Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
On 26/05/2011 18:06, Daniel Gibson wrote: Am 26.05.2011 18:51, schrieb Bruno Medeiros: On 20/05/2011 18:12, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I'm not surprised in the least. I was just remarking to Walter the other day that Unix has become the path of least resistance for doing programming-at-large and in particular OSS kind of work, It definitely seems to be so for for C/C++, and in fact, the native compiled languages (Go, D, etc.). But not so for Java work. I use Windows just fine for that. Don't know about other ecosystems. Why not for Java? Eclipse works well on Linux, as well as Maven etc. Or did you mean it's as good on Windows so no reason to change? That's what I meant, yes. The way I said it originally doesn't imply Windows is better for working with Java (just that it isn't worse) -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
On 21/05/2011 09:43, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: On Sat, 21 May 2011 08:12:24 +0300, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote: My experience has been the other way around. Besides, a *lot* of windows programmers don't use Visual Studio. I don't. (Used to, back around versions 5-6 and early .NET, but not anymore.) I frequently hear that Visual Studio is the all-round best IDE for C/C++ development (I rarely use it myself, so I don't have an opinion). I suppose that's the power of dogfooding... For programs intended to run on Windows, sure. But for example, for embedded systems I hear that Eclipse CDT is incredibly popular. -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
On 20/05/2011 23:06, Don wrote: For me, the issue is not that it doesn't work. I actually don't mind that. It's only when there are claims that it does work. Denying that there is a problem is a great way to ensure it never gets fixed. Same thing with D, actually -- it's important for us to be honest about what maturity level the language is really at. Well said. -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
On 21/05/2011 09:23, Walter Bright wrote: On 5/20/2011 10:12 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: So it's not surprising that git/Windows has many issues, just the same it's not surprising that people are having trouble playing media or using OpenOffice on Unixen. I gave up again on using Unix to play music. I got tired of continually having to reboot the machine to get it unhung. There is one exceptional program - Thunderbird email. It works great on Windows, OS X and Linux. No issues. What about Firefox? Seems to work just as well as Thunderbird, from what I hear, across all platforms. -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
On 20/05/2011 18:12, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I'm not surprised in the least. I was just remarking to Walter the other day that Unix has become the path of least resistance for doing programming-at-large and in particular OSS kind of work, It definitely seems to be so for for C/C++, and in fact, the native compiled languages (Go, D, etc.). But not so for Java work. I use Windows just fine for that. Don't know about other ecosystems. -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
Am 26.05.2011 18:51, schrieb Bruno Medeiros: On 20/05/2011 18:12, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I'm not surprised in the least. I was just remarking to Walter the other day that Unix has become the path of least resistance for doing programming-at-large and in particular OSS kind of work, It definitely seems to be so for for C/C++, and in fact, the native compiled languages (Go, D, etc.). But not so for Java work. I use Windows just fine for that. Don't know about other ecosystems. Why not for Java? Eclipse works well on Linux, as well as Maven etc. Or did you mean it's as good on Windows so no reason to change?
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
Nick Sabalausky Wrote: The way I see it, msys and mingw are total pains in the ass that should never be forced on anyone regardless of whether they're just using a program or compiling it (and cygwin's even worse). If someone wants to use it themself, then fine, but that garbage should never be forced on anyone. Didn't use msys, but stock mingw+make work just fine for me (I've made some contributions to scintilla and use them for my projects). What's your problem?
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
On 5/21/2011 10:47 PM, Russel Winder wrote: On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 11:15 -0700, Walter Bright wrote: [ . . . ] Rhythmbox, the default music player on Ubuntu, does not. Oh, it'll work for a while, maybe a day or two, and then it'll freeze up. A reboot will revive it for a while, and then it'll corrupt its database, which has to be deleted and rebuilt. Oh, and if you add some files to your shared music directory on your lan, just try to get Rhythmbox to rescan it and add the new files. Just try. Bah. Your experience of Rhythmbox is totally inconsistent with my experience of Rhythmbox. I run it for days on end without hassle. I am using 0.12.8 (Debian Testing), which version are you using? 0.13.1 The older versions behaved badly, too.
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
On 5/20/2011 10:12 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: So it's not surprising that git/Windows has many issues, just the same it's not surprising that people are having trouble playing media or using OpenOffice on Unixen. I gave up again on using Unix to play music. I got tired of continually having to reboot the machine to get it unhung. There is one exceptional program - Thunderbird email. It works great on Windows, OS X and Linux. No issues.
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
On Sat, 21 May 2011 08:12:24 +0300, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote: My experience has been the other way around. Besides, a *lot* of windows programmers don't use Visual Studio. I don't. (Used to, back around versions 5-6 and early .NET, but not anymore.) I frequently hear that Visual Studio is the all-round best IDE for C/C++ development (I rarely use it myself, so I don't have an opinion). I suppose that's the power of dogfooding... -- Best regards, Vladimirmailto:vladi...@thecybershadow.net
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 01:23 -0700, Walter Bright wrote: [ . . . ] I gave up again on using Unix to play music. I got tired of continually having to reboot the machine to get it unhung. Music plays just fine on Linux. It also plays fine on Apple's brand of Unix. I haven't tried on Solaris recently. [ . . . ] -- Russel. = Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
Am 21.05.2011 07:12, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: Daniel Gibsonmetalcae...@gmail.com wrote in message news:ir6tel$1he8$1...@digitalmars.com... Am 21.05.2011 01:18, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: David Nadlingers...@klickverbot.at wrote in message news:ir6r72$l38$1...@digitalmars.com... On 5/21/11 12:34 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: And again, using Wine doesn't count as supporting Linux, so why the hell should the other way around be any different? Because, at least in my eyes, there is a huge difference between telling your users that using Wine they might be able to get your software to work on Linux (which is typically the most you can hope for if you are a Linux user), and using MinGW to make porting your application to Windows easier, which is not necessarily visible to the end user. OSS programs, which most Linux programs are, are expected to be compilable by the user. Therefore, if msys or mingw are required to build it, then it *is* visible to the end user. Compiling on Windows always sucks and is generally not done by the end *user* (who generally is not a coder). And I think it's easier for the user to install MinGW and MSYS and run make than installing and configuring Visual Studio (especially when the project is for another, maybe older, version) and use that for compiling. My experience has been the other way around. Besides, a *lot* of windows programmers don't use Visual Studio. I don't. (Used to, back around versions 5-6 and early .NET, but not anymore.) So how do you compile C/C++ code on windows? DMC? Fine for your code but I guess most open source projects don't support it. Dev-C++, Eclpse CDT, ...? AFAIK they use the mingw compiler :P And with D, compiling is equally easy/hard on both Windows/Linux :) If the projects uses GNU makefiles (which is quite common on Linux) you need MSYS or something like that to compile it on Windows.
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
Daniel Gibson wrote: Am 21.05.2011 01:34, schrieb Andrej Mitrovic: What's there to configuring visual studio? You just open a solution file and hit compile. If there are any dependencies you usually download the libs and put them in some subfolder. I don't have much experience with visual studio, but I've read that using a project from one version in another (newer) version may not always be painless, e.g. http://twitter.com/#!/ID_AA_Carmack/status/45616436995039232 Going from one version of a *solution* to the next usually just works. I expect tech5 to be somewhat more complex though. What usually doesn't work is going from one compiler version to the next, at least for C++. 'Managed' .Net is a different story. And how well do projects from a professional version work in the free (Visual Studio Express) version? That should work, the professional version is mostly about extra ide features, the basics and the toolchain is exactly the same. At least that's my experience. Now compare that to having to follow that gigantic tutorial for compiling GDC using msys. That's not really a fair comparison, GDC is very complex. There are also a lot of OSS projects which are much less arcane than what GNU usually does. Windows has it's share of complex build setups too, I believe the visual studio shell is such an example. I generally also find the boatloads of msbuild / nant xml scripts to be pretty incomprehensible when you need to work with them if something doesn't work.
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
Am 21.05.2011 13:09, schrieb Lutger Blijdestijn: Daniel Gibson wrote: Am 21.05.2011 01:34, schrieb Andrej Mitrovic: What's there to configuring visual studio? You just open a solution file and hit compile. If there are any dependencies you usually download the libs and put them in some subfolder. I don't have much experience with visual studio, but I've read that using a project from one version in another (newer) version may not always be painless, e.g. http://twitter.com/#!/ID_AA_Carmack/status/45616436995039232 Going from one version of a *solution* to the next usually just works. I expect tech5 to be somewhat more complex though. What usually doesn't work is going from one compiler version to the next, at least for C++. Probably that was the problem. So this seems to be a general problem: You can't just import and build a C++ project of VSC version X in you VSC version Y - and fixing the code to make compile errors go away is not something the end user will want to do. But of course this problem also exists with different versions of g++/MinGW. It should be possible to install multiple versions of MinGW's gcc/g++ in parallel though. 'Managed' .Net is a different story. And how well do projects from a professional version work in the free (Visual Studio Express) version? That should work, the professional version is mostly about extra ide features, the basics and the toolchain is exactly the same. hmm Robert said it didn't work for him. At least that's my experience. Now compare that to having to follow that gigantic tutorial for compiling GDC using msys. That's not really a fair comparison, GDC is very complex. There are also a lot of OSS projects which are much less arcane than what GNU usually does. Windows has it's share of complex build setups too, I believe the visual studio shell is such an example. I generally also find the boatloads of msbuild / nant xml scripts to be pretty incomprehensible when you need to work with them if something doesn't work. I agree.
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
On 5/21/11 1:09 PM, Lutger Blijdestijn wrote: And how well do projects from a professional version work in the free (Visual Studio Express) version? That should work, the professional version is mostly about extra ide features, the basics and the toolchain is exactly the same. I have encountered quite a few problems though. For example, 64 bit code generation used to be absent by default from Express versions (maybe it still is, haven't checked), which is a sensible marketing decision per se. However, it was implemented in such a way that I couldn't open a solution file from an open source project I was working on with my Express edition installation, just because it contained an x64 target… David
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
David Nadlinger wrote: On 5/21/11 1:09 PM, Lutger Blijdestijn wrote: And how well do projects from a professional version work in the free (Visual Studio Express) version? That should work, the professional version is mostly about extra ide features, the basics and the toolchain is exactly the same. I have encountered quite a few problems though. For example, 64 bit code generation used to be absent by default from Express versions (maybe it still is, haven't checked), which is a sensible marketing decision per se. However, it was implemented in such a way that I couldn't open a solution file from an open source project I was working on with my Express edition installation, just because it contained an x64 target… David ouch, that sucks. Wikipedia suggests this works now for 2010 though.
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
On 5/21/2011 1:47 AM, Russel Winder wrote: On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 01:23 -0700, Walter Bright wrote: [ . . . ] I gave up again on using Unix to play music. I got tired of continually having to reboot the machine to get it unhung. Music plays just fine on Linux. It also plays fine on Apple's brand of Unix. I haven't tried on Solaris recently. Rhythmbox, the default music player on Ubuntu, does not. Oh, it'll work for a while, maybe a day or two, and then it'll freeze up. A reboot will revive it for a while, and then it'll corrupt its database, which has to be deleted and rebuilt. Oh, and if you add some files to your shared music directory on your lan, just try to get Rhythmbox to rescan it and add the new files. Just try. Bah.
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 11:15 -0700, Walter Bright wrote: [ . . . ] Rhythmbox, the default music player on Ubuntu, does not. Oh, it'll work for a while, maybe a day or two, and then it'll freeze up. A reboot will revive it for a while, and then it'll corrupt its database, which has to be deleted and rebuilt. Oh, and if you add some files to your shared music directory on your lan, just try to get Rhythmbox to rescan it and add the new files. Just try. Bah. Your experience of Rhythmbox is totally inconsistent with my experience of Rhythmbox. I run it for days on end without hassle. I am using 0.12.8 (Debian Testing), which version are you using? Ubuntu have dropped Rhythmbox for Banshee. Reasons unknown. Consequences: Ubuntu now depends on Mono even more than ever. One assumes Canonical will indemnify Ubuntu users against any possible M$ patent attack. -- Russel. = Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
On 5/20/11 2:33 AM, Don wrote: You've really got to be a fanboy to claim that git is supported on Windows. Sure, it works -- in the same way that hammering a nail with a rock works. Fanboyism for Windows or git? :o) I'm not surprised in the least. I was just remarking to Walter the other day that Unix has become the path of least resistance for doing programming-at-large and in particular OSS kind of work, just the same as Windows is for office computing and OSX and portable derivatives for computer-based entertainment. The confusing part is that roughly all OSs offer (at least nominally) means for achieving most any given typical task, so comparing in terms of has/doesn't have is not relevant. It's the many little differences and nuances that add up to a long tail. So it's not surprising that git/Windows has many issues, just the same it's not surprising that people are having trouble playing media or using OpenOffice on Unixen. Andrei
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote in message news:ir67mk$2jfi$1...@digitalmars.com... On 5/20/11 2:33 AM, Don wrote: You've really got to be a fanboy to claim that git is supported on Windows. Sure, it works -- in the same way that hammering a nail with a rock works. Fanboyism for Windows or git? :o) I'm not surprised in the least. I was just remarking to Walter the other day that Unix has become the path of least resistance for doing programming-at-large and in particular OSS kind of work, just the same as Windows is for office computing and OSX and portable derivatives for computer-based entertainment. The confusing part is that roughly all OSs offer (at least nominally) means for achieving most any given typical task, so comparing in terms of has/doesn't have is not relevant. It's the many little differences and nuances that add up to a long tail. So it's not surprising that git/Windows has many issues, just the same it's not surprising that people are having trouble playing media or using OpenOffice on Unixen. I realize you're not actually accusing him of Windows fanboyism, but that trouble with media, etc on Unix brings up an interesting issue: Unix users have a real, legitimate complaint regarding those problems. And when they voice those complaints nobody would ever even consider dismissing that as Unix fanboyism. And when those Unix users accuse various companies of playing Windows favoritism: Well, they're absolutely right. It *is* inexcusable Windows favoritism. But OTOH, when a Unix program has a shoddy port to Windows, and Windows users complain, all of a sudden there are people (not necessarily you) that push back with what basically amounts to What the hell are you whining about? Either shut up and use it or switch to Linux. It really reminds me of the old crusades: The Linux side feels it has the moral high ground (and frankly, I can't totally disagree), but then ends up using that to excuse going around employing whatever normally-questionable tactics they damn well feel like using.
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
Am 20.05.2011 22:41, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote in message news:ir67mk$2jfi$1...@digitalmars.com... On 5/20/11 2:33 AM, Don wrote: You've really got to be a fanboy to claim that git is supported on Windows. Sure, it works -- in the same way that hammering a nail with a rock works. Fanboyism for Windows or git? :o) I'm not surprised in the least. I was just remarking to Walter the other day that Unix has become the path of least resistance for doing programming-at-large and in particular OSS kind of work, just the same as Windows is for office computing and OSX and portable derivatives for computer-based entertainment. The confusing part is that roughly all OSs offer (at least nominally) means for achieving most any given typical task, so comparing in terms of has/doesn't have is not relevant. It's the many little differences and nuances that add up to a long tail. So it's not surprising that git/Windows has many issues, just the same it's not surprising that people are having trouble playing media or using OpenOffice on Unixen. I realize you're not actually accusing him of Windows fanboyism, but that trouble with media, etc on Unix brings up an interesting issue: Unix users have a real, legitimate complaint regarding those problems. And when they voice those complaints nobody would ever even consider dismissing that as Unix fanboyism. And when those Unix users accuse various companies of playing Windows favoritism: Well, they're absolutely right. It *is* inexcusable Windows favoritism. But OTOH, when a Unix program has a shoddy port to Windows, and Windows users complain, all of a sudden there are people (not necessarily you) that push back with what basically amounts to What the hell are you whining about? Either shut up and use it or switch to Linux. It's the same when it's the other way round. You can't properly view that docx file? Just use Windows and MS Office like everybody else Stop complaining that there are no games for Linux, just boot Windows and be thankful that there's a PC port at all (and not just xbox360/PS3) If you want to use Photoshop just get a Mac or Windows etc It really reminds me of the old crusades: The Linux side feels it has the moral high ground (and frankly, I can't totally disagree), but then ends up using that to excuse going around employing whatever normally-questionable tactics they damn well feel like using. The difference is: The Unix/Linux programs are mostly open source, so anybody can create a Windows port or improve an existing port. Windows only programs (that are missed on Linux) tend to be closed source so you'd have to completely reimplement them for Linux support (and even then you'd probably have troubles with proprietary file formats and network protocols). So if there are really big problems with git on Windows anybody can (try to) fix them or even reimplement git for Windows (or platform independent with a higher focus on Windows) - the source is available (and with it documentation for file formats and network protocols). I do of course understand that you (or Don) personally don't have time for that and would prefer if it'd just work. Cheers, - Daniel
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com wrote in message news:ir6l0q$1he8$2...@digitalmars.com... Am 20.05.2011 22:41, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote in message news:ir67mk$2jfi$1...@digitalmars.com... On 5/20/11 2:33 AM, Don wrote: You've really got to be a fanboy to claim that git is supported on Windows. Sure, it works -- in the same way that hammering a nail with a rock works. Fanboyism for Windows or git? :o) I'm not surprised in the least. I was just remarking to Walter the other day that Unix has become the path of least resistance for doing programming-at-large and in particular OSS kind of work, just the same as Windows is for office computing and OSX and portable derivatives for computer-based entertainment. The confusing part is that roughly all OSs offer (at least nominally) means for achieving most any given typical task, so comparing in terms of has/doesn't have is not relevant. It's the many little differences and nuances that add up to a long tail. So it's not surprising that git/Windows has many issues, just the same it's not surprising that people are having trouble playing media or using OpenOffice on Unixen. I realize you're not actually accusing him of Windows fanboyism, but that trouble with media, etc on Unix brings up an interesting issue: Unix users have a real, legitimate complaint regarding those problems. And when they voice those complaints nobody would ever even consider dismissing that as Unix fanboyism. And when those Unix users accuse various companies of playing Windows favoritism: Well, they're absolutely right. It *is* inexcusable Windows favoritism. But OTOH, when a Unix program has a shoddy port to Windows, and Windows users complain, all of a sudden there are people (not necessarily you) that push back with what basically amounts to What the hell are you whining about? Either shut up and use it or switch to Linux. It's the same when it's the other way round. You can't properly view that docx file? Just use Windows and MS Office like everybody else Yea, but 99.9% those are just moron office drones who barely even know how to use a mouse (Not that I mean to excuse it. It *does* piss me off when some dipshit service rep insists I should use Adobe's PDF viewer or MS's word processor It works for all our other [idiot] customers, so quit being difficult! Stupid fucking bitch...). Most Linux users, OTOH, are power users and should know better. Stop complaining that there are no games for Linux, just boot Windows and be thankful that there's a PC port at all (and not just xbox360/PS3) If you want to use Photoshop just get a Mac or Windows etc Yea, and that's exactly the sort of thing I meant about corporations playing inexcusable Windows favoritism. But what I was talking about is just ordinary (knowledgeable) users and OSS contributors who actually know what they're doing. From what I've seen, there are a lot on Linux that consider shoddy msys/mingw/cygwin ports to be acceptable, but not so many Linux users who consider shoddy Windows-Linux ports acceptable. (Although I'd modify that xbox360/ps3 to just xbox360. After all, one of the most important game engine developers out there, Epic, clearly cares about as much about the PS3 as they do Linux. Anything that isn't an MS platform, Epic just refuses to give a rat's ass about. Not that I'm a PS3 fan, I think all the current game platforms are crap, but that's a whole other rant.) It really reminds me of the old crusades: The Linux side feels it has the moral high ground (and frankly, I can't totally disagree), but then ends up using that to excuse going around employing whatever normally-questionable tactics they damn well feel like using. The difference is: The Unix/Linux programs are mostly open source, so anybody can create a Windows port or improve an existing port. Windows only programs (that are missed on Linux) tend to be closed source so you'd have to completely reimplement them for Linux support (and even then you'd probably have troubles with proprietary file formats and network protocols). So if there are really big problems with git on Windows anybody can (try to) fix them or even reimplement git for Windows (or platform independent with a higher focus on Windows) - the source is available (and with it documentation for file formats and network protocols). I do of course understand that you (or Don) personally don't have time for that and would prefer if it'd just work. Well, I'm primarily a Windows user, but when I write an OSS app, I actually *design* it specifically to be cross-platform (ex: I don't design the whole damn thing around hundreds of Windows-specific assumptions), *and* then I actually test on Linux (And I plan to add FreeBSD now that VirtualBox makes installing/using another OS safe and easy. I'd happily do OSX, too, but that's locked into expensive
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
Daniel Gibson wrote: Am 20.05.2011 22:41, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote in message news:ir67mk$2jfi$1...@digitalmars.com... On 5/20/11 2:33 AM, Don wrote: You've really got to be a fanboy to claim that git is supported on Windows. Sure, it works -- in the same way that hammering a nail with a rock works. Fanboyism for Windows or git? :o) I'm not surprised in the least. I was just remarking to Walter the other day that Unix has become the path of least resistance for doing programming-at-large and in particular OSS kind of work, just the same as Windows is for office computing and OSX and portable derivatives for computer-based entertainment. The confusing part is that roughly all OSs offer (at least nominally) means for achieving most any given typical task, so comparing in terms of has/doesn't have is not relevant. It's the many little differences and nuances that add up to a long tail. So it's not surprising that git/Windows has many issues, just the same it's not surprising that people are having trouble playing media or using OpenOffice on Unixen. I realize you're not actually accusing him of Windows fanboyism, but that trouble with media, etc on Unix brings up an interesting issue: Unix users have a real, legitimate complaint regarding those problems. And when they voice those complaints nobody would ever even consider dismissing that as Unix fanboyism. And when those Unix users accuse various companies of playing Windows favoritism: Well, they're absolutely right. It *is* inexcusable Windows favoritism. But OTOH, when a Unix program has a shoddy port to Windows, and Windows users complain, all of a sudden there are people (not necessarily you) that push back with what basically amounts to What the hell are you whining about? Either shut up and use it or switch to Linux. It's the same when it's the other way round. You can't properly view that docx file? Just use Windows and MS Office like everybody else Stop complaining that there are no games for Linux, just boot Windows and be thankful that there's a PC port at all (and not just xbox360/PS3) If you want to use Photoshop just get a Mac or Windows etc It really reminds me of the old crusades: The Linux side feels it has the moral high ground (and frankly, I can't totally disagree), but then ends up using that to excuse going around employing whatever normally-questionable tactics they damn well feel like using. The difference is: The Unix/Linux programs are mostly open source, so anybody can create a Windows port or improve an existing port. Windows only programs (that are missed on Linux) tend to be closed source so you'd have to completely reimplement them for Linux support (and even then you'd probably have troubles with proprietary file formats and network protocols). So if there are really big problems with git on Windows anybody can (try to) fix them or even reimplement git for Windows (or platform independent with a higher focus on Windows) - the source is available (and with it documentation for file formats and network protocols). I do of course understand that you (or Don) personally don't have time for that and would prefer if it'd just work. For me, the issue is not that it doesn't work. I actually don't mind that. It's only when there are claims that it does work. Denying that there is a problem is a great way to ensure it never gets fixed. Same thing with D, actually -- it's important for us to be honest about what maturity level the language is really at.
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
Am 20.05.2011 23:55, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com wrote in message news:ir6l0q$1he8$2...@digitalmars.com... Am 20.05.2011 22:41, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote in message news:ir67mk$2jfi$1...@digitalmars.com... On 5/20/11 2:33 AM, Don wrote: You've really got to be a fanboy to claim that git is supported on Windows. Sure, it works -- in the same way that hammering a nail with a rock works. Fanboyism for Windows or git? :o) I'm not surprised in the least. I was just remarking to Walter the other day that Unix has become the path of least resistance for doing programming-at-large and in particular OSS kind of work, just the same as Windows is for office computing and OSX and portable derivatives for computer-based entertainment. The confusing part is that roughly all OSs offer (at least nominally) means for achieving most any given typical task, so comparing in terms of has/doesn't have is not relevant. It's the many little differences and nuances that add up to a long tail. So it's not surprising that git/Windows has many issues, just the same it's not surprising that people are having trouble playing media or using OpenOffice on Unixen. I realize you're not actually accusing him of Windows fanboyism, but that trouble with media, etc on Unix brings up an interesting issue: Unix users have a real, legitimate complaint regarding those problems. And when they voice those complaints nobody would ever even consider dismissing that as Unix fanboyism. And when those Unix users accuse various companies of playing Windows favoritism: Well, they're absolutely right. It *is* inexcusable Windows favoritism. But OTOH, when a Unix program has a shoddy port to Windows, and Windows users complain, all of a sudden there are people (not necessarily you) that push back with what basically amounts to What the hell are you whining about? Either shut up and use it or switch to Linux. It's the same when it's the other way round. You can't properly view that docx file? Just use Windows and MS Office like everybody else Yea, but 99.9% those are just moron office drones who barely even know how to use a mouse (Not that I mean to excuse it. It *does* piss me off when some dipshit service rep insists I should use Adobe's PDF viewer or MS's word processor It works for all our other [idiot] customers, so quit being difficult! Stupid fucking bitch...). Most Linux users, OTOH, are power users and should know better. Stop complaining that there are no games for Linux, just boot Windows and be thankful that there's a PC port at all (and not just xbox360/PS3) If you want to use Photoshop just get a Mac or Windows etc Yea, and that's exactly the sort of thing I meant about corporations playing inexcusable Windows favoritism. But what I was talking about is just ordinary (knowledgeable) users and OSS contributors who actually know what they're doing. From what I've seen, there are a lot on Linux that consider shoddy msys/mingw/cygwin ports to be acceptable, but not so many Linux users who consider shoddy Windows-Linux ports acceptable. Isn't mingw just a port of GCC, GDB etc? I don't think using it to build software (even together with MSYS when it's just used for configure etc and is not needed to run the program itself) is bad. (Although I'd modify that xbox360/ps3 to just xbox360. After all, one of the most important game engine developers out there, Epic, clearly cares about as much about the PS3 as they do Linux. Anything that isn't an MS platform, Epic just refuses to give a rat's ass about. Not that I'm a PS3 fan, I think all the current game platforms are crap, but that's a whole other rant.) It really reminds me of the old crusades: The Linux side feels it has the moral high ground (and frankly, I can't totally disagree), but then ends up using that to excuse going around employing whatever normally-questionable tactics they damn well feel like using. The difference is: The Unix/Linux programs are mostly open source, so anybody can create a Windows port or improve an existing port. Windows only programs (that are missed on Linux) tend to be closed source so you'd have to completely reimplement them for Linux support (and even then you'd probably have troubles with proprietary file formats and network protocols). So if there are really big problems with git on Windows anybody can (try to) fix them or even reimplement git for Windows (or platform independent with a higher focus on Windows) - the source is available (and with it documentation for file formats and network protocols). I do of course understand that you (or Don) personally don't have time for that and would prefer if it'd just work. Well, I'm primarily a Windows user, but when I write an OSS app, I actually *design* it specifically to be cross-platform (ex: I
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com wrote in message news:ir6p9s$1he8$6...@digitalmars.com... Am 20.05.2011 23:55, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: Yea, and that's exactly the sort of thing I meant about corporations playing inexcusable Windows favoritism. But what I was talking about is just ordinary (knowledgeable) users and OSS contributors who actually know what they're doing. From what I've seen, there are a lot on Linux that consider shoddy msys/mingw/cygwin ports to be acceptable, but not so many Linux users who consider shoddy Windows-Linux ports acceptable. Isn't mingw just a port of GCC, GDB etc? *shrug* All I know is that I've dealt with stuff that required it before and it was always a royal PITA. I don't think using it to build software (even together with MSYS when it's just used for configure etc and is not needed to run the program itself) is bad. It's bad if the program is open source and it's required to build the program.
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
Am 21.05.2011 00:20, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com wrote in message news:ir6p9s$1he8$6...@digitalmars.com... Am 20.05.2011 23:55, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: Yea, and that's exactly the sort of thing I meant about corporations playing inexcusable Windows favoritism. But what I was talking about is just ordinary (knowledgeable) users and OSS contributors who actually know what they're doing. From what I've seen, there are a lot on Linux that consider shoddy msys/mingw/cygwin ports to be acceptable, but not so many Linux users who consider shoddy Windows-Linux ports acceptable. Isn't mingw just a port of GCC, GDB etc? *shrug* All I know is that I've dealt with stuff that required it before and it was always a royal PITA. I don't think using it to build software (even together with MSYS when it's just used for configure etc and is not needed to run the program itself) is bad. It's bad if the program is open source and it's required to build the program. Why? MSYS and mingw are available on Windows and mingw is even available on linux for cross-compiling so it makes sense to use it for building the Windows version. As long as the resulting program doesn't have these dependencies it's ok IMHO. And if you really care it shouldn't be too hard to make it use another build-system (so you don't need MSYS) and maybe even another compiler..
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com wrote in message news:ir6q2j$1he8$8...@digitalmars.com... Am 21.05.2011 00:20, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com wrote in message news:ir6p9s$1he8$6...@digitalmars.com... I don't think using it to build software (even together with MSYS when it's just used for configure etc and is not needed to run the program itself) is bad. It's bad if the program is open source and it's required to build the program. Why? MSYS and mingw are available on Windows and mingw is even available on linux for cross-compiling so it makes sense to use it for building the Windows version. As long as the resulting program doesn't have these dependencies it's ok IMHO. And if you really care it shouldn't be too hard to make it use another build-system (so you don't need MSYS) and maybe even another compiler.. The way I see it, msys and mingw are total pains in the ass that should never be forced on anyone regardless of whether they're just using a program or compiling it (and cygwin's even worse). If someone wants to use it themself, then fine, but that garbage should never be forced on anyone. And again, using Wine doesn't count as supporting Linux, so why the hell should the other way around be any different?
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
Am 21.05.2011 00:06, schrieb Don: For me, the issue is not that it doesn't work. I actually don't mind that. It's only when there are claims that it does work. Denying that there is a problem is a great way to ensure it never gets fixed. Same thing with D, actually -- it's important for us to be honest about what maturity level the language is really at. OK, I totally agree that one should be honest about bugs and the general level of maturity of software. I recently tried to use (and enhance) software that more or less claimed to be stable enough for productive usage and claimed to have a plethora of great features (scalability etc).. and when I read the code (a few thousand lines of undocumented/uncommented ruby, *urgh*) I realized that it was more of a dirty hack that didn't have most of the advertised features.. that's really annoying and disappointing.
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
I'm ok with msysgit simulating a linux shell, it's not too hard to use it. cd.. - cd ..\, dir - ls, etc. But why oh why does the delete key generate a ~ character, what kind of nonsense is that? Cygwin suffers from the same problem.
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
Okie, the pull is here: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/d-programming-language.org/pull/9 Looks like I'm 5th in line. :p
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
Am 21.05.2011 00:34, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com wrote in message news:ir6q2j$1he8$8...@digitalmars.com... Am 21.05.2011 00:20, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com wrote in message news:ir6p9s$1he8$6...@digitalmars.com... I don't think using it to build software (even together with MSYS when it's just used for configure etc and is not needed to run the program itself) is bad. It's bad if the program is open source and it's required to build the program. Why? MSYS and mingw are available on Windows and mingw is even available on linux for cross-compiling so it makes sense to use it for building the Windows version. As long as the resulting program doesn't have these dependencies it's ok IMHO. And if you really care it shouldn't be too hard to make it use another build-system (so you don't need MSYS) and maybe even another compiler.. The way I see it, msys and mingw are total pains in the ass that should never be forced on anyone regardless of whether they're just using a program or compiling it (and cygwin's even worse). If someone wants to use it themself, then fine, but that garbage should never be forced on anyone. And again, using Wine doesn't count as supporting Linux, so why the hell should the other way around be any different? Come on, that comparison is BS. You can /maybe/ compare cygwin to libwine (but not wine itself).. But MinGW is just a compiler and some other tools that are native and produce native code that doesn't need wrappers for posix-interfaces or such. And MSYS is just a shell environment with some Unix tools like bash, make, grep, ... and not some kind of Linux emulator.
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
On 5/21/11 12:34 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: And again, using Wine doesn't count as supporting Linux, so why the hell should the other way around be any different? Because, at least in my eyes, there is a huge difference between telling your users that using Wine they might be able to get your software to work on Linux (which is typically the most you can hope for if you are a Linux user), and using MinGW to make porting your application to Windows easier, which is not necessarily visible to the end user. (Yes, Wine is occasionally used by software vendors themselves as well, like in the form of Transgaming Cider by Riot Games for the Mac version of their League of Legends game, but I hope you'll agree that this is not what one typically thinks about when Wine is mentioned.) David
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com wrote in message news:ir6r32$1he8$1...@digitalmars.com... Am 21.05.2011 00:34, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com wrote in message news:ir6q2j$1he8$8...@digitalmars.com... Am 21.05.2011 00:20, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com wrote in message news:ir6p9s$1he8$6...@digitalmars.com... I don't think using it to build software (even together with MSYS when it's just used for configure etc and is not needed to run the program itself) is bad. It's bad if the program is open source and it's required to build the program. Why? MSYS and mingw are available on Windows and mingw is even available on linux for cross-compiling so it makes sense to use it for building the Windows version. As long as the resulting program doesn't have these dependencies it's ok IMHO. And if you really care it shouldn't be too hard to make it use another build-system (so you don't need MSYS) and maybe even another compiler.. The way I see it, msys and mingw are total pains in the ass that should never be forced on anyone regardless of whether they're just using a program or compiling it (and cygwin's even worse). If someone wants to use it themself, then fine, but that garbage should never be forced on anyone. And again, using Wine doesn't count as supporting Linux, so why the hell should the other way around be any different? Come on, that comparison is BS. You can /maybe/ compare cygwin to libwine (but not wine itself).. But MinGW is just a compiler and some other tools that are native and produce native code that doesn't need wrappers for posix-interfaces or such. And MSYS is just a shell environment with some Unix tools like bash, make, grep, ... and not some kind of Linux emulator. In other words, Wine does even *more* to make windows programs work on linux...
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
David Nadlinger s...@klickverbot.at wrote in message news:ir6r72$l38$1...@digitalmars.com... On 5/21/11 12:34 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: And again, using Wine doesn't count as supporting Linux, so why the hell should the other way around be any different? Because, at least in my eyes, there is a huge difference between telling your users that using Wine they might be able to get your software to work on Linux (which is typically the most you can hope for if you are a Linux user), and using MinGW to make porting your application to Windows easier, which is not necessarily visible to the end user. OSS programs, which most Linux programs are, are expected to be compilable by the user. Therefore, if msys or mingw are required to build it, then it *is* visible to the end user. (Yes, Wine is occasionally used by software vendors themselves as well, like in the form of Transgaming Cider by Riot Games for the Mac version of their League of Legends game, but I hope you'll agree that this is not what one typically thinks about when Wine is mentioned.) So if wine is used to make porting a windows program to linux easier (which doesn't have to be visible to the end user - wine can just be packaged together with it), it's a giant blunder and doesn't count. But if an open source linux program is ported to windows, and anyone who wants to make any use of it's open source nature is required to use msys/mingw/cygwin, then that's just plain good porting.
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
Am 21.05.2011 01:11, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com wrote in message news:ir6r32$1he8$1...@digitalmars.com... Am 21.05.2011 00:34, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com wrote in message news:ir6q2j$1he8$8...@digitalmars.com... Am 21.05.2011 00:20, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com wrote in message news:ir6p9s$1he8$6...@digitalmars.com... I don't think using it to build software (even together with MSYS when it's just used for configure etc and is not needed to run the program itself) is bad. It's bad if the program is open source and it's required to build the program. Why? MSYS and mingw are available on Windows and mingw is even available on linux for cross-compiling so it makes sense to use it for building the Windows version. As long as the resulting program doesn't have these dependencies it's ok IMHO. And if you really care it shouldn't be too hard to make it use another build-system (so you don't need MSYS) and maybe even another compiler.. The way I see it, msys and mingw are total pains in the ass that should never be forced on anyone regardless of whether they're just using a program or compiling it (and cygwin's even worse). If someone wants to use it themself, then fine, but that garbage should never be forced on anyone. And again, using Wine doesn't count as supporting Linux, so why the hell should the other way around be any different? Come on, that comparison is BS. You can /maybe/ compare cygwin to libwine (but not wine itself).. But MinGW is just a compiler and some other tools that are native and produce native code that doesn't need wrappers for posix-interfaces or such. And MSYS is just a shell environment with some Unix tools like bash, make, grep, ... and not some kind of Linux emulator. In other words, Wine does even *more* to make windows programs work on linux... Of course, because more is needed, because they're less portable. Wine provides the Win API and a lot of libs (like directx) and runs windows binaries. MSYS/cygwin don't run Linux binaries. Cygwin provides a POSIX API. So it's kind of comparable to libwine. However MinGW uses the Windows API = is native. It's just a different compiler (and related tools) than e.g. MSVC or DMC and its tools. BTW: I don't consider programs that need cygwin on Windows proper Windows ports. But I don't mind MinGW (and MSYS, to some degree).
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
Am 21.05.2011 01:18, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: David Nadlinger s...@klickverbot.at wrote in message news:ir6r72$l38$1...@digitalmars.com... On 5/21/11 12:34 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: And again, using Wine doesn't count as supporting Linux, so why the hell should the other way around be any different? Because, at least in my eyes, there is a huge difference between telling your users that using Wine they might be able to get your software to work on Linux (which is typically the most you can hope for if you are a Linux user), and using MinGW to make porting your application to Windows easier, which is not necessarily visible to the end user. OSS programs, which most Linux programs are, are expected to be compilable by the user. Therefore, if msys or mingw are required to build it, then it *is* visible to the end user. Compiling on Windows always sucks and is generally not done by the end *user* (who generally is not a coder). And I think it's easier for the user to install MinGW and MSYS and run make than installing and configuring Visual Studio (especially when the project is for another, maybe older, version) and use that for compiling. (Yes, Wine is occasionally used by software vendors themselves as well, like in the form of Transgaming Cider by Riot Games for the Mac version of their League of Legends game, but I hope you'll agree that this is not what one typically thinks about when Wine is mentioned.) So if wine is used to make porting a windows program to linux easier (which doesn't have to be visible to the end user - wine can just be packaged together with it), it's a giant blunder and doesn't count. But if an open source linux program is ported to windows, and anyone who wants to make any use of it's open source nature is required to use msys/mingw/cygwin, then that's just plain good porting.
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
What's there to configuring visual studio? You just open a solution file and hit compile. If there are any dependencies you usually download the libs and put them in some subfolder. At least that's my experience. Now compare that to having to follow that gigantic tutorial for compiling GDC using msys.
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
On 2011-05-20 18:13:30 -0400, Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com said: I think in the case of git it's just a bit of bad luck.. as I wrote in another branch of this thread, Linus probably didn't care at all about Windows when developing git (it was meant to be used for Linux kernel development) and because it relies heavily on bash it's hard to port to Windows without msys or cygwin (which provide bash). Sometime wanting to get to every platform at first try puts restrictions on what you can do or how fast you can develop. Time helps overcome those early limitations, but the early adopters suffer. For git, I think libgit2 will help a lot once it's complete. http://libgit2.github.com/ -- Michel Fortin michel.for...@michelf.com http://michelf.com/
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
Am 21.05.2011 01:34, schrieb Andrej Mitrovic: What's there to configuring visual studio? You just open a solution file and hit compile. If there are any dependencies you usually download the libs and put them in some subfolder. I don't have much experience with visual studio, but I've read that using a project from one version in another (newer) version may not always be painless, e.g. http://twitter.com/#!/ID_AA_Carmack/status/45616436995039232 And how well do projects from a professional version work in the free (Visual Studio Express) version? At least that's my experience. Now compare that to having to follow that gigantic tutorial for compiling GDC using msys.
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
On 21/05/2011 00:46, Daniel Gibson wrote: Am 21.05.2011 01:34, schrieb Andrej Mitrovic: What's there to configuring visual studio? You just open a solution file and hit compile. If there are any dependencies you usually download the libs and put them in some subfolder. I don't have much experience with visual studio, but I've read that using a project from one version in another (newer) version may not always be painless, e.g. http://twitter.com/#!/ID_AA_Carmack/status/45616436995039232 Each version contains a migration tool, which has worked reasonably well for me in the past. And how well do projects from a professional version work in the free (Visual Studio Express) version? Last time I checked they don't. At least that's my experience. Now compare that to having to follow that gigantic tutorial for compiling GDC using msys. -- Robert http://octarineparrot.com/
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
Am 21.05.2011 02:17, schrieb Robert Clipsham: On 21/05/2011 00:46, Daniel Gibson wrote: Am 21.05.2011 01:34, schrieb Andrej Mitrovic: What's there to configuring visual studio? You just open a solution file and hit compile. If there are any dependencies you usually download the libs and put them in some subfolder. I don't have much experience with visual studio, but I've read that using a project from one version in another (newer) version may not always be painless, e.g. http://twitter.com/#!/ID_AA_Carmack/status/45616436995039232 Each version contains a migration tool, which has worked reasonably well for me in the past. OK And how well do projects from a professional version work in the free (Visual Studio Express) version? Last time I checked they don't. And the other way round? It seems to me that providing a Visual Studio project isn't any better for the average end user (or even developer, who may use the other kind of Visual Studio or DMC or even Code::Blocks, Eclipse or Dev-C++) than providing a configure script and a Makefile for MSYS/MinGW (and maybe a batch script that triggers the build). But, as I said before, end users on Windows don't compile, they expect ready to use binaries, preferably with a nice installer - and they don't care if those binaries were produced by DMC, MSVC or MinGW as long as the resulting program doesn't need cygwin to run. And developers that want to mess around with the code should be able to deal with it or even port it to DMC or MSVC or whatever themselves.
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com wrote in message news:ir6tel$1he8$1...@digitalmars.com... Am 21.05.2011 01:18, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: David Nadlinger s...@klickverbot.at wrote in message news:ir6r72$l38$1...@digitalmars.com... On 5/21/11 12:34 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: And again, using Wine doesn't count as supporting Linux, so why the hell should the other way around be any different? Because, at least in my eyes, there is a huge difference between telling your users that using Wine they might be able to get your software to work on Linux (which is typically the most you can hope for if you are a Linux user), and using MinGW to make porting your application to Windows easier, which is not necessarily visible to the end user. OSS programs, which most Linux programs are, are expected to be compilable by the user. Therefore, if msys or mingw are required to build it, then it *is* visible to the end user. Compiling on Windows always sucks and is generally not done by the end *user* (who generally is not a coder). And I think it's easier for the user to install MinGW and MSYS and run make than installing and configuring Visual Studio (especially when the project is for another, maybe older, version) and use that for compiling. My experience has been the other way around. Besides, a *lot* of windows programmers don't use Visual Studio. I don't. (Used to, back around versions 5-6 and early .NET, but not anymore.) And with D, compiling is equally easy/hard on both Windows/Linux :)
Re: [OT] Re: There's new GIT instructions on Github now
Michel Fortin michel.for...@michelf.com wrote in message news:ir6tqm$pbf$1...@digitalmars.com... On 2011-05-20 18:13:30 -0400, Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com said: I think in the case of git it's just a bit of bad luck.. as I wrote in another branch of this thread, Linus probably didn't care at all about Windows when developing git (it was meant to be used for Linux kernel development) and because it relies heavily on bash it's hard to port to Windows without msys or cygwin (which provide bash). Sometime wanting to get to every platform at first try puts restrictions on what you can do or how fast you can develop. Time helps overcome those early limitations, but the early adopters suffer. I guess for all I know that might be the case for some people in some situations. In my personal experience though, I've always found that designing with cross-compatibility in mind right from the start makes things go *much* more smoothly in the long run. Separating out platform-specific code and avoiding too much reliance on platform specific tools/libs is usually very easy. Unless maybe you're writing a kerenel module or something, but that's not really what we're talking about ;) For git, I think libgit2 will help a lot once it's complete. http://libgit2.github.com/ Interesting. That's the first I've heard of that. Thanks for the link. Although, personally, I'm still more in the hg camp than the git camp, even if git did work well on windows (hence my strong interest in seeing that dulwich/hg-git issue get fixed instead of passed off as only moderately important)...But I'm not sure I want to get into a vi-vs-emacs sort of debate...
