[openbeos] Re: scheduler/reminder

  • From: "Adi Oanca" <e2joseph@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:21:30 +0300

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

> 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


Other related posts: