Linux-Advocacy Digest #686, Volume #25 Sat, 18 Mar 00 13:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: C2 question (abraxas)
Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work.... (abraxas)
Re: An Illuminating Anecdote ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000: download bog (abraxas)
*Real* Win2000 sales figures? (mr_organic)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Pjtg0707)
Re: Windows 2000: download bog ("Chad Myers")
Re: Salary? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Salary? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: C2 question
Date: 18 Mar 2000 17:11:31 GMT
Bill Sharrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <removed coma>
> "George Marengo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I've read recently that in its current form, Linux not only isn't C2
>> compliant, but that it cannot be C2 compliant because it doesn't
>> have Access Control Lists and auditing on ACL's -- it only has file
>> based permissions.
>>
> fwiw, the NSA has contracted out development for a secure linux system.
> IIRC, Secure Computing, http://www.securecomputing.com , will GPL the kernel
> modifications but keep their Type Enforcement technology closed.
I dont believe it. It simply isnt possible. Chad says so.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work....
Date: 18 Mar 2000 17:15:04 GMT
Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If another person tries to proof M$ products run at a lower TCO as Linux, I'm
> going to crack...
The above postulate is true in and only in universes wherein it is possible
to divide by zero.
Or so I'm told.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 17:17:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David D.W. Downey"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's brought on the following was that it sounded like mr_organic was
> saying that anyone who didn't know assembler really didn't know what
> they were doing, though he did target Windows programmers specifically.
> If I'm wrong then delete this post and think of it no more. if I'm
> not...
>
Wasn't my point at all, but the thread kind of made it look like that. My point
was simply that many Windows "programmers" are not programmers at all
since they do not understand basic functionality of their toolchain (or
language, for that matter -- I know lots of Wincoders who can't write DCOM
IDL without the IDE; they're for the most part not even *aware* that IDL is
being built for them).
>
><SNIP>
>
> Basically what I'm trying to get at is that there is no need in today's
> computer world for everyone to go bone deep. With the myriad of problems
> faced in a day, I definitely do NOT have the time to go learning the
> deeper core of things. I've learned what works and what doesn't. Some
> thijngs I get totally and helplessly lost on and I hit up the gurus.
> They point me in the right direction and I get the job done from there.
>
Generally speaking, you are correct, but for people like driver-writers and
embedded-systems people, assembler is still a valuable and highly-regarded
skill.
>
> I do have this to say about the comments towards Windows programmers. I
> agree that they are completely IDE bound (or the majority are) and care
> very little about what lays outside the confines of the language
> construxts they work with. These are the ones that perpetuate the bugs
> and the inefficiencies in the codebase because they don't take the time
> to see if what they've been handed was right to begin with. The younger
> ones aren't taught that. They're taught deadlines and budgets, and "Blow
> the user away with features"ware.
...which is exactly the point I was trying to get across.
> BUT, buried within that writing mass
> of conformity at any cost, are the older guys. The ones that know how to
> code cleanly, that took the time to actually read the specs about the
> hardware they're writing for. Those are the ones that give us the decent
> drivers and the semi decent code (Semi cause it usually gets bastardizd
> by the next line up.)
>
Unfortunately these "older guys" are often Unix/VMS/Mainframe folks and
tend not to get the "sexy" projects. It's a shame, too; even if they don't know
the language, these folks would be incredibly valuable in the design/requirements
phase of large projects. And when these folks *are* given a chance to work
on Windows projects, they are often relegated to spear-carrier rather than
designer or architect, which wastes the majority of their talent.
>
> But, I'd be willing to bet money that hardly half of them know the
> intricacies of hardware like an Engineer or a Systems Administrator
> does. They know the specs and they know the language (which don't always
> meet). It's not a matter of how deep you get into the machine, it's
> about how well you understand the 'want' and the 'can do'!
>
It is, as so many people have pointed out before, a matter of *designing*
software rather than just smacking it together. Some smaller projects
get away without following this step, but that's usually because the
design and requirements either aren't complicated or are already well-known.
But scale the project up and the chance for disaster increases geometrically.
Regards,
mr_organic
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: download bog
Date: 18 Mar 2000 17:18:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy rm_rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't Barnes and Noble's one of Drestin's highly touted sites
> for NT excellence!???
> [bn.com / barnesandnoble.com is running Microsoft-IIS/4.0 on NT4
> or Windows 98]
> http://cnn.com/2000/books/news/03/15/king.ebook/index.html
> "A CNN editor who attempted to
> download the story from Barnes &
> Noble's site on Tuesday was told the
> downloading queue was backed up,
> and offered the opportunity to have
> the book e-mailed directly to him.
> Some hours later, he received an
> e-mail saying high demand had
> delayed the e-mail delivery."
I have *never* seen this kind of effect on a Sun Sparc/Solaris based
high volume email system. Ever.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mr_organic)
Subject: *Real* Win2000 sales figures?
Date: 18 Mar 2000 16:23:59 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've been hearing a lot about Windows 2000 hitting the "one
million" sales mark. Is this real end-user sales, or does
it include things like OEM preloads, distributor deals, and
so forth? I'm asking because Win2000 isn't, like, flying out
the door at the local Best Buy....
Regards,
mr_organic
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pjtg0707)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 17:22:57 GMT
On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 07:00:00 GMT, David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Wagner) writes:
>
>' BSD vs Linux is not licensing issue, it is architecture and development
>' model issue. BSD is basicaly cathedral, while Linux is bazaar.
>
>Nothing becomes part of the Linux kernel without the blessing of Linus
This is true if you want to be a part of official Linux dist. However,
if I take a Linux dist, alter the kernel code and recompile into my own
verison of Linux, then I have to dist the modified code under GPL should
I choose to release 'my version' of Linux and not charge money for it.
Should I ever have some kind of non-disclosure agreements in place with
some other companies, and if my modifications contained stuffs cover
under the non-disclosure clause, then GPL will be a problem.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: download bog
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 17:53:04 GMT
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8b0dp6$2rtl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy rm_rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Isn't Barnes and Noble's one of Drestin's highly touted sites
> > for NT excellence!???
>
> > [bn.com / barnesandnoble.com is running Microsoft-IIS/4.0 on NT4
> > or Windows 98]
>
> > http://cnn.com/2000/books/news/03/15/king.ebook/index.html
>
> > "A CNN editor who attempted to
> > download the story from Barnes &
> > Noble's site on Tuesday was told the
> > downloading queue was backed up,
> > and offered the opportunity to have
> > the book e-mailed directly to him.
> > Some hours later, he received an
> > e-mail saying high demand had
> > delayed the e-mail delivery."
>
> I have *never* seen this kind of effect on a Sun Sparc/Solaris based
> high volume email system. Ever.
Not that kind of blatant ignorance deserves any type of reply, but
the "download-queue" is not anything to do with Windows2000.
Probably what is happening is that B&N had put restrictions on how
many simultaneous downloads can be happening to conserve bandwidth
and not suck down all their pipe for downloads and not allow the
other paying people to be able to simply view the site.
And yes, you can do this on Solaris and any other system too.
In fact, many FTP servers have this built in as well.
C'mon guys... even this is beneath you.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: 18 Mar 2000 17:57:31 GMT
On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 16:03:23 GMT, Stewart Honsberger wrote:
>On 17 Mar 2000 17:16:49 -0500, Greg Yantz wrote:
>>Some of these special minority scholarships, which are designed to
>>create opportunities for the disadvantaged, are in fact need-blind.
>>That is, you can be from a minority and be well-to-do and still
>>receive them. Unfortunately, I've seen it.
>
>I have the same stand-point on this issue as Howard Stern. I heard him, one
>morning, talking about the Bill Gates scholarship for "minorities". Howard
>complained that this was rediculous, and that some minorities had more
>money than they knew what to do with so "Why not just give it to poor people?
>There are poor white people out there too, y'know!"
Howard Stern is an ass. You would have been wiser not to cite him. I won't
flame the illiteracy in this post -- I will assume that you are merely
faithfully conveying Mr Stern's ignorance.
Helping poor white people isn't going to help minority communities obviously.
That's why one might want to have scholarships for minorities.
Such scholarships should also be both needs and merit based, otherwise
they won't help much.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: 18 Mar 2000 17:58:59 GMT
On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 16:00:43 GMT, Stewart Honsberger wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 22:08:18 +0100, Matthias Warkus wrote:
>>what is affirmative action again?
>
>"White males need not apply."
Bullshit. Then again, what can we expect from someone who cites Howard
Stern in his arguments ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure.
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 18:00:11 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Murphy)
wrote:
> On 17 Mar 2000 20:50:41 GMT, mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I posted a rant a few days ago about the cluelessnes displayed by many
>>Windows developers, and the issue has been percolating in my mind ever
>>since. Is it *possible* for a Windows-only programmer to truly
>>embrace the hackish spirit? What does the term "hacker" mean, anyhow?
>
> A great deal of professional programmers, including myself, would
> be greatly offended if they were called a hacker. Hackers are people
> who write elegant, artistic, and ... wrong ... code. They are more
> interested in the quick fix, the aesthetically appealing code, rather
> than the correct code.
>
This is not me experience at all. *True* hackers, as opposed to script-
kiddies and most Windows coders, treat their code as a good carpenter
treats his wood: as a thing to be carefully shaped and assembled so as
to provide the maximum value possible. When Unix code is ugly, it is
often ugly for a purpose. (This is a trait of evolutionary systems: "good"
designs often exhibit characteristics that seem ad-hoc or
overly-complicated, but the truth is that these designs were the best
in a Darwinian sense.) The bulk of the core OS of Unix systems -- the OS,
filesystems, device drivers, etc. are often extremely tightly and elegantly
written -- just read over the source to the BSD kernel sometime. If you
appreciate good C code, it's a revelation. The Linux kernel, OTOH, is
not as "pretty" but is eminently maintainable (it *has* to be; eight or
ten developers throughout the world have to be able to read it!).
It's clear that you, like the media, confuse "hacker" with some evil virus-
writing bad guy. It's too bad, really.
>
>>It should be clear that hackers, first and foremost, know their own
>>history. They have a sense of people who came before them and who
>>helped create a culture with its own customs, language, and ceremonies.
>
> Among professional engineers, there is no culture. The culture you see
> on-line on places like the newgroups, and websites like Slashdot is
> phony, people trying to fit in, people trying to out-dweeb each other
> by trying to subsitute the highest number of Unix commands in place of
> English verbs. This does not exist in real life, and productive
> engineers want no part.
>
You are full of the stuff that makes grass grow tall and green, my friend.
Either you know no engineers personally or you don't hang out with them
much. This "dweeb" culture you dismiss so cavalierly is deeply embedded
in this industry -- the whole Internet stands as a refutation of this
ridiculous argument. If by "productive engineers" you mean suit-wearing
bureucrats who sit in meetings for most of the day congratulating
themselves, then you're badly deluded.
>
>>Most Windows coders I know aren't even *aware* of the Jargon File;
>>they have no idea such a thing exists. Few even know the names of
>>Richard Stallman or Eric Raymond; fewer still the names of Bill Joy,
>>Marshall Kirk McKusick, or other pioneers of the field.
>
> Calling peole like Stallman or Raymond pioneers as hackers is
> dubious, but calling them heroes of computer development in general
> is just plain offensive. Hailing Raymond as attaining any kind of
> technical achievement is just plain wrong.
>
That makes me angry. RMS's accomplishments are legion (gcc, emacs, etc.),
and ESR is responsible for fetchmail (used by thousands if not tens of
thousands of people every single day). Besides being a damn good hacker,
ESR has contributed greatly to the written history of hacker culture: he
maintains the Jargon File, has written several important Open Source papers,
and (by the way) co-authored the _Learning GNU Emacs_ book from O'Reilly.
If these aren't "technical achievements" I don't know what is! What have
*you* done that even remotely compares?
>
>>They know who Bill Gates is, but not Gary Kildall, who might have won
>>that long-ago IBM contract for the PC operating system had things turned
>>out a bit differently.
>
> This is business/industry history, not technical history. Although
> most engineers are interested in industry history, it is most certainly
> not a prerequisite for being a highly competent engineer.
>
In this industry, "business history" and "technical history" are pretty much
the same thing. And it *is* important to know history; as the saying goes,
those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.
>
>>A rare few Windows programmers (usually the hardcore driver-writers
>>and system-programmers) read Petzold's mammoth "Programming Windows"
>>book, but almost none have dipped into The Lion Book, the Demon Book,
>>or the Dragon Book. (Or even know what those books are, or where they
>>can be found.)
>
> The very idea that people refer to these books other than by their
> title suggests that the whole culture is an elitist, "I am smarter
> than you", show-offy culture, rather than one which is simply interested
> in getting the most work done.
>
1. Most Unix hackers can legitimately make the claim that they are smarter
than you.
2. A "show-offy" culture is a culture nonetheless. Furthermore, these books
represent our history (see point above), and eventually most hackers read
at least one if not all these books.
3. The "just getting things done" mindset, as exemplified by M$, is a soulless
and talent-destroying dead-end for any programmer with talent. This type
of statement reminds me of those card-wallopers who babysat the main-
frame where I worked. They were mere technicians, putting in their eight
and going home. They weren't bad folks, but I found their lives depressing.
>
>>But many if not most of these folks do not learn the most rudimentary
>>aspects of software or system design; they have no skills at debugging
>>complex systems; and they are trained to use "packaged" solutions rather
>>than figure out things for themselves.
>
> Interesting.
>
> Microsoft Office is certainly "a complex system".
>
> Since it was written by Windows programmers, it was written by people
> who had no skill at debugging it.
>
> So it worked the first time it compiled?
>
Not the first, nor the hundredth, nor probably the thousandth. In fact much of
it *still* doesn't work right, and that's after nearly a decade of continuous
development.
>
> According to that logic, Windows programmers are even more competent
> than I ever imagined!
>
Can't speak to individuals at M$, but as a group they produce some of the
most amazingly obfuscated, crufty, bloated code I've ever seen. And they
do it in that ugly goddam Hungarian notation, which adds insult to injury!
>
>>Few of them know how to write common algorithms or solve common
>>problems; ask an average VC++ coder to whip up a custom quicksort
>>algorithm or doubly-linked list, and all you're likely to get in
>>return is a blank stare.
>
> If you actully know people who do not even know how to code quicksort (!),
> let me humbly suggest that you are working at a place with really, really
> incompetent people, and you really need to find a good job. Most of the
> people I work with are pretty bright, and we use about 50% Windows,
> 50% Unix. Anybody I work with would laugh in your face if challenged to
> write quicksort. Here's a clue: Windows programming competence does not
> revolve around the people you know and work with.
>
It is true: most Wincoders I've come into contact with are pretty much
incompetent. And I've worked with more Wincoders than you can possibly
imagine (at one point I was team lead for about 50 people, about 5 of whom
could produce passably clean code. The (windows-only) project finally
collapsed because the software was a buggy, crashy, unmaintainable
disaster-area. My *next* project, an in-house project using Linux and
Solaris and combining about 10 Unix programmers, came in on time,
under budget, and only required a single alpha-test cycle before being
sent to the users.
>
>>These programmers harm the entire trade because they give us a bad
>>name -- they produce shitty, unstable code and have no real ability to
>>do otherwise.
>
> I think Unix gives us a bad name even more. Unix continues to support
> the fallacious belief that it is OK if applications blow up in your
> face every five minutes, as long as the precious kernel never goes down.
>
...as opposed to NT, which simply barfs and dies with a blue screen? How
is that better? At least in Unix, you don't lose any concurrent jobs, logged-in
users, or network services. And Unix, BTW, kicks the crap out of NT in
both uptime and operational stability. "Every five minutes" -- you must
be thinking of your Windows workstation!
>
>>Now, this kind of thing happens on Unix,too (probably more often than
>>it should!). But as old Unix hackers have known for a long time,
>>peer-review is one of the best ways to get good, solid code. It
>>promotes correct design and good coding practices. And over time it
>>leads to best-of-breed software -- Apache, Sendmail, Emacs, gcc, mutt,
>>etc. Bad code happens but it dies out quickly; the evolutionary
>>environment of Open Source assures that only the best-adapted
>>survives.
>
> Obviously you have not read "The Rise of Worse is Better" by Richard
> P. Gabriel. Add it to your little library, and it will tell you the
> true reason why Unix is evolutionally superior.
>
I've already got four or five bad books on software engineering; I don't
need to add another to the collection. I'd suggest *you* read
_Programming Pearls_ by Jon Bentley. It teaches more about good coding
in 150 pages than most books do in 800.
>>It's no accident that version-churn on Windows is continuous. Windows
>>software is feature-driven; stability and security is of secondary
>>(and often tertiary) concern. New "features" are integrated without
>>much thought as to their overall impact on the system; often these
>>features are included even when the vendor *knows* they will cause
>>problems. Active Directory is once such "feature" -- Microsoft
>>assures us that it works fine...as long as you have a Windows-only
>>network. Introduce Novell or Unix servers into the mix, or mix in NDS
>>and Unix-based DNS/BIND implementations, and you're asking for bad
>>trouble. Microsoft never admitted that the old domain-based
>>administration model was broken, either; they insisted it was fine
>>right up until they replaced it with Active Directory. *Then* they
>>admitted that it might have been a little broken.
>
> All of this has to do with development abilities how?
>
Microsoft develops by feature-lists and media hype rather than
by end-user requirements. That's why it is largely a bloated mess.
>
>>I blame a lot of this on the whole mindset of Windows programmers.
>>They are never taught precepts that are second-nature to most Unix
>>programmers -- that stability and "correctness" are not features, but
>>core assumptions from which all else must flow. Windows coders love
>>GUI screens, and love messing around with COM/DCOM, but have no real
>>idea how most of this stuff works at a lower level. I've seen Visual
>>C++ programmers who don't really know C++ at all -- they've never used
>>anything but an IDE, so they have no idea how to use the preprocessor,
>>tweak the compiler/linker, or just ditch the IDE altogether and invoke
>>the compiler from the commandline. ("Not the CLI!" they shriek, and
>>hide their eyes.)
>
> Although most good programmers will have (incidentally) knowledge of
> the command line, that stuff is considered "implementation detail"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> and is certainly not a prequisite to good code. This is stuff for
> technicians to do, and is not part of engineering.
>
LOL! Man, I'd *love* to know where you work! I'd have to warn everybody
not to touch anything you sell! Design and implementation are two parts
of the same whole; if you don't pay attention to both as a programmer,
you're going to produce shitty code. As M$ has proven again and again.
>
>>The attitude fostered by Microsoft -- that programming can be "easy"
>>and "intuitive" -- has nurtured an entire generation of programmers
>>who are sloppy, careless, and short-sighted. Part of this is due to
>>the tools they use, but part is also their lack of training in *real*
>>programming.
>
> I couldn't even count to how many Unix security exploits were caused
> by buffer overruns - perhaps the best example of "careless code".
> Why wouldn't you check to make sure you have enough memory to write
> to? Apparently most Unix programmers do not consider it worthwile.
>
*Every* operating system is vulnerable to buffer overruns; it's endemic
to using pointer-driven languages like C/C++. FWIW, Windows has added
to this danger by introducing non-secure protocols like ActiveX and DCOM
where users can launch destructive viruses after exploiting a buffer
overrun. Furthermore, in Open Source projects the code can be vetted for
this kind of problem (as OpenBSD was). This cannot be done with Windows
NT.
>
>>They are not taught to design first and code later; they are not taught
>>to code around data structures and not the other way around; they are not
>>taught to debug.
>
> Of all of your points in the post, this is the funniest. Obviously things
> like Office and IE were extensively designed long before a text editor
> was ever fired up, though some of the software by the third-rate Windows
> vendors may fall into this.
>
> Please add this book to your little library: _The Unix Philosophy_ by
> Mike Gancarz. I quote from page 27: (Chapter 3: "Rapid Prototyping for
> Fun and Profit":
>
><SNIP>
Man, I've *gotta* get you some decent development books. Who put you
onto all this crap you've been reading?
>
> ALL Unix software, except for the high end CAD tools and such, follow
> this methodology.
>
> In fact, in "The Cathedral and tha Bazzar", Raymond actually ridicules
> people who want to do design. In the Linux community, the mantra is
> "Show me the code". Anybody who write a design document is ridiculed.
>
You're being a little fast and loose with the truth here; Raymond also
advocates good design and coding prior to releasing a beta. And show
me an example where someone who wrote a design document was
ridiculted! (And I'm serioius about that -- give me an example or
retract the statement.)
>
>>Most of the really good hackers I know (I don't consider myself one
>>yet, but I'm working on it) learned their craft on Unix.
>
> You must work with people really new to computers. I have never met
> anybody below age 35 or 40, who learned programming on Unix. _Most_
> people above that age learned on mini's in college, and most people
> younger than that learned on home computers in high school or younger
> (if you consider "hacking" to be "learning their craft"). The only people
> who learned their craft on Unix were a few people for a couple of years
> in the early/mid-80's who entered college before home computers became
> prevalent, but after Unix became prevalent in University.
>
You really do live in your own world, don't you? As of 1993 or so, many
college kids have run Unix on x86 boxes (*BSD or early Linux builds). Before
that it was very easy to get a shell account with an ISP (the Internet back
then was pretty much Unix and nothing but). Programmers who got serious
in college almost always learned on Sun boxes or VAX machines running
either VMS or 4.2BSD. I learned to code initially on a Commodore 64 (phew!),
but luckily I was not damaged by the experience and learned *real* coding
on a Sun box in college.
>
>>To hack is to attempt to understand the inner workings of a thing and bend
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>it to your will; it is to move beyond eye-candy and focus on the engine.
>
> Really? Why do so few Unix programmers know assembly then?
>
Because C has the advantage of being both portable and more human-readable.
Unix hackers also learn more than one language -- they learn C, Perl, Python,
bash/csh scripting, sed, awk, yacc, lex, and sometimes (if they are perverse)
troff or TeX.
>
>>Good hackers usually have experience on a multitude of architectures --
>>from mainframes down to handhelds. They may not be experts in all of
>>them, but they are conversant.
>
> Very few Unix programmers I know have worked on mainframes. Most of the
> younger ones (entered college after 1990 or so) have never even used
> minis extensively.
>
You must work in a vastly different environment than I do -- nearly every
programmer I know with more than a couple of years experience has had to
deal with a dinosaur in one way or another. My personal experience was with
a (lousy) C compiler on a '70's vintage System/370 running (IIRC) MVS. I
even had to debug some JOVIAL!
>
>>In the Open Source world, "good enough" often isn't.
>
> You _really_ owe it to yourself you read the Gabriel article I cited
> back.
>
You _really_ owe it to yourself to stop reading trendy techno-bullshit
and buy a good software engineering book like _The Limits of Software_
by Robert Britcher or _The Art of Computer Programming_ by
(the Almighty!) Donald Knuth.
>
>>The enormous popularity of Linux in recent years has given rise to a
>>floodtide of mediocre (and often outright *bad*) code, but it is to the
>>community's credit that this software disappears in short order.
>
> Really? Then why is xuath still in popular use?
>
1. It works.
2. It's maintained (and *maintainable*).
3. It works.
4. It's proven through years of use.
5. It works.
Nuff said.
>
>>Debugging is at least as important a talent as knowing how to code,
>>but among Windows programmers this is almost a lost art.
>
> I know a _huge_ number of Unix programmers who debug with printf's.
> I'm not kidding. I'm not convinced that many Unix programmers are
> capable of sophisticated debug; GDB is such an inadequete debugger
> (absolutely horrendous support for threads, and complete inability
> to single step through instructions usefully) that it is hard to be.
>
You haven't told me why debugging with printf's is a Bad Thing; if it
leads to cleaner and more maintainable code, then great! gdb has
improved a lot over the past couple of years, but I've found that a
lot of careful though up front means a lot less debugging later,
and that was the whole point of my post. Wincoders need fancy
debuggers because they tend to write such shitty code, and because
Windows itself is a developer's nightmare.
Regards,
mr_organic
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
