From: "Scott Mansfield" > >> IM[not so]HO these > >> projects attempt to clone the 'doze "experience" in their own > >> interpretation of same. > > > > Hmm... doesn't OBOS or Linux or Windows or Solaris tries to do the > > same > > thing? A OS... > > Not necessarily, no. What I should have said is that if one looks at > how the GUI presents itself to interact with the user it's strikingly > similar to windows. KDE and Gnome want to draw the user to the "Linux > on the Desktop Nirvana," and I feel that they try to achieve this goal > by cloning the windoze "experience" rather than invent new ways of > doing things. I think so too. I don't see many new things that can change a computer experience, 'cause I'm not a graphics artist, BUT, I hope our CDT will surprise us! :-) > I am of the opinion (and I have lot of them in case you > hadn't noticed ;-) ) that we (in general) need a refresh in the whole > GUI universe. Ohhh how I'd wish that!!!!!!!!!! > I'd MUCH rather see a user-centric operating environment > than a computer-centric one. Enlightenment, before Raster started the > 0.17 branch, was a great step in this direction. I have had some experiences with Enlightenment v0.15.x (I think) long time ago. I remember I liked what I saw, but I found Linux very hard to use(that was the first contact with Linux), and abandoned it. If you say E was that good it means we should inspire from it! > >> Correct me if I'm wrong here and PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't be shy > >> about it. > >> > >> Generally speaking from a LONG-time experience as an embedded > >> U*ix/Linux/OSS and recent initiate to OBOS developer: I can carry out > >> whatever tasks I see fit within any "Desktop's" sandbox that are at my > >> disposal. I don't give a large rodent's posterior about what's > >> different in the execution, as long as the the end results are > >> consistent. Give me a pointy-clicky thing that I can grok and a large > >> black window with readable monochrome-green text to type stuff in to > >> and I'll crank out code till the end of time, so to speak -- IOW: I'm > >> one happy developer. > > > > BTW, you like gdb more than DDD, don't you? :-) > > LMAO! Good observation. :-) I don't use either, though. It's > printf()'s and assert()'s for me baby! That's my debugging tool! You should try DDD. It's a very nice environment. When you have a problem, a debugging helps you A LOT! TRY! :-) I did! And haven't stopped using them since then! :-) > >>>> If you have a look at the Terminal, > >>>> you'll see many things have a CLI counterpart, even the CD > >>>> player. (hint: /bin/play) > >>> > >>> Does Windows have such a thing? > >> > >> Yes windoze does. Please pardon me, I feel dirty for even the > >> slightest M$ advocation here, but one can launch any 'doze program > >> from > >> the CLI. [Ugh. Feel dirty. Must shower now. *shudder*] > > > > Really? I didn't know about that! Can you please give me the path > > to > > that file!? > > Depending on what version you're running it either referred to as the > "MS-Dos Prompt" or the "Command Prompt" on the Start Menu. For non-NT > versions of windows it just opens up a copy of command.com, and for NT > versions (NT, 2000, XP), it opens up WINNT\system32\cmd.exe. From > there you can launch any kind of program (DOS, console, or GUI). :-) Ohh, come on... I was referring to the Windows distribution! > Then again, there's always cygwin if you just gotta have that unix-like > goodness on your windows box. ;-) :-) who wants that?????????????/ :-) > > Regarding Microsoft... beside their monopoly policy... they did > > lots of > > good things. > > Yes, they did. They still do in their own way when they're not > stealing 20-year old technology and re-branding it as a Microsoft > "innovation," (think "Cleartype"). :-) Sure, just like .NET innovation. ++++ many others. > Personal computing would have been > a whole different world without some of the research and > standards-making, incidental or direct, they've brought into being. > > > I consider this POOR programming. If you want to do one thing > > right you > > might want to search the net for a, possibly free, library that > > supports > > easy manipulation of strings or one that works very nice with regular > > expressions! That's a good product; a product that comes with > > incorporated > > features, not relying on outside help. > > > >> A *smart* developer uses the best tools at her/his disposal to carry > >> out said dev's final objective in the most efficient, reproducible > >> manner possible without prejudice to the vehicle used to reach the > >> finished product. > > > > I *totally* agree! But, if one's "most efficient, reproducible > > manner" > > is scripting with CLI apps, then... he's not "A *smart* developer ". > > I see that we disagree on this. Kind of like the whole "vi vs. emacs" > thing. :-) FWIW I am a smart developer, at least I'd like to think so. > :-) I use the CLI a lot, and use various GUI apps a lot more than the > CLI. Again, it's about choosing the best tool for the task and > reducing the overhead of the process to as near-zero as possible. Oh, NO, this time I was mistaken, Sorry! I was referring entirely an the app itself, not to the means by witch it is created. Of course, one is free to chose whatever he likes for the development task. > > To concede to your point, yes, that are some darned good GUI > applications out there that can be used for development purposes. For > example, I use Apple's Project Builder for developing OS X code here at > home. It's absolutely wonderful, I've never had to get near a command > line while developing on said platform and I'm grateful for that. > > However, one of my jobs at work is developing and maintaining an > embedded GNU/Linux operating system (including porting the kernel to a > then-unsupported host processor, the Motorola 8240; something that just > cannot be done with a GUI app). This involves building a lot of > disparate packages (kernel, libraries, tools, networking, et cetera). > It's not enough to just build these packages, but they must also be > integration tested to make sure that they play nice with each other. > There isn't a GUI app available that allows me to carry out these tasks > with consistent, reproducible results. So, with about 500 or so lines > of Perl scripting goodness I can fire off a build, goof off for a > couple of hours, and see the results of what happened. I'll either > have a complete OS ready for flashing or detailed results of what > failed and why. You said it, and I NOW :-) totaly agree: "A *smart* developer uses the best tools at her/his disposal to carry out said dev's final objective in the most efficient, reproducible manner possible without prejudice to the vehicle used to reach the finished product" > I think where we have our disconnect is that we are looking at > different problems from different viewpoints. After reading your > responses I think I see your point. You are looking at things from the > perspective of the user, and I from a developer's viewpoint, no? No, not quite... you understood correctly; dev POV. Let me say again my opinion: One should not use(background) CLI apps to achieve functionality for a GUI app! He should make its own modules or use the ones available on Internet. Adi.