@BC_Programmer said:
should give some clue as to the contents. At the very least it shouldn't be some completely separate piece of information that tells you nothing about the file contents.
so php.ini INtialize PHP internal values. I think it is good clue. @BC_Programmer said:@gilhad said:
because INtialize PHP internal values. This is, was the file does.So we agree, that WINDOWS INI files are shit, while this problem do not affect other textfiles configs.
why is the file in question called php.ini?
@BC_Programmer said:
@gilhad said:
Linux config textfiles are documented and they are not those shity WINDOWS INI files, who cannot contain even longer line. So again, we agree, that this problem hits only those shitty WINDOWS INI files, not textfiles configs per se.
That's weird. I've not seen any documentation. The configurations of each application seem to differ entirely. Some use one format, some use another. All of them seem to add their own special features to their formats. Some use .ini extensions for their special config format, others use .config. I even saw one use .xml for a Linux configuration file... it wasn't xml.
And I had seen a lot of documentation for Linux text config files. Some of them even have their own man paeges. Usually the format is choosen to fit the needs of the application, which uses the config file.
@BC_Programmer said:
@gilhad said:
No, he was talking about all text config files in general.@BC_Programmer said:Which affects only those shity WINDOWS INI files not textfiles configs per se.
He's talking about ini files.
php.ini. Again. I repeat: why is it called php.ini, and not php.config. Give me ONE good reason. There isn't one.
Maybe because it contains some values to INItialize the PHP? -
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@blakeyrat said:
@nonpartisan said:
just by citing the link you posted as argument.You can't have it both ways. Either Linux uses the INI file per spec or it doesn't. Most of the config files are not INI-format files that follow the spec. Ergo your argument is utterly useless.
No; the argument is that text-based configuration sucks.
The reason I was talking about INI files was because Gilhad brought it up.
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@blakeyrat said:
@gilhad said:
OK, give me such tools, which I could use both manually and in scripts and I will use them most of the time. Until I will come to something, that such tool is not able to do as simply as I can by editing text file.
And then you leave off a carriage return, and nothing fucking works and you have no fucking clue why.
Then I can add carrige return in text editor and everything works. Much easier than wait years for GUI update, which may or may not solve my todays needs.
@blakeyrat said:
@gilhad said:
Are we talking about some mystery future configuration tools, which will be written by spendind many people-years in some distant future, or about what we have now and here and what is relativelly probable in next year or two?
No; we're talking about the concept of a CLI vs. the concept of a GUI. We're not talking about some specific GUI vs. some specific CLI.
So all your rants about how WINDOWS INI files are fucked, because the definition of WINDOWS INI files is fucked is totally irrelevant to this debate. Also all your arguments why are text config files wrond, based on how SPECIFIC WINDOWS INI files are totatlly fucked.
@blakeyrat said:
Windows sucks in many, many ways.
Agree. That is, why I do not use them and will not use them.@blakeyrat said:
Nobody's saying "you must be IDENTICAL to Windows", because that's retarded.
and then you say, that Linux text config files are bad, because do not have problems imposed by totally fucked definitions of WINDOWS INI files ... so I agree, You are retarded.@blakeyrat said:
@gilhad said:
Why blame stranger - I simply did leave Windows and all such problems disappeared. No longer need for shitty GUI tools.Except that writing such tool to be usefull and convenient to use AND to be able set ALL possible configuration combinations AND be easily accesible from scripts is still so terribly much of work, that nearly nobody does it. And so we are stuck with incomplete and inconvenient restrictive tools usually.
So blame the guy who wrote the shitty tool.
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@blakeyrat said:
@gilhad said:
I optimize for it, because I use it. That is enought for me. (Your arguments go about the line "Eat shit - those miriards of flyes cannot be wrong")There is much larger range of tools for manipulating text and when the configuration/logs/events/whatever is text based, it can be managed by the (fast and powerfull) text manipulating tools.
But NOBODY DOES THAT! That represents something like 0.0001% of computer usage! Why would you optimize for that use-case!? It boggles my mind.
@blakeyrat said:
@gilhad said:
GUI tools are good for easy tasks.
Like editing an poster-sized image with 47 layers, or editing 100 video tracks in a coherent episode of a TV show, or creating a 20-track background music track for the TV show and inserting it? Creating a character in a video game, complete with motion-captured animation, collision, phsyics and 50,000 polygons? "Easy" tasks like those?
By these arguments you want to show me, that I was wrong with stating, that "GUI tools are good for easy tasks."? Yo want me to appologize and say,that I was wrong and GUI is NOT good for easy tasks?
@blakeyrat said:@gilhad said:
I do. That is enought people for me to care about it. (Also lot of other people does so. But even one means, that NOBODY is not valid argument)With text data and text manipulating tools you have much large range of possible actions and you can solve much harder tasks with relative easiness.
This is like the 8th time in the last 5 posts. Nobody does that. Nobody manipulates text or deals with "text data".
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@blakeyrat said:
@gilhad said:
And who cares about idiotic ways WINDOWS shoot themself to leg? If there is text based config file, then it can contain anything, the author of the file/program consider usefull, regardless of some Windows stupidity. Text config files was here before Windows, text config files will be here after windows and your stupid restrictions will be abnomination, which hit only the fuking shitty Windows.INI files don't support Unicode. - WINDOWS ONLY PROBLEM
The INI file format does not support Unicode. It's well-documented; there is no debate about this.
The problem you have is that a bunch of Linux-using idiots read existing .ini files, assumed they knew the file format based on what they saw, and shat out something like php.ini. But php.ini isn't an INI file; it violates the spec in a million different ways.
@blakeyrat said:
@gilhad said:
Multiple writers to an INI file can result in data loss. - Ususally you need not write to INI files concurently - so no real problem
If it can happen, it's a problem. Even if it "usually doesn't". What kind of shitty software engineer are you? "We don't need to put seatbelts in this car, cars usually don't crash into shit."
You are talking about Windows again, do not you? For last 30 years I did not hit this problem not even onece. But Windows crashed on my computer hundered times. What a shity OS it is, if it cannot live even with itself alone?
@blakeyrat said:
@gilhad said:
INI files contain only strings.
If you wanted to store binary data, you had to encode it somehow
as a string. - Nice, so far I had encoded numbers, IP adresses and strings - so much problems with it ...Again, Raymond Chen is talking about the actual INI file format. There's a lot of fake-o wrong .ini files in the world, he's not talking about those.
So we agree, that WINDOWS INI files are shit, while this problem do not affect other textfiles configs.
@blakeyrat said:
@gilhad said:
Many programs open INI files and read them directly.
This means that the INI file format is locked and cannot
be extended.
Even if you wanted to add security to INI files, you can't.
What's more, many programs that parsed INI files were buggy,
so in practice you couldn't store a string longer than about
70 characters in an INI file or you'd cause some other program
to crash. WINDOWS ONLY PROBLEMExplain how. In fact, I imagine the reams of "fake-o INI" files in use by the Linux community are even worse, since NONE of them are based on a documented file format, they're all ad-hoc.
Linux config textfiles are documented and they are not those shity WINDOWS INI files, who cannot contain even longer line. So again, we agree, that this problem hits only those shitty WINDOWS INI files, not textfiles configs per se.
@blakeyrat said:
@gilhad said:
INI files are limited to 32KB in size.
WINDOWS ONLY PROBLEMNope, that's in the INI file spec.
Which affects only those shity WINDOWS INI files not textfiles configs per se.
@blakeyrat said:
@gilhad said:
INI files contain only two levels of structure. WINDOWS ONLY PROBLEM
Nope, that's in the INI file spec.
Which affects only those shity WINDOWS INI files not textfiles configs per se.
So to sum it - WINDOWS INI FILES are totally fucked. We agree on that. Raymond Chen agree on that. Everybody agree on that. - but it does not have anything common with text config files - it is just that WINDOW INI FILES ARE FUCKED. Linux do not use fucked WINDOWS INI files. Linux use text config files, which is something you probabelly cannot take in you fucked head.
@blakeyrat said:
Gilhad, I'm 100% eager to debate with you,
No, you are not. You are debating with something in your head, which is totally fucked up and screws you vision of world around you.@blakeyrat said:
Last post, it was the "a set of CLI instructions work with every single Linux distro",
Your imagination. Nearest I was saying, that modifying underlying text files is more universal, then describing pictures of every possible GUI@blakeyrat said:
@gilhad said:
So to sum your note: WINDOWS sucks with INI files.
No; text-based configuration files suck. You haven't provided any evidence otherwise.
So all you can say is - your evidence about text config files on Linux is flawed, becase WINDOWS INI files are totally fucked and this totally fucking affects WINDOWS INI files ONLY, as ONLY WINDOW INI files have totally fucked definition, which have no relevance to textfiles as config files on Linux. And from this you somehow decide, that all other systems and all text config files HAS THE FLAWS SPECIFIC TO WINDOWS INI FILES ONLY.
Man, you logic is sooo fucked.
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@Salamander said:
@flabdablet said:
Reading system logs in Windows is slow, because Event Viewer sucks. Search them? Good luck with that, especially if the pattern you're searching for is complicated enough to need a regex to describe. Want to do a search and replace in the Registry because you're moving the root of the user profiles tree to a different drive? Good luck with that (hint: easiest way, using the tools supplied with the system, is to export the whole fucking Registry to a flat text file and do your search and replace with a text editor). Oh, I'm not supposed to touch the Registry because there's supposed to be a specialized GUI or some cunning COM API to do that specific task the Right Way instead? Good luck with tracking that down before lunch. And on and on and on.
So the tools written for all that stuff happened to be rather shitty, therefore text-based configuration is superior?
Does not follow.The point here is, that the graphical tools on Windows are shitty, or at leat too much limited.
There is much larger range of tools for manipulating text and when the configuration/logs/events/whatever is text based, it can be managed by the (fast and powerfull) text manipulating tools.
GUI tools are good for easy tasks. But if you have difficult task at hands and the author of GUI did not envisioned such task, then you have problem. With text data and text manipulating tools you have much large range of possible actions and you can solve much harder tasks with relative easiness.
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@Salamander said:
Alternative: Allow skilled people to customise things to their needs while stopping dumb shit that cannot possibly work.
OK, give me such tools, which I could use both manually and in scripts and I will use them most of the time. Until I will come to something, that such tool is not able to do as simply as I can by editing text file.@Salamander said:
Besides, I disagree with the notion that text editors are configuration tools for a specific program. They are text editors. They do not know anything about the file format (Which does exist, albeit implicitly); they just happen to not fail spectacularly the moment you try using them.
Which is more, than do nearly all GUI tools I met on Windows...
@Salamander said:
No you can't. Any edit you make must be something understood by the program using the configuration file.
While using GUI I must make changes understood by BOTH of the program AND the GUI editor. Also I found hard to automate tasks over GUI editors, especially, if they change a little on each update.
@Salamander said:
And who says you can't have comments in a binary file?
Maybe I looked bad, but I did not found usefull comments in Windows registry.Are we talking about some mystery future configuration tools, which will be written by spendind many people-years in some distant future, or about what we have now and here and what is relativelly probable in next year or two?
@Salamander said:
What are you on about? Supplying program-specific configuration tools doesn't make configuration harder; if anything it makes it easier because the tools are aware of what is and is not an allowed value and they can give helpful advice when you fuck it up.
Except that writing such tool to be usefull and convenient to use AND to be able set ALL possible configuration combinations AND be easily accesible from scripts is still so terribly much of work, that nearly nobody does it. And so we are stuck with incomplete and inconvenient restrictive tools usually.
@Salamander said:
Haven't you used a IDE before?
Yes, I did. And those IDEs helped me with some tasks, while leaving plain text files on disk, which I could modified in ways, that those IDEs did not allow. (So it is again - text files on disk, accesible by all text tools and also by some nice application, helping in usual cases)
@Salamander said:
You must have at least used a document editor with spellcheck, right?
Yes, I did. Many times. Usually it corrected some my mistakes and tryied to insert another mistakes.In some cases the corrections totally reverted the main sense of the writing. So I appreciate help in showing, what spellchecker thinks is not correct, but I disable autocorrection as first thing and leave myself to be the final judge, of what will be in the document.@Salamander said:
Again, anything you put in a configuration file must already be supported by the program that uses it.
No, it is not entirely true - many programs are able to ignore unknown options (but you may say, that is part of understanding too)
@Salamander said:
Are you really that dumb that you cannot understand this, or do you expect a program to magically understand any bullshit you put in a configuration file?
No, but I had many times seen, that configuration tools rejected some kinds of configuration (or just not offered), but program gladly accepted it and worked properly.
(BTW: I am not native english speaker, it is my 4. human language I learned, so I apologize for any mistakes in spelling and grammar, as well as for sometimes bad choising of words. There are a lot of words, I do not know, how to say in english and even much more that I recognize, but I do not activelly use. My vocabulary is limited. )
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@blakeyrat said:
@gilhad said:
Like what? Like being unreadable binary blob like Windows, where nobody could say, what that binary blob does and what exactly the configuration is?
They include an app to read it.
No; they suck because they have tons of issues. Raymond Chen spells them out here, so I won't rehash. (Note: some of those things Chen points out apply only to .ini files, but most of them apply to *all* text-based configuration files.)
To correct you - MOST of them apply only to INI files or to Windows, cause they are shitty system -
- INI files don't support Unicode. - WINDOWS ONLY PROBLEM
- INI file security is not granular enough. Since it's just a file, - You can have more, than one configuration file, if you need, usually you have one central and one per user - so again WINDOWS ONLY PROBLEM
- Multiple writers to an INI file can result in data loss. - Ususally you need not write to INI files concurently - so no real problem
- INI files can suffer a denial of service. - Again WINDOWS ONLY PROBLEM
- INI files contain only strings. If you wanted to store binary data, you had to encode it somehow as a string. - Nice, so far I had encoded numbers, IP adresses and strings - so much problems with it ...
- Parsing an INI file is comparatively slow. Each time you read or write a value in an INI file, the file has to be loaded into memory and parsed. If you write three strings to an INI file, that INI file got loaded and parsed three times and got written out to disk three times. WINDOWS ONLY PROBLEM
- Many programs open INI files and read them directly. This means that the INI file format is locked and cannot be extended. Even if you wanted to add security to INI files, you can't. What's more, many programs that parsed INI files were buggy, so in practice you couldn't store a string longer than about 70 characters in an INI file or you'd cause some other program to crash. WINDOWS ONLY PROBLEM
- INI files are limited to 32KB in size. WINDOWS ONLY PROBLEM
- The default location for INI files was the Windows directory! WINDOWS ONLY PROBLEM
- INI files contain only two levels of structure. WINDOWS ONLY PROBLEM
- [Added 9am] Central administration of INI files is difficult. Since they can be anywhere in the system, a network administrator can't write a script that asks, "Is everybody using the latest version of Firefox?" They also can't deploy scripts that say "Set everybody's Firefox settings to XYZ and deny write access so they can't change them." MAINLY WINDOWS ONLY PROBLEM- on Linux you have those files in /etc and in ~/.progname
So to sum your note: WINDOWS sucks with INI files.
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@Salamander said:
Why not just supply tools to set configuration values to a specific way?
Does being able to read something with a text editor somehow make it better? If so, why?
All I see from that approach is that it introduces more errors.The tools are already supplied - text editors, GUI front ends, or you can write your own easily to meet your needs - main moto of Linux is not restrict evrybody from potencially dangerous operations, but to enable skilled people to customize it to their needs.
Does it better, because you cen edit it hoe you want, or make your own configuration tools. Also you can read and write comments there, to be sure, what you had on mind, when you set it some way.
On the other hand - why should be better (for skilled user) to NOT be able configure his own compter easily?You can choose - one system enables you to take responsibility and do whatever you want, the other takes away responsibility from you by restricting you to just little subset of possibilities, without regards to your actual needs.
I choose freedom, but I understand, that somebody want be "enslaved in name of safety" - but Linux is not targeted at such people - windows or OSX are.
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@blakeyrat said:
Text file-based configuration sucks shit. If Linux moved away from it, they might be able to make things a little better.
Like what? Like being unreadable binary blob like Windows, where nobody could say, what that binary blob does and what exactly the configuration is?
It would help only to be unreadable like shit and just bash skilled users to be on the same basic like as any ape, binded to unintuitive dialog suggestions. No, thants, go shoot yourself to leg, I am not interested.
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@blakeyrat said:
If there were a *clear* benefit to learning it, I might be more generous about what a goddamned mess is it. But no. The benefit to learning it is, "everything's a goddamned mess in Linux, and the CLI is slightlly less of a goddamned mess than the other stuff." Great.
And I thought, the "clear bebnefit" for you is not being fired from your shitty work by your shitty boss... Otherwise you would be somwhere else, working with tools, you are able to learn at least little.
@blakeyrat said:
Well, let's go back to my thesis: they don't give a shit.
Let me quess - they give so much shit, how much you paid them to give a shit ...
@blakeyrat said:
All I get out of Linux is doing the exact same things, but slower, and a different huge pain in the ass every week.
Maybe it is because you try the same ways you learned on Windows or where and do not use Linux, but you are just trying talk it to be second Windows shit.
I was trying to use windows, but it never gave me so much freedom and so much tools to solve my problems, like Linux did. All was slow, inconvenient, hard to discover and still trying to do anything else, that I wanted. So I turned back to Linux and it was good. I suggest you should return to windows and leave Linux to them, who can use it linux way.
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@Salamander said:
@flabdablet said:
The reason you'll see so many CLI-based solutions posted on Linux help forums is that it's far less time-consuming to write out three or four command lines and say "paste this into a terminal" than it is to do a full step-by-step GUI walkthrough with all necessary screenshots.
Ah, so pure laziness. Gotcha.
The way I see it is if a configuration task is sufficiently complex that you need to start using the CLI, then perhaps it's not that the CLI is better at configuring things but that the GUI tools are just really shit at it.While some GUI tools are shit, the reason lies in other point: There are too many GUI for doing configuration, but in the end it is text file modified some simple way.
So you can describe one way for one GUI (and take a lot of screenshots, where the ida is usually hidden under the volume of unimportant details show around the solution line) which leads to log tutorial for one GUI and leave all users of other GUI helpless,
or you can describe one way in CLI, where there is only few lines of text and it solve the problem for all distributions and all types of GUI (because you just modify the resulting textfile)
And also there is way less irrelevant sugar aroud to hide, what is the desired change.
BTW: Why are we here discussing in plain text (so CLI) and not just clicking some GUI buttons to have pictures desribe, what we mean? Maybe we want to describe it preciselly and there is not enought desriptive GUI for even such basic task as arguing on internet :)
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@e4tmyl33t said:
I think here lies the biggest problem: What if you have no idea what the command is to do something? The basic instinct would be to type the word corresponding to the action you're trying to do. If the command for that action isn't that word, the shell will usually just kick back an error that that command can't be found, not offer suggestions based upon the help files. If the help files were all content-indexed, the shell might be able to have the ability to go "The command you typed doesn't exist, but here's a list of commands that may be what you're looking for, type command --help to learn more"
You mean something like
$ apropos rename|grep 1 dpkg-name (1) - rename Debian packages to full package names git-mv (1) - Move or rename a file, a directory, or a symlink rename (1) - rename files zipnote (1) - write the comments in zipfile to stdout, edit comments and rename files in zipfile
where the grep 1 selects only lines with 1, which are executable commands. This feature is in Linux longer, than I know it.
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@blakeyrat said:
How long have you spent learning VBScript or JScript or AppleScript?
Your argument doesn't boil down to "the CLI is better", it boils down to "I know the CLI better". That's different.
So you say, that VBScript or JScript are now GUI generated and not long buch for text in programming language? And you just need to click some menus and dialog and not to write some cryptic commands with parameters?
My argument was - There are some problems, which are much better managed by programming, then by clicking GUI.
I do not care, whether I program in bash, python, Javascript, Java or other language. Everytime I had to program something more complex, there was a lot of text and few of mouse clicking. There was a lot of calling programs/procedures/functions and such and very small of selecting radioboxes and checkboxes.
Or are you impling, I am programming in GUI, when open bunch of terminals on X and start typing in vim? Technically I am on GUI - I have pictures on background, I have mouse with nice arrow and all, but really I am programming some commands in text with parameters - and the result could be as well bash-script or python application with dilogs and menus - still I need to know, what does which command, and what parameters it takes.
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@e4tmyl33t said:
You or I could make that distinction. What about Bob, the guy who's never sat in front of a computer in his life? If he goes to copy a file on a brand new computer, and doing so either requires said confusingly-named utilities or a terrible UI, what is he likely to blame for this? He won't say "Dammit, these programs make it so hard to use them!", he'll say "What is this <OS> shit? Why don't it work?"
Here is the root of it, I would say. Windows are targeted to such Bobs and they do a lot of work to actually hide nearly everything from them. And long time did not care for geeks.
Linux is targeted at geeks, who wants do everything what is possible with given HW and do not want to be restricted to some "easy and safe sandboxes". Geeks, who are willing pay the prize in terms of hours of learning, just to be able to do more with the computer. And long time did not care for Bobs.
(Well over time Windows released even something for geeks and Linux released something for Bobs, but the main audience is just totally different.)
I had seen 3-wheeled cars made by car company - they looked like cars and behaved like cars, just was smaler and lighter.
I had seen 3-wheeled motorcycles made by motorcyckle companies - they looked like motorcykles, just was more stable and massive.
Both was 3-wheeled vehicles, but was targeted on different audience and was totally different in construction. Windows on PC and Linux on PC are both such 3-wheeled vehicles now.
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@e4tmyl33t said:
I'm not arguing that the CLI should be removed entirely. For power-users, it may entirely be necessary to use a CLI to do things that the GUI can't do readily...but there's no reason to nearly *mandate* CLI usage just to use or configure a machine, as a lot of Linux users tend to argue for on forums and the like. Any common activity that someone who's completely unfamiliar with the operating system may want to do should have an easily understandable GUI attached to it. A properly designed operating system should be able to be installed, configured, and ready to use by a complete newbie for everyday usage without ever seeing a CLI or needing someone to decipher any part of the interface.
I think, that it is way Linux is heading just now.
First there should be robust and powerfull base system, then there came some GUI and then the GUI gets more and more tools. As the base system is configured via text files, the GUI program can parse them, make some nice dilagos/menus from them and then write back what was changed. The undelying system really does not care, whether text file was generated by GUI program, or written in VIM (or generated from script by echo "something" >>file)
So there came first automated installers, then more sofisticated configuration tools, then GUI programs for all that. I had seen Linux distributions, that was installed and used just from GUI, without user even aware of CLI.
But GUI has its problems - if you want make something really configurable (sometimes to point of programmable, like say sed or awk), then there is too much of choises to fit on one screen and there is too much of combination, so even when you go by different paths, then there is a lot of dialogs and tons of text fields to fill, so you get something overcomplicated again. Or you loose a lot of functionality. Usually both.
So in my eyes, there should be to different areas - one easy, safe, GUI and limited for "newbies" and users, who does not care, just want to see playing kittens or write annual report or what. This should have some really limited (so not confusing) predefined administration.
The other area are more sofisticated tasks for people willing to learn difficult concepts in order to get done difficult, unusual and not pre-prepared tasks done. And that means something like CLI - or other IDE for programming. This area should not be confused with the sandbox mentioned earlier - here are different rules as it is mentioned for different kind of users and different tasks.
The problem is, that many users of the first kind thinks, that because they can click Next-Next-Finish and install some prepared programs in one of few pre-prepared configuration, that they are also skilled enought to use the other area the same way with the same level of sand-boxing - which simply is not true. It is the same as saying "because I made some HTML pages in Word and I was able to auto-upload them on web, I am perfectly skilled to write drivers in assembler - I just need some GUI interface like a ribbon from Word and I will be fine. I do not read about interrupts and RAM ranges and CPUs and such - there should be discoverable interface anyway. But this approach is not good. Computers are so complicated, that you just need to learn a lot to be able use them to fullness (or at least to some higher level). Abstractions are nice to enable you to do somthing right now, but they also inherently hides a lot of you, just to be easy to use. But computers are able to do not only easy tasks, but also complicated one.
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@e4tmyl33t said:
@boomzilla said:
@Cassidy said:
@e4tmyl33t said:
Why not? A better question would be how he defines "useful world" and "inherently discoverable".An OS should be inherently discoverable, at least in a useful world.
Why?Well, I may not be able to define "useful world", but "inherently discoverable" would be something like the following:
- Anything that can be done on the CLI has a GUI equivalent. These equivalents will be able to perform every function the CLI version can.
- If you have to use CLI commands, said commands make some sort of sense in their naming conventions.
- GUIs are easy to understand, have things in their logical places, and come with help documentation that doesn't require a decoder ring or 5 years of existing experience to decipher.
- GUIs don't look like utter ass (most Java programs, I'm looking at you). This is sort-of related to the above point, but it bears repeating because a junk GUI is more useless than a jargony one.
- Programs are responsive and communicative to the user. This means error messages either make sense to someone who isn't a developer, or contains enough information that troubleshooting and/or contacting the company for support doesn't take forever. It also means that programs don't go unresponsive when processing a task, and instead show a progress bar or some other form of indicator that the process is working, preferably showing an accurate percentage towards completion.
- Operating systems and programs take into account both common use cases: The experienced user/power user, and the complete new user who has never seen this before in their life.
- Operating systems can allow for a level of customization, to permit users to tailor their experience to what works best for them.
As to *why* should an OS be inherently discoverable? Is that a serious question? Why *shouldn't* it be? Why would anyone WANT an OS that makes it difficult to determine how to do things, whether by design or by accident?
I run a Windows gaming machine, a Macbook Pro, and an Ubuntu media center. Out of the three of them, the OSX machine probably hits closer to more of the above points than the others. Yes, the Ubuntu box may be more "customizable" in terms of choosing a window manager, and choosing a skin for it, and the like...but I've found that process to be annoyingly bothersome so I set it once and have left it since, even though I'm starting to get sick of the skin. Not to mention the issues I had getting it to properly output 1920x1080...
I actually prefere "usefull system" before "GUI ridden inherently discoverable" one.
Maybe I am just affected by my history, but tell me please, how would in your ideal world would GUI enable user to do things like:
- every hour download some web paage, find all people mentioned there (by name and link), follow all the links, look what picture (green dot or red cross) sits near the name on the linked page and make me local html page with table of those with green dot with some pictures (copied to local disk for speed and independncy on internet connection) and links to original pages. Also made graf of when those people had green dot and when they had red cross (hour by hour, months of time)
- connect to distributed versioning system, get newest version of list. For eachline in the list ensure, that the mentioned directory exist (if not, create it) and contains updated related project (you can derive name of project from name of last directory in path). Whatever is after # sign consider just comment and ignore that.
- My GF in work have blocked all usual mail servers outside her company, but she is able to use distant screen (or how it is called in english - I mean log to windows via KRDC over VPN) and I am (so she is too) able to send email via my ISP, but only from inside his network (so no from external adress). Click-and-drag interface to let her send emails via my connection to my ISP (we are both on local net)
I am afraid, that such GUI would be too complex to be "inherently discoverable"(suppose, that such requests was generated on-the fly, not when the GUI was designed, so the GUI should allow all such actions and all other posiible combination of them)
Those things are real scripts, that I wrote in bash (which called and piped other CLI tools like sed, grep, git, wget ...).
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@flabdablet said:
Not actually true, because Blakey was working with the rename command supplied with Ubuntu, whose first argument is expected to be a Perl substitution or translation function and whose subsequent arguments are filenames. You can certainly use that version of rename with only two arguments: rename s/half/fuck/ totalhalfwit.txt works just fine.
OK, my bad. I have Gentoo and my rename works other way.
Still I think that simple "man rename" would show something even on Ubuntu (but I have no way to confirm that)
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@witchdoctor said:
The problem here is something I like to call artificial complexity. You have task X that has some intrinsic difficulty because you have to figure out what you want to do. Then you get additional difficulty from the tools you use. Linux CLI have a much higher artificial complexity than needed.
Or in other words, don't make me have to think about file system details while I'm trying to do something that's already complicated. It's distracting and unnecessary.
Of course the mv command is just a tiny not very significant example of this.
Then you probabelly want some more protective system. Maybe Windows, or OS X, or such.
I like the way the Linux is and the authors of Linux probabelly like it this way too, because they made it this way.
I do not want to be restricted by some Artifical Stupidity, which tries guest, what I would like to do and then try to correct my commands and restrict my movements just to fit its (AS) own (wrong) assumptions.
This is what I hated on Windows the most. The aproach "we know better than you, what you want to do. And we will force you to do it as we decided, you would want it if you were really stupid user - not as you really want it to do."
(And for most time I do not need much about things under the hoods - installing apache is as easy as to type
emerge Apache
/etc/init.d/apache2 start
In graphical suits, like KDE or GNOME are even GUI wizards, where you just select apache, click install and then click start (or something like that)
)
Somehow I found Linux (especially Gentoo) more intuitive and easy to manipulate for me, than any kind of Windows (from 3.1 to 7) or MSDOS (from 3.2 to 6)
---
For me the artifical complexity lies in the "GUI WIZARDS" which protect me from simply setting my IP/routes and are forcing me to guess, what their authors had on mind when they set paths like "dome network", "company network" and such.
I have network with DHCP server, I have it at home, I have it for company purpose too - I never was sure, what to choose and why I could not just say - you are connected by RJ45 to DHCP server - talk with him, connect me to internet.
On linux i just run "/etc/init.d/net.eth0 start" with default empty /etc/conf.d/net config and voila - I am connected. And if I do not want the care ofDHCP server, i just say, what IP I wantand what routes in the config file, run "/etc/init.d/net.eth0 restart" and voila - I have totally different IP and routes, just as I wanted
---
Some people prefere other distributions, or other OSes - fine with me - let everyone find, what best suits his needs and use it.
Some people customize Linux to their visions of easy using - why not, if they keep it in thier distribution and leave to use my distribution how I like it.
The goal is not to have all systems identical - the goal is to have systems to choose from to find the one suiting best you. (and then maybe even customize it more to your needs)
Rat is angry, because some people made system for themself and then give everybody the right to use it and to improve it. And that people was not paid by rat, so they did not asked him. They did it in their free time and did it just for themself. Some other people have similar needs and started use that system too (for free). And that system went so popular, that it is used from the small embeded systems, thru internet servers to the biggest megacomputers. And it rules in such areas, because of its quality and price. And it even fits on home PCs and netbooks, so many people use it there too. And some made enhancements even for not-so-skilled users (KDE, GNOME, ...), but still the system under is what did geeks for geeks, not for ignorants.
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@blakeyrat said:
@HardwareGeek said:
It's a really safe bet that "they" never even thought of the average Joe when defining UNIX. It is not malice to fail to anticipate a usage model 40 years ahead of time.
Yeah, well, at the risk of being a broken record, why the fuck hasn't it been fixed since then?
You people could anticipate my obvious replies and head them off, you know. It would save me typing.
Why they should fix, what is not broken (for them). If you do not like it, do not use it - there are much more suitable environments for you - maybe MS BOB should suit you well.
I know. You live very miserable life, as you are forced by your boss to do things, you are not able (nor willing) to do properly and you cannot afford to look for work suiting your skills. And your boss is not willing to spend money on somebody, who would know, what to do. Nor he want to spend money to buy you just point-and-click-and-it-is-magically-done system to deploy whatever you are forced to deploy.
Nobody here envy you such miserable position and you are really good example, why good fathers have their sons to learn in order to archieve something. I think, they all say - "Look at blackeyrat, how miserable he is. And now go to learn, so you do not end as miserable as him"
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@heterodox said:
@gilhad said:
Argument 1 IS regular expression. And very simple one. Do you think that "your regular expression is too easy for me" is good message in this case? The regular expression index.php mathes index1php index2php index3php ..... and also index.php ofcourse.
Whatever, I'm not familiar with the utility. I'd never even heard of it before this discussion. And your pedantic dickweedery does not undermine the point I was trying to make, which you clearly understand.
The problem was NOT in first parameter NOT being regular expression. The problem was, that rat did not gread documentation, passed only 2. and 3. argument (as 1. and 2.) which was syntactically correct values and the program complained about missing the last parameter. The program was given two of three parameters, both passed for acceptable values on such place and there was not a way the program should know, that ratwanted something totally different, from what he asked for.
the same problem, when you use ternaty operator like this:
x=b?c:
the compiler will complain about missing 3. parameter, not first, even if you wanted to type
x=a?b:c
@heterodox said:
@spamcourt said:
1) argument 1 need not be a regular expression - it may be any series of statements which when executed results in $_ containing the new name, and 2) if you know what this utility does and how to use it, then you must be somewhat familiar with Perl, and hence recognise this syntax error.
I'm familiar with Perl and I don't recognize the syntax error, or at least what my next action should be. That is, without reading the code of the utility, which is something I absolutely should not have to do. You say "all the CLI utilities assume" like it's an immutable fact of nature. It's a huge design flaw.
I would first try to type
man rename
and I would be given the answer immediatelly, without need to read code of such utility
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@blakeyrat said:
@gilhad said:
So if you do not read documentation, it is Linux problem, that you do pass wrong number of params on first try.Why now it is not system fault, that FORMAT does not FORMAT documents, while on Linux it is system fault, that RENAME does RENAME files?
Hey next time you write a question just to set up a stupid logic trap, do me a favor and let me know early so I can save time and just call you a fuckwit right away. Fuckwit.
When I do not read documentation, I am fukwit and it is my problem, that on Windows format does not format documents.
That for nice demonstration, what double-standards are.
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@blakeyrat said:
@gilhad said:
It is my fault, or system fault, that I have no nice formated documentsnow?
Both. It's your fault that you didn't read the warning. It's the system's fault that it spits out warnings so often for trivial matters that they aren't taken seriously. It's the system's fault that it doesn't have a way of undoing the operation.
If you think I've ever said, "WHOA GUYS CMD IS FUCKING GREAT AWESOME SO BEST SOFTWARE SQUEEE" then you're mistaken; it sucks shit too. The reason it doesn't matter as much that it sucks shit is, 1) it's been deprecated for literally decades at this point, and 2) you never need to actually USE the thing to do some general task (like installing a web server).
Why now it is not system fault, that FORMAT does not FORMAT documents, while on Linux it is system fault, that RENAME does RENAME files?
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@blakeyrat said:
Let me get this clear: typing "rename" and having an erased hard-drive would be the user's fault!?
Let me get this clear: On Windows I want to format all documents on drive D: to look pretty and professional, so I open the command prompt and type:
FORMAT D:
There is some question, but I do not understand it and I do not want to read it, so I just type Yes and hit Enter (It usually works with dialogs).
It is my fault, or system fault, that I have no nice formated documentsnow?
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@heterodox said:
@blakeyrat said:
ubuntu@ip-xx-xxx-xx-xxx:/var/www$ rename index.php info.php
Not enough arguments for index at (eval 1) line 1, near "index."
Bareword "php" not allowed while "strict subs" in use at (eval 1) line 1.Why has no one discussed how terrible of an error message this is? If the error message was something like "argument 1 is not a regular expression", "Usage: rename <regular expression> <files>", or even "argument 1 is not a regular expression (did you mean to use mv?)" we might not even be having this discussion (as valuable a discussion as it is).
Argument 1 IS regular expression. And very simple one. Do you think that "your regular expression is too easy for me" is good message in this case? The regular expression index.php mathes index1php index2php index3php ..... and also index.php ofcourse.
The problem is, that rename expects 3 arguments and only 2 was provided, so "
Not enough arguments" says it all. If you are curious, why 2 arguments are not enought, use "man rename", I bet, that there is explanation for it :)
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@Medezark said:
So, Blakey should have pulled up the MAN page for RENAME? Would that have told him "no, you dont want to use RENAME you want to use MV"? No, it wouldn't have.
man rename
.....
SEE ALSO
mmv(1), mv(1) -
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@anonymous234 said:
@gilhad said:
YOU can do it, if you want it - apparently people in Linux comunity do not want to do it, as they are satisfied with the commands as they are.
The problem is that those people have been using Linux for a long time, and you only really notice those things for the first days. The first time you find a weird interface or a program that fails to do what it's supposed to, you think "who the hell designed this shit", but the second time you just sigh and use it anyway, and when you've been using it for 5 years you can already operate it without thinking so you don't even pay attention to it, and any changes just seem to make it worse.
This is one of the reasons why many industries tend to stagnate for long periods of time until somebody comes from outside and "revolutionizes" it simply by making something that's not shit (or by not charging obscene amounts of money for it).
And again - YOU are the person, who want the change, so do it YORSELF. They are solving their problems with linux (like support for new HW or faster databases or ... whatever is their problems are) and they are not paid to solve your problems (especially if that would result to problems for them - nothing works like it used last ten or twenty years)
So you are free to fork the Linux and make one, that would solve your problems - there are many ways to do it - fork the code and rename commands (and probabelly backport all new features as they hit mainstream), make your own distribution (maybe Newbix or Newbian) loaded with ton of aliasis and one-liner scripts, or any other way you can think of ...
The problem is, that such fork/distribution/whatever would attract only first-time users, which would still bombard you with requests, that they typed something and it not worked, how they expeted without reading documentation, but they would not help you with upholding your shiny Newbian. Second-time users would look for new features and solutions for their problems, then sight and migrate to distribution with more active developers (Debian/Gentoo/Slax/Redhat/...) at the cost of having it used one omre for first time. And on the reward of much larger developer base and much richer documentation, than you was able translate for Newbian.
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
@DescentJS said:
You'd think that people would do things like that, but that would require people in the linux community to actually be wiling to change things ever.
YOU can do it, if you want it - apparently people in Linux comunity do not want to do it, as they are satisfied with the commands as they are. But (as difference from closed source) they still allow you to make changes, that you want. Even more - if such changes will be wanted by other people, then you can distribute such changes and satisfy them. If more people would love your way, then your way would became mainstream.
But I do not know, how much you paid/contribute to linux community, that you feel, that the community should abadon its way and change things to work your way instead - I am afraid, I did not hear recently about somebody relativly unknown donating so much to linux community.
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
Depends on what tools you know and what effects you desire. On Linux, there is more than one way for everything. I, for example, prefere to make my own packages and use the package manager to install them. Which way even the configuration is preserved (in /etc) and the manager offers me merge tool for choosing, what settings should be kept and what should be updated. But there are also other ways, how to do it.
I keep getting assigned this bullshit by my boss and I'm completely incompetent to handle it.
I fully agree, that you are incompetent. Why your bos do not give this work to some competent person instead? I would simply reject my boss, if he would try to force me to do striptease, celebral surgeon, circus acrobatics or any other work, I am incompetent to do, but my boss is too sane to want me doing such things.
-
RE: I tried renaming a file in Ubuntu
OS is something different, then usual service programs. I bet, that Ubuntu have something, what can do the renaming too, but it may have little different name (maybe perl-rename, as sugested).
OS is what talks to HW directly and server other programs as base layer.
Service programs (as mv, rename, find, sed, awk, bash, ....) servers as tools for user and other programs/scripts. You can install suite of such programs, that fits your needs. It is not OS area to do.
Windows are just chunk of software, which wants do everyting at one time, from OS work via service programs, via window manager to fully user programs, as a web-browser, but which is not excelent at nothing of that and makes difficult to use computer in more advanced ways, that MS managers envisioned.