[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ashleyj / aze / fascist / general / just / miku / omnichan / sissy ][Options][ watchlist ]

/tech/ - Technology

You can now write text to your AI-generated image at https://aiproto.com It is currently free to use for Proto members.
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Select/drop/paste files here
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Expand all images

[–]

 No.917937>>917995 >>918959 >>919533 >>919580 >>919904 >>920220 >>922980 >>925625 >>931331 >>932194 >>933056 [Watch Thread][Show All Posts]

http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/

>praises go as innovative

>quotes reddit users to validate their arguments

they themselves don't explain fucking anything. they just quote people

>vim is harmful

>GPL is harmful

>doesn't mention that glibc has recently been cutting huge amounts of unneeded code

>netbsd is harmful

>thinks fucking awk is a replacement for perl/ruby

>zsh, this godsend of a shell, is harmful

Why is this so commonly linked? These people blindly think that ANYTHING that has less lines of code than something else it makes it better.

 No.917941>>917953 >>917986

It's the stupid kind of autism. You can either accept that software is not perfect and make/use something good enough for the problem you're trying to solve or spend the rest of your days posting and complaining how everything is harmful.


 No.917942

It was better when Uriel was alive. Now Stanley Lieber took over, and it's changed a bit, but that's expected.


 No.917953

>>917941

>and make/use something good enough for the problem you're trying to solve or spend the rest of your days posting and complaining how everything is harmful.

If only there was an organization made by the people who made this list of harmful things that actually wrote software. O wait exactly that exists.


 No.917966>>917968 >>919248

File (hide): d0547d6d4244ed6⋯.png (807.29 KB, 970x1263, 970:1263, 1470946661990-1.png) (h) (u)

File (hide): a52c56346d9a5ea⋯.png (2.93 MB, 2421x2522, 2421:2522, harmful_expanded.png) (h) (u)

>These people blindly think that ANYTHING that has less lines of code than something else it makes it better.

Not really. If you think about the comparisons in light of everything else on cat-v, you may see Uriel values simplicity and consistency most. For example, through this lens Vim is more harmful than Sam and Acme because its interface is inconsistent with most programs on its OS (usually Unix-based), while the GPL's text and implications are much longer and more complicated than Uriel's suggested alternatives. Simplicity and consistency are also relative, which is why three operating systems simpler and more consistent than most Linux distributions are listed as more complicated and inconsistent than OpenBSD (the second table is Less Harmful Alternatives for a reason).

I am not knowledgeable or experienced enough to give much more detail, but I hope this helps.


 No.917968>>917980 >>918999 >>919133 >>919253

>>917966

Reminder that Uriel considered killing himself to be the less harmful alternative to existence. All cat-v fans should suicide. It's simpler and more consistent than living.


 No.917980>>918941

>>917968

holy fuck anon


 No.917986

>>917941

not perfect and crap are two completely different things. and most software is crap. it doesn't matter if some retarded site shares the same opinion, it doesn't make it false.


 No.917995>>918005

>>917937 (OP)

>complains about BOM

>when in reality all of unicode is shit all the way down

this is like a brainlet version of me who only understands memes


 No.918005

>>917995

t.brainlet


 No.918040>>919239

>Vim

>Good

Vim has a terrible codebase (with more legacy code than OpenSSL). The scripting/plug-in system is awful and bloated, and the defaults are also garbage. I hate how Vim users always talk about how navigating with hjkl is the best (because it keeps your hands on the home row). This is only true if you're using QWERTY - in which case you're beyond saving. The speed "advantage" also happens to be patently false:

>But the thing that bothered me most about vi was that they gave you a two-dimensional display of your file but you had only a one-dimensional input device to talk to them. It was like giving directions with a map on the table, but being forced to say "up a little, right, no back down, right there, yes turn there that's the spot" instead of just putting your finger on the map.

>In the experience of many Plan 9 users, using the mouse in Plan 9 for an extended period of time and then going back to using vi in Unix highlights the amount of time you spend watching the screen as you cursor around with hjkl. Having broken out of the hypnosis that Tog describes, I just get frustrated beyond belief. Yes, I am watching the cursor move so I should be occupied, but all I can think is ``damnit, if I could just click where I want to go I'd be there by now.''

>One common complaint is that moving your hand from keyboard to mouse and back takes time and interrupts typing. This is true, but it doesn't take as much time as you think. Especially if you're using a keyboard without a numeric keypad, the mouse can be close by. With or without a keypad, eventually you get to the point where you don't need to look for the mouse. Your hand always leaves it in the same general place and automatically goes there, often in preparation for a mouse operation while the other hand is still typing.


 No.918922>>918930 >>918932 >>920235

Suckless and cat-v are UNIX shill sites. Everything they shill makes programs more bloated and less usable. On UNIX, a board like 8chan requires C libraries, X, a window manager, a web browser with JavaScript, PHP, a web server, and a ton of other bullshit totaling tens of millions of lines of code. Shills say that you can replace any of these components, but you can't because everything depends on everything else. If you replace X, it has to have the same interface as X, which sucks. If you want to replace ls, it has to behave like ls, which sucks. Bugs become part of a standard, so they become impossible to fix even if you wanted to.

On a Lisp machine, 8chan would be a program with the same GUI objects used by everything else on the system and everything would be accessible by the user just as easily as it is on the browser. When there's an error, you can inspect and change objects and variables and resume after the problem is fixed. Lisp also needs much less code than C to do the same thing.

> What I can't figure out is why there isn't a giant market
> for improved unix software. For example, it seems like it
> would be straightforward to write a decent C macro
> processor or garbage collector, and that you could make a
> bundle of money selling them because everyone would want
> them. But no one does this. Why not? Maybe it's because
> weenies are so used to not fighting city hall that they
> can't believe things could ever be better?
>

You really can't figure this out? It's because every
tool depends for its operation on the bugs in every other
tool, to exaggerate slightly. Thus anyone promoting an
improved version of anything runs smack into insuperable
compatibility problems. You have to work as hard as
Stallman to make any headway at all.

>In another article WD writes:
>|> [of VMS]
>|> I sure hope so. Any o/s which puts file types in the o/s
>|> instead of the program is really creating problems for the
>|> user, and I find that more of a problem than the user
>|> interface. If programs really want a "$ delimited left
>|> handed nybble swapped hexadecimal" file type, let it be
>|> done in the program or shared library, and not at a level
>|> when all user-written file transfer and backup programs
>|> have to deal with it. As my youngest says "yucky-poo!"

Huh? Let's think about this.

Tighter integration of file types to the OS are not a
problem. In my experience, UNIX offers the weakest file
maintenance offerings in the industry, save for MS-DOS. In
using Tandem Guardian and VMS I've found that ultimately,
one could:

* Back up files.

* Transfer files.

* Convert files.

...much more easily and safely than with UNIX. Yes, it was
between Guardian or VMS systems but instead of going into an
"open systems" (whatever THOSE are) snit, read on.

As a result:

* Each RDBMS has its own backup and restore facility of
varying functionality, quality, and effectiveness,
complicating support for sites adopting more than one
RDBMS.

* All existing UNIX backup and restore facilities are highly
dysfunctional compared to similar facilities under the
aforementioned operating systems. They can make only the
grossest assumptions about file contents (back it up or
not, bud?) and thus cause vast redundancy in backups; if
you change a single byte in the file, you back up the
whole thing instead of changed records.

* Transferring files from system to system under UNIX
requires that all layers of functionality be present on
both sides to interpret files of arbitrary form and
content. Embedded file systems ensure that file transfer
is enhanced because the interpretation and manipulation
facilities will be there even if the highest layers
aren't (ie: you can at least decompose the file). Find
me one person who guarantees they can decompose an Oracle
or Ingres file (ie: someone who has a product that will
always do it and guarantees it'll work for all successive
releases of these packages).

Once one strips away the cryptology, the issue is control.
UNIX is an operating system that offers the promise of
ultimate user control (ie: no OS engineer's going to take
<feature> away from ME!), which was a good thing in its
infancy, less good now, where the idiom has caused huge
redundancies between software packages. How many B*Tree
packages do we NEED? I think that I learned factoring in
high school; and that certain file idioms are agreed to in
the industry as Good Ideas. So why not support certain
common denominators in the OS?

Just because you CAN do something in user programs does not
mean it's a terribly good idea to enforce it as policy. If
society ran the same way UNIX does, everyone who owned a car
would be forced to refine their own gasoline from barrels of
crude...


 No.918930>>918999

>>918922

>Lisp also needs much less code than C to do the same thing.

Bullshit.


 No.918932

>>918922

If only lisp machines did not suck


 No.918941

File (hide): 8d1b00686e392e9⋯.jpg (71.76 KB, 800x598, 400:299, he's right you know.jpg) (h) (u)


 No.918959>>919002

>>917937 (OP)

Also lists D as harmful. Like it or not, D actually has a very easy to understand templates system.


 No.918995>>919063

cat-v's philosophy is basically consistent, and according to it, vim and zsh are certainly harmful. http://doc.cat-v.org/programming/worse_is_better is a decent first introduction.

I don't agree with them at all, but it sounds like you don't understand them well enough yet for informed disagreement.


 No.918999>>919001

Do cat-v guys even provide explanation why these programs are "harmful" and why their alternatives are better?

>>917968

Yes, Uriel found out that there is more minimal state of being.

>>918930

nope.

t.eri


 No.919001


 No.919002>>919130

>>918959

>One part of a language makes it not harmful


 No.919063>>919077 >>919092

>>918995

Richard Gabriel fell victim to wishful thinking. UNIX and C++ weren't good in 1995 or 2018. He thinks UNIX weenies want to make something good because he wants something good, so he thinks UNIX will one day be as good as a Lisp machine.

Software flaws should be fixed much more quickly than hardware flaws, but it doesn't happen on UNIX. UNIX software is bloated and we can't get rid of it. If it wasn't bloatware, it would be easy to replace, especially in a more productive language than C. What sucks about UNIX is that the bloat and complexity come from flaws and bugs, not from doing anything useful that needs to be complex.

>but users have already been conditioned to accept worse than the right thing.

C and UNIX condition users to accept worse than the right thing. They become convinced that better is impossible because they think UNIX is good. They see all the bloat and complexity that it takes to send a post or display an image on the screen and they become convinced that anything better would have to use more code. Part of UNIX doing things wrong is that it's many times more bloated than an OS that does things right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUNMOS

>SUNMOS was developed as a reaction to the heavy weight version of OSF/1 that ran as a single-system image on the Paragon and consumed 8-12 MB of the 16 MB available on each node, leaving little memory available for the compute applications. In comparison, SUNMOS used 250 KB of memory per node. Additionally, the overhead of OSF/1 limited the network bandwidth to 35 MB/s, while SUNMOS was able to use 170 MB/s of the peak 200 MB/s available.[2]

This is a great example of how wasteful UNIX is. A more suitable OS used 250 KB memory and provided 170 MB/s network bandwidth but UNIX used "8-12 MB of the 16 MB available" and limited bandwidth to 35 MB/s.

I don't see how being "professional" can help anything;
anybody with a vaguely professional (ie non-twinkie-addled)
attitude to producing robust software knows the emperor has
no clothes. The problem is a generation of swine -- both
programmers and marketeers -- whose comparative view of unix
comes from the vale of MS-DOS and who are particularly
susceptible to the superficial dogma of the unix cult.
(They actually rather remind me of typical hyper-reactionary
Soviet emigres.)

These people are seemingly -incapable- of even believing
that not only is better possible, but that better could have
once existed in the world before driven out by worse. Well,
perhaps they acknowledge that there might be room for some
incidental clean-ups, but nothing that the boys at Bell Labs
or Sun aren't about to deal with using C++ or Plan-9, or,
alternately, that the sacred Founding Fathers hadn't
expressed more perfectly in the original V7 writ (if only we
paid more heed to the true, original strains of the unix
creed!)

In particular, I would like to see such an article
separate, as much as possible, the fundamental design
flaws of Unix from the more incidental implementation
bugs.

My perspective on this matter, and my "reading" of the
material which is the subject of this list, is that the two
are inseparable. The "fundamental design flaw" of unix is
an -attitude-, and attitude that says that 70% is good
enough, that robustness is no virtue, that millions of users
and programmers should be hostage to the convenience or
laziness of a cadre of "systems programmers", that one's
time should be valued at nothing and that one's knowledge
should be regarded as provisional at best and expendable at
a moment's notice.

My view is that flaming about some cretin using a
fixed-sized buffer in some program like "uniq" says just as
much about unix as pointing out that this operating system
of the future has a process scheduler out of the dark ages
or a least-common-denominator filesystem (or IPCs or system
calls or anything else, it -doesn't matter-!)


The incidental -is- fundamental in dissecting unix, much as
it is in any close (say, literary or historical) reading.
Patterns of improbity and venality and outright failure are
revealed to us through any examination of the minutiae of
any implementation, especially when we remember that one
cornerstone of unix pietism is that any task is really no
more than the sum of its individual parts. (Puny tools for
puny users.)


 No.919077

>>919063

If only lisp machines did not suck


 No.919092

>>919063

How much have you coded for your LispOS revival project today?


 No.919102>>919106

I like with the general philosophy of cat-v and suckless, even though I don't agree with a lot of the specifics. Modern software is full of all sorts of unnecessary bullshit that most users don't want, need, and in many cases, even notice.

Here's an example: the entirety of Amiga OS is significantly smaller than GNOME's fucking file manager


 No.919106>>920029

>>919102

Don't forget that Amiga OS is limited to Amiga computers and it doesn't have any kind of configurability to fit in a huge range of modern computer devices.


 No.919108>>919111

>why is XXX on there

>XXX isn't shit

The irony of this thread is that most of the people don't have the mental capacity necessary to analyze the list and realize the similarity between the items listed. Regardless of whether you agree with it or not your opinion is irrelevant if you can't even see why someone who thinks Y is harmful might also thing Z is harmful.


 No.919111

>>919108

There is a problem which is relying on implications as the main point of argument. This is not a wise thing to do. It is wise to ensure that your conclusions are good by explicitly connecting the logic that leads to the conclusion.


 No.919130

>>919002

Well it does list templates. And I don't know when this was written but I'm guessing they're refering to C++'s (Like the code for llvm).


 No.919133>>919163

>>917968

Those who tried to warn us about the evils of modern C, POSIX, OOP, UNIX, GNU, Vim, X, etc and promoted/worked on a simple, UTF-8 only operating system that idiots could use and geniuses could hack:

Rob Pike

Dennis Ritchie

Ken Thompson

Brian Kernighan

People who listened: Some fag called uriel

People who didn't listen: Everyone that matters

People who killed themselves because of this: uriel


 No.919163>>919173 >>919180

>>919133

>Rob Pike

>not being a total idiot

Only an idiot would base a text editor around mouse usage.

A complete and utter retard. Did he kill himself, too?

He should.

Maybe he can't because he has terminal RSI, or something.

Like all the idiots who don't see the holiness of vim.

It literally means energy, vigor.

Of which these faggots have zero.


 No.919173>>919183 >>919213

>>919163

>holiness of vim

Vim is a terrible hack. It's a gigantic monster that implements its own (terrible) scripting language; and the defaults suck so people use the broken plug-in system. It has more legacy code than OpenSSL, is designed for QWERTY, and is used by ricer faggots who love to fellate superficial minimalism (because if it has a TUI, it must be minimal, right? Never mind that a Vim binary is almost the size of an Emacs binary).

Vim is thousands and thousands lines of C with API bindings for every other programming language. Vim is hard to extend and improve as itself, so users resort to limited hacks with its language bindings. Vim is the definition of harmful software. A bunch of amateurs on github are trying to clean it up, but it is a monolithic hack by design. The so-called "superiority" of model editing is also patently false, because:

a) It is designed around the worst keyboard layout

b) Text editing with the mouse is faster.*

c) If you're really besotted with modal editing, you can emulate it using Emacs.

The editor part of Emacs is temacs - which is just a few lines of C. Everything else is elisp. What do I recommend? ed, mg, sam and acme. Barring those, use Emacs.

*https://9p.io/wiki/plan9/mouse_vs._keyboard/index.html

When you start Emacs, the extensions (written in elisp, much better than vimscript) are loaded into temacs (which is very small, search it up) and then the core is dumped as the Emacs executable.

The binary size of Vim used to be much smaller, which was something Vim users loved to bring up, but now they're getting close - proving that Vim is just hacks upon hacks.

Do you know how much trouble people are having trying to make neovim good? A lot, because the Vim codebase is dogshit.

>I started programming in C almost 20 years ago. Vim is, without question, the worst C codebase I have seen.

>Copy-pasted but subtly changed code abounds. Indentation is haphazard. Lines contain tabs mixed with spaces. Source files are huge.

>There are almost 25,000 lines in eval.c. That file contains over 500 #ifdefs and references globals defined in the 2,000 line globals.h.

>Some of Vim’s source code isn’t even valid text. It’s not ASCII or UTF-8. The venerable file can’t figure out the encoding.

>Many of Vim’s #ifdefs are for platforms that became irrelevant decades ago: BeOS, VMS, Amiga, Mac OS Classic, IRIX. These preprocessor statements may seem innocuous, but they slow development and inhibit new features. Also, Vim doesn’t even work on most of these platforms anymore.

https://geoff.greer.fm/2015/01/15/why-neovim-is-better-than-vim/

https://geoff.greer.fm/vim/#realwaitforchar

The people who use it *love* superficially minimal software (i.e. software that appears minimal but has a terrible codebase). Things like i3, cmus (ncurses is bloat), Arch Linux, Firefox (wahhh I need to do online shopping - use Lynx idiot). I'm also not wrong, how many people use the Vim defaults? Almost none, that's how many.

>because if it has a TUI, it must be minimal, right?

I stand by that statement - ncurses is not minimal but most ricers think it is. Also, these days Emacs comes with a GUI. Emacs has a decent codebase, and it is (relatively) modular unlike Vim (It does have a lot of legacy cruft, not going to deny that). Emacs is a Lisp engine/interpreter with an editor-like interface. Parts of the buffer can be interpreted as Lisp, the session is a dynamic Lisp runtime, Lisp is its configuration language. Vim is all the code bloat of Emacs with the magic of ifdef hell, and people use tons of plug-ins/thousand line .vimrc config files making it even more adipose, because the defaults are egregious.


 No.919180>>919213

>>919163

>Vim

What's so great about it?

>inb4 muh modes

Not only is modal editing a meme, but you can do it in Emacs via the Evil package anyway.


 No.919183>>919190

>>919173

Hi, can you add something about the begging on behalf of niggers to your pasta? Thanks.


 No.919188

They hate on people who write useful things because they'll never be able to write something that does more than basic pajeet tier code.


 No.919190>>919199

>>919183

>doesn't have an argument beyond "I'm a knuckle dragger and I won't read le pasta"

Hey Jimmy! Keep eating those Tide Pods, and enjoy the summer!


 No.919199>>919203

>>919190

I read your pasta you mongoloid. Thats how I noticed you missed one of vims many shitty features.


 No.919203>>919204

>>919199

I have no idea what "the begging on behalf of niggers" pertains to, could you tell me? Thanks.


 No.919204>>919215

>>919203

have you never used vim, ever?

https://www.vim.org/about.php

no, you've surely used vim. you're just insensate most of the time.

>Vim is charityware. Its license is GPL-compatible, so it's distributed freely, but we ask that if you find it useful you make a donation to help children in Uganda through the ICCF. The full license text can be found in the documentation. Much more information about charityware on Charityware.info.

help children in Uganda

not any of those white children. Just black ones. There aren't enough black men on the planet who are capable of begging for money for black children, so this white guy has to take this job of theirs. fucking caretaking-appropriator.


 No.919213>>919219 >>919229 >>919439

>>919173

>Text editing with the mouse is faster.*

Some years ago I completely destroyed a faggot on reddit with pretty similar arguments to yours.

Do they clone faggots like you?

Mouse is all the way over there.

Keyboard is right here.

Going all the way over there when you could just have stayed right here is objectively, scientifically, reproduceably, physically, biologically proven inferior, if we assume that doing as little movement as possible yields the best outlook for preventing repetitive stress injuries.

But enjoy playing virtual DJ by sliding your arm and shoulder around every five seconds because you're too much of a goldfish to remember simple model editing sequences.

>>919180

>Not only is modal editing a meme

Enjoy your wrecked ligaments.


 No.919215

>>919204

How could I forget about that. But, I'm more partial to autoadmit and mypostingcareer than /pol/, so you can add a line about that if you want - I was mainly focusing on the technical reasons why you'd avoid Vim. But, it being for cuckolds is an important point, I guess.


 No.919219>>919251 >>919303 >>937346

>>919213

>Going all the way over there when you could just have stayed right here is objectively, scientifically, >reproduceably, physically, biologically proven inferior, if we assume that doing as little movement as >possible yields the best outlook for preventing repetitive stress injuries.

You are just plain wrong.

>One common complaint is that moving your hand from keyboard to mouse and back takes time and interrupts typing. This is true, but it doesn't take as much time as you think.

>Especially if you're using a keyboard without a numeric keypad, the mouse can be close by. With or without a keypad, eventually you get to the point where you don't need to look for the mouse.

>Your hand always leaves it in the same general place and automatically goes there, often in preparation for a mouse operation while the other hand is still typing.

>In the experience of many Plan 9 users, using the mouse in Plan 9 for an extended period of time and then going back to using vi in Unix highlights the amount of time you spend watching the screen as you cursor around with hjkl.

>Having broken out of the hypnosis that Tog describes, I just get frustrated beyond belief. Yes, I am watching the cursor move so I should be occupied, but all I can think is ``damnit, if I could just click where I want to go I'd be there by now.''

>But the thing that bothered me most about vi was that they gave you a two-dimensional display of your file but you had only a one-dimensional input device to talk to them.

>It was like giving directions with a map on the table, but being forced to say "up a little, right, no back down, right there, yes turn there that's the spot" instead of just putting your finger on the map.

>Enjoy your wrecked ligaments.

No, you. Your editor is DESIGNED around the least ergonomic keyboard layout - and all the so called "benefits" of its keybinds disappear when you switch to superior Dvorak/Workman/whatever (*anything* is better than QWERTY). If you're spending most of your time in a TEXT EDITOR (it is a pure text editor, unlike Emacs) in normal mode, you're an idiot. I spend most of my time in a text editor typing, and I can type at a constant 110WPM with zero pain for a very long time, because I'm not a knuckle dragger that uses QWERTY. Note: even if you can do the same, using QWERTY is destroying your fingers. But what else can I expect from a retard who uses reddit.


 No.919229

>>919213

this is an amazing level of ThinkPad bait, but, your DJ-slide example is also not true when you use the touchpad.

not that 'text editing with a mouse' isn't an absurd idea. Why not a joystick? How about text editing exclusively with foot pedals and eyebrow gestures?


 No.919239

>>918040

Eh, vi lets you move around in a lot more ways that just one character cell at a time. If he's "waiting for the cursor to move" then he's doing it wrong.


 No.919248>>919904

>>917966

>because its interface is inconsistent with most programs on its OS

Then fix the other programs.


 No.919251>>919260 >>919308

>>919219

QWERTY is not that bad - it was designed to avoid typewriter bars jamming by spreading characters commonly used together in English far away from each other. As a side effect, it spreads load between different fingers quite well, which aids fast typing. Sure, it's not Dvorak, but it's much better than an average random layout would be.

Also, while the vi command layout was designed around the most widespread keyboard layout, Vim allows you to use a different layout in Insert mode than in command modes. You can keep the QWERTY command layout while typing in text in Dvorak, for example.


 No.919253

>>917968

Underrated post.


 No.919256>>919275

When you git gud at vim movement it's a lot faster than swapping between keyboard and mouse, but it's a fuckload of git gud before you cross that threshold. Some people never do. I work with a 45 year old guy that still primarily uses hjkl for movement. You really have to deliberately focus on mastering it to succeed with it.


 No.919260

>>919251

>As a side effect, it spreads load between different fingers quite well, which aids fast typing.

True. But, I doubt I'd be able to maintain my top speed for very long, the constant moving of your fingers (particularly if you type 110WPM+, as any programmer should) would tire anyone out. I'm guessing you've used alternate keyboard layouts, so you know that switching back to QWERTY highlights just how much that layout makes your fingers move (inducing RSI).


 No.919275

>>919256

>deliberately focus

no, you need to have the impatience that God gave every animal more mobile than a tree. wtf.

70% of my vi navigation is through ? and /


 No.919303

>>919219

>You are just plain wrong.

Nope.


 No.919308>>919310 >>919341

>>919251

>QWERTY is not that bad

it could be fuckerty for all I care, the keys are still all around the fingers and the mouse is at the far side of the keyboard, especially with a numpad.

And even without that, even with a clitmouse, you still lose something compared to modal editing.

macroable, reproducable, deterministic text navigation.

using the mouse for text editing is fucking ass backwards retarded, even speech input is better than that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEBMlXRjhZY

Despite being a billion times slower than a mouse, if the speech input is a connection to the modal interface then it will still be superior to the mouse.

Acme users are literally, unironically mentally retarded.

They are corn fed fucknut fools.

It is not without reason that vim got ported to plan 9.

The few people that can pass as an approximation of sentient in that ass backwards community.


 No.919310

>>919308

>vim speech

A vimgolf demo of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy84TYvXJbk

Vim users are literal gods that can edit text at almost the speed of thought if they want to

.

Acme users get snarfed in the ass instead.


 No.919341>>919342 >>919563 >>919567 >>919653

>>919308

mouse is always faster and the time to move your arm to the mouse is not slow.

t.anyone who has ever engaged in physical activity


 No.919342

>>919341

>t.anyone who has ever engaged in physical activity

i.e. not anyone on this cave painting board


 No.919439>>919563

>>919213

<Enjoy your wrecked ligaments.

Remap your keyboard, retard. Then that won't happen.

>Alt -> Ctrl

>CapsLk -> Alt

Done. You can now do chorded commands with your thumbs and pinky easily, faster and with less keystrokes than muh modes.


 No.919516

vim is bloat, use vis like a true man of culture


 No.919524

>BASH, VIM = harmful

..and I'll stop reading there.

I'll go for a short -option over a dirty|great|long|pipe


 No.919533>>919543

File (hide): eaee2fb0da5159f⋯.jpg (201.23 KB, 1015x807, 1015:807, 1526750202358.jpg) (h) (u)

>>917937 (OP)

>Note: At the moment a detailed rationale is not provided for most of this, so figuring out why some things are considered more or less harmful than others is left as an exercise for the reader.

LOL


 No.919543

>>919533

explanations are bloat


 No.919563>>919567 >>919586 >>919751

>>919439

>muh modes.

Modes remain an enabler of superior macro capabilities.

>>919341

>mouse is always faster

Not true.

Also, it's not repeatable.

I have also included an extremely slow interface to vim (Speech) on purpose and it is still superior to the mouse, simply due to the extreme macroability.


 No.919567>>919613

>>919563

>>919341

You're both half right.

You have mouse and keyboard for a reason.

* going through a huge list with a keyboards takes fucking long and with a mouse you can just move and click directly which is faster. You can measure it. Because of the delays before repeating keyfire or your physically limited keyspam interval mouse IS faster

* opening an often used program bound to a macro is instantaneous with a keyboard

* typing with a mouse is horrible

* with a mouse you can just use element in other windows without switching to the window first which is one of the core reasons the window system became so popular because it allows the user to actively do multiple things at once resulting in "active" becoming more of a "last used"


 No.919580>>919584 >>919621 >>922997

File (hide): 6f318d38c319977⋯.png (153.23 KB, 946x882, 473:441, shit.png) (h) (u)

>>917937 (OP)

can you really argue with any of this?


 No.919584>>919610

>>919580

just noticed at the bottom

>Harmful things

>GPL, LGPL, Apache Software License, MPL, CC.

<Less harmful alternatives

<ISC, MIT/X, BSD, CC0, public domain.

i can't argue for this


 No.919586>>919613

>>919563

No the mouse is faster. Even vim a program spefically designed around how slow keyboard navigation is still requires years of time you spent to train so you could exactly jump down X lines and across Y words. And is only slightly faster than some total novice moving a mouse. And it only gets worse with touch screens.

The only a thing a keyboard is "fast" at is entering text and this is almost certainly BTFO by some kind of smart auto-complete system.


 No.919610>>919843 >>933181 >>933186

>>919584

I really hate license-posting, but since this thread is essentially a throwaway shitpost I'll bite.

A more permissive license makes a project more aligned with its users' interests, whether hobbyist or corporate, than a copyleft license. Copyleft licenses are only concerned with keeping a project's code free, even if it hinders the users' experience, or the project's prospects.

If you *force* people to contribute back their otherwise proprietary code, you'd be surprised to find out that what they contribute is a bunch of sloppy hacks, and nonsense that's completely irrelevant to most users of the software, thus adding a bunch of unnecessary bloat (which they still accept).

Meanwhile, even if you don't force people to contribute back with a permissive license, many will still have the incentive to do so if they want to keep everything up to date. This is a lot less work than trying to keep a bunch of hacks around that you need to apply and hope don't break anything every release. Integrating code into the upstream project makes it easier for contributors to unload a lot of unnecessary burden, providing them incentive to give back; since they aren't *forced* to, they don't need to bother sending every trivial little thing under the sun that would add needless bloat, and the upstream project could always reject such "contributions" anyway if they don't provide any value for most users.

The Intel thing is irrelevant, because they could've easily just made their own small, buggy *nix OS (they are made of money, after all). Minix didn't enable them to create their ME (they were going to do it anyway) and the GPL wouldn't have stopped them from making their ME, so it's a non-argument for anything having to do with licenses.

The irony is that GPL promoters assume that *all* proprietary companies will not listen to reason - Theo has gotten documentation for wifi drivers simply by asking companies, Stallman would probably continue to call them "enemies of your freedom" without even doing anything (and he literally _can't_ do anything about the chink companies violating the GPL, except plaintively whine). If they don't give documentation to the OpenBSD project, then they reverse engineer them. The OpenBSD philosophy is just writing good code which in turn improves the entire ecosystem (OpenSSH being the best example). The irony is that all these people calling OpenBSD users cuckolds don't know that Theo had DARPA funding pulled for criticizing the war on terror, and that people on the mailing lists continue to excoriate companies like Microsoft (even though Microsoft has been donating thousands to their project). This is the exact opposite of cuckold behavior.


 No.919613>>919616 >>919927

>>919567

>You have mouse and keyboard for a reason.

Not for text editing.

>going through a huge list with a keyboards takes fucking long and with a mouse you can just move and click directly which is faster

Bullshit.

If the list is really that long and you have a specific thing you are looking for then you are better off /searchingforit

instead of manually scrolling though the list and parsing the text with your eyes when the program with omniscience of the text file can do it for you.

Stop being retards you dumb mouse fucks.

>>919586

>No the mouse is faster.

Nope.


 No.919616

>>919613

>duh mouse is slow

>proceeds to edit text to prove how amazing keyboards are

just lol


 No.919621

>>919580

Your CSS is harmful to my eyes


 No.919653>>919927

>>919341

Unplug your keyboard and let's see how fast you are. Mouse is mostly useful for stuff involving graphics, but even there a drawing tablet with stylus is probably better.


 No.919751

>>919563

how else do you go somewhere on a line instantly? you can jump to a line if you know what it is but not to a specific symbol on that line


 No.919843

File (hide): 0fe4aafc06e6b42⋯.jpg (103.47 KB, 1375x749, 1375:749, radiant smugness.jpg) (h) (u)

>>919610

>excoriate Microsoft

>even though Microsoft has been donating thousands to them

MACROSHIT CUCKED


 No.919904>>919911

>>917937 (OP)

My guess is whoever wrote that is a webdev webdevving.

>>919248

Please Lennart, no more!


 No.919911

>>919904

>My guess is whoever wrote that is a webdev webdevving.

Very much the opposite. Please educate yourself.


 No.919927>>919929 >>919930 >>920199

>>919613

>Not for text editing.

Jumping to a certain part in in a text consisting of more than 4 lines is faster with a mouse too.

Move and click is faster then entering 40 times down and 70 times right or holding the keys which comes with a delay before the key repeats.

>If the list is really that long and you have a specific thing you are looking for then you are better off /searchingforit

That means you have to open the search too which still takes longer than using a mouse.

Look, you can measure it. Your pride doesn't help you being efficient.

>>919653

>Unplug your keyboard and let's see how fast you are.

You need it too type efficiently.

>Mouse is mostly useful for stuff involving graphics, but even there a drawing tablet with stylus is probably better.

>stylus that has no 2nd MB and can't scroll directly

>being such a nigger that you have to hit things irl

Just NO


 No.919929>>919932

>>919927

>entering 40 times down and 70 times right

that's literally a few keystrokes in Vim


 No.919930>>919932

>>919927

>entering 40 times down and 70 times right

get a load of this nigger


 No.919932>>920039

>>919929

>a few vs one move & click

>in vim

>every program is now vim

s-sure

>>919930

>quoting nigger method

>get a load of this nigger

Looking in the mirror, aren't you?


 No.920029>>920035

>>919106

How about this? firefox 2.0, which was available basically fucking everything required 64 megs of ram. Meanwhile, firefox 60.01 requires 512, which is eight times as much


 No.920035>>920040 >>920880

>>920029

It's not Firefox, it's the websites it is supposed to run.


 No.920039>>920166

>>919932

Reaching for the mouse and then back to keyboard takes as much time as entering a few dozen characters if you're touch-typing. A few keystrokes take fraction of this time.

>every program is now vim

it should be


 No.920040>>937227

>>920035

On my machine it uses over 100 MB to view about:blank in a fresh process and session.


 No.920166>>920168

>>920039

>Reaching for the mouse

You already have your hand on it.

>it should be

Hell no.


 No.920168

>>920166

>You already have your hand on it.

Hell no.

>Hell no.

Hell yes.


 No.920199

>>919927

>That means you have to open the search too which still takes longer than using a mouse.

Nope, it's the fucking forward slash key ///////////////////////////////////////////

I don't even have to read the rest.

>you can measure it

Yeah, I know, that's why I know that you're full of shit.

I need to find the webms I recorded on halfchan /g/ in response to faggots like you.


 No.920200>>920204 >>920691 >>920851

File (hide): 88422bafda4dc3c⋯.webm (110.48 KB, 400x338, 200:169, shiftyreselecty.webm) (h) (u) [play once] [loop]

Well I found one.

Right this about reselecting text, for example.

gv, bitch.

I wanna see you drag your ball and chain around the text file.

Go on, record something like this too.

I want to see you drag your faggot pointer around like bitches, mousefags.


 No.920204>>920691

>>920200

>I want to see you drag your faggot pointer around like bitches, mousefags.

And remember, just putting your mouse pointer somewhere means NOTHING without a follow up action.

And my follow up actions are 1488% macroable because they work with actual text information.

Unlike your x,y coordinate bullshit.

I'll be waiting here, laughing.


 No.920205>>920209

so ur tellin me that emacs and org-mode actually suck?


 No.920209>>920211

>>920205

No, he just has head too far up ugandan nigger asses. I used to be a vi-brainlet, and in most cases still am, but it doesn't take much to see that emacs org-mode is for the truly enlightened.


 No.920211>>920216

>>920209

>org mode

>not roaring penguins remind

Brain is matter, anon, not void, you are happy about an increase in the wrong thing.


 No.920216>>920245

>>920211

>you are happy about an increase in the wrong thing.

can you expand on this? additionally, having given remind and roaring penguin but a cursory glance, I dismissed it rather quickly - org-mode is much, much more than an alarm clock and calendar.


 No.920220>>920279

>>917937 (OP)

why are lisp machines not in mass production? even a SOC/SBC lisp machine would be great, with some sort of emacs++ OS


 No.920235>>920717

>>918922

Will there be a change? Why don't we see Lisp machine's today? what's stopping someone from producing some?


 No.920245>>920679

>>920216

>I dismissed it rather quickly

Yeah, of course you did. You're retarded, after all.


 No.920279>>920303 >>920680

>>920220

Nobody is willing to risk the investment. Who would invest $100000 to design a CPU and computer then run a production batch only to not make use of all the products?


 No.920303>>920312


 No.920312>>920316

>>920303

you still need to design the core, even if it's not implemented in hard silicon


 No.920313>>920432

Perl was inspired by God. Only Satan would consider it harmful.


 No.920316

>>920312

Yeah someone has to do the work, but it's possible. That's why boards like Minimig, MiST, and so on exist. Actually those represent a lot more work since much reverse-engineering needed to be done for the Amiga and other platforms they reproduce. You don't have to RE an Lisp machine, you can just design from scratch.


 No.920432

>>920313

God of suffering, maybe.


 No.920679

>>920245

Given that you've provided no further reasons to look into it, I'm assuming I was right. I'm not going to waste my time experimenting with unconvincing software, I'd rather git gud at what I know is exceptional for my use cases.


 No.920680

>>920279

>not make use of all the products

what does this mean


 No.920691>>920810

>>920200

Lad. You can achieve the same thing shown in the webm by holding alt+shift and clicking on the second position in my favorite notepad.

Mouse and keyboard are meant to be used together, not alone.

Mouse is good at 2d, keyboard good at simple but fast inputs.

>drag

dragging has no use in text editing. It's useful in program menus with files because you don't have to enter the path to the file manually or navigate there. In all other cases ctrl x and ctrl v or shift ins is faster.

And before you claim your text is a 1d string, I wish to remind you that your screen is 2 dimensional.

>>920204

For the last time THEY ARE MEANT TO BE USED TOGETHER


 No.920717>>920742 >>920747 >>920777 >>920844 >>931475 >>931518 >>937224

File (hide): bb9bcf7d55b3675⋯.gif (1.83 MB, 1772x1424, 443:356, 73475e7ec9878f063f30211e0b….gif) (h) (u)

>>920235

Lisp machines aren't in production because they don't work. You see, what lispkike fails to recognize is that if it good, it would still be in market, but they aren't. The multic machines had HUGE latency and were huge GUI driven piles of shit.

You see, Capitalism is like natural selection. The good stuff is bought and the suppilers of that product are given profit, which in turn gives them income to produce more of said product. Supply and demand, and why the IBM PC took off. However, if you have a REALLY shitty product, AKA Multics machines, no one buys them, and Multics goes out of business. Even RISC workstations, the thing lispkike hates the most- did 10x better in the market than the garbage pile that was idea of the lisp machine. RISC computers are even still produced today like the Raspberry Pi and every router/IOT device you can think off.


 No.920742>>920795 >>921561

>>920717

There's actually a lot of old stuff that worked fine and was replaced with worse designs. 4:3 displays, old IBM Thinkpads, and simple/rugged phones like Nokia 1100 are the first obvious things for me. Ditto with CPUs that weren't completely full of bugs and botnet, and all those Internet of Things shits.


 No.920747

>>920717

>Capitalism is like natural selection.

This is true, but natural selection doesn't select for quality. It selects for (often short-term) fitness, which is only weakly correlated with quality.

You might want to (re-)read this:

http://doc.cat-v.org/programming/worse_is_better


 No.920777

>>920717

>Capitalism is like natural selection

But like capitalism, it takes a long time for it to work. As an example, think of how long we will have to support the x86 instruction set.


 No.920795>>920816

File (hide): c1a86b5bba69d30⋯.jpg (156.84 KB, 1280x1192, 160:149, 3b8185cd9103af550afd309e4e….jpg) (h) (u)

>>920742

>4:3 displays

Questionable depending on what you use your computer for. 16:10 or 16:9 is more practical for many vidya where horizontal viewing space is more important, but most of /tech/ likely isn't into that.

>IBM ThinkPads

Correct

>Simple/rugged phones

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they still make those?

>CPUs that weren't completely full of bugs and botnet

With the rise of spectre and meltdown, there's likely going to be a push back towards simpler designs.

>all those Internet of Things shits

Those won't work if people are really loud about the disadvantages. They're such a mess design-wise that you could scare the normalfags away with simple memes.


 No.920810

>>920691

>entire post

Wrong.


 No.920816

>>920795

I don't actually play any modern video games. The old ones I like just end up with black bars, or even just a small window.

I don't know of any phones currently made that are both simple and rugged. The 1100 also had a monochrome screen to save battery power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_1100


 No.920844

>>920717

retarded post


 No.920851

>>920200

>text editing

>in vim

>is slightly more convenient for this rare use case

>therefore mouse is slow

ya sure showed me


 No.920880>>920882 >>920887 >>920937

>>920035

And why the fuck do new sites need so much ram to run when websites from 2006 were fine?


 No.920882

>>920880

Because of ads, tracking scripts, and the like. Pretty sure someone tested the "USA today" webpage from both the EU and the US - the EU version was incredibly lightweight (GDPR compliance).


 No.920884

>doesn't mention that glibc has recently been cutting huge amounts of unneeded code

Otherwise known as breaking shit.


 No.920887

>>920880

Javascript programs and also exotic CSS features. If you disable Javascript, you can easily reduce the processing requirements.


 No.920937>>921561

>>920880

Ubiquitous pajeet-tier "frameworks" + ad&tracking scripts.

Those hipster webdevs don't even ever see what shit code they are throwing at your browser. It's hidden from them like memory management from a javanigger.


 No.921561>>921568 >>937227

>>920742

Depends on form factor. All iFags have 4:3 displays because they are used to display websites and documents for print. Smartphones have long high displays for short pieces of text like news and IM applications, similar to narrow newspaper columns. Desktop displays used to be 19 inch 4:3, now they are 27 inch 16:9, 1,7 times wider, good for side-by-side viewing of websites and print documents. Modern notebooks are going back to being closer to square, all high-end models have 3:2 high-dpi displays and can be used as tablets too. Rugged phones still exist, as well as rugged notebooks from Panasonic (pro tip: all Thinkpad "ruggedness" is and was nothing more than a marketing gimmick, even 15 years ago, modern models go for lesser weight and slimmer design because it's inconvenient to bring a 4-kilo computer to school or a park)

>CPUs that weren't completely full of bugs and botnet

I recall a TV show from 2001 where they predicted Intel AMT, what's was the name?

>Internet of Things shits

If it runs free software, what's wrong with it being connected to the internet? Worth the convenience if it's truly justified for example, you can prepare your freezer to deep freeze cycle remotely when you go shopping for fish. Vote with your wallet and don't buy insecure chinese wifi lighbulbs you obviously don't need.

>>920937

Try opening a simple text page, but very big in size in modern browser. It will fail and stutter even with this task, so nothing to do with frameworks.

>all these vmfaggots buttblasted from mouse users

>never heard of trackpoint and it's convenience

>learning how to use a literal notepad by reading lengthy manpages, completing exhausting tutorials and watching utoobe e-celebs in 2019

lmao


 No.921568>>921577

>>921561

>If it runs free software, what's wrong with it being connected to the internet?

What if it gets cracked into? Are you really going to audit the code your SmartFreezer® is running? Obviously not.


 No.921577

>>921568

If the software is free, then everybody who is running that specific software can easily upgrade when a fix is issued. Working on the principle of "many eyes makes all bugs shallow" is much better than you yourself writing all the software from scratch. Another issue about free software is that you don't have to audit the whole system, you can strip out all the networking code if you don't care about it. You could change your network so that the firewall doesn't allow for traffic from the outside into your networked devices. The codebase is normally small for these networked devices thus there is normally a smaller surface to cover when auditing the whole system.


 No.921582>>921584

>His "pure text editor" is compiled with bindings for 10 languages, mouse support, netrw, spell checking, syntax highlighting, and word objects

"I love the youneks way; systemd is bloat" - posted with Firefox

Vim users: please die, and take all the poetteringware with you.


 No.921583

>GNU/Freezer kernelpanics when reaching 0F

>it's a systemd issue

>poetthering comments it: not a bug, werks on my oven


 No.921584>>921637 >>921688

>>921582

Do you consider bundled manpages as a bloat too?


 No.921637>>921680 >>921688 >>933172

>>921584

*NOT* bundling man pages and headers, (meaning, having separate -dev and -doc packages) is bloat.


 No.921680

>>921637

Well I guess you don't like Alpine then


 No.921688

>>921584

Yes

>>921637

>Taking something out is bloat

wut


 No.922980>>937337

>>917937 (OP)

>thinking awk isn't a replacement for perl and ruby

They've got a bit of a Pike complex but usually "okay" tier.


 No.922997>>925519

>>919580

I would point out that the comparison between Jabber and IRC is rather missing the point. The real competition in this space is Slack, Discord or even Skype. Compared to that, the XMPP protocol is a beautiful bit of minimalism. I would also point out that in practice, IRC requires a lot of external scripts/bots to achieve the same things that Slack does out of the box. You're still going to be left with tons of bloat, external dependencies etc.


 No.925516>>925524

notepadqq (notepad++ clone for linux) is the best text editor. Vim is pure autism, but whatever makes you happy. There are some people at my work who use vim (more or less efficiently) , fewer that use normal gui editor (notepad++ or atom etc.) and the rest 90% use some heavy ass shit IDE.... in a vm with default Ubuntu/gnome3... not fullscreen and on one monitor (cuz the host system is windows 7 by default, although you can install whatever you want). Beat that nigger combo.


 No.925519

>>922997

my company uses jabber but we also develop software for linux and some of us refuse to use Windows and Linux in VM and there's no jabber client for linux. Some our guy wrote a script that is a man in the middle for the jabber and converts it to xmpp so we can use it with any linux client like pidgin. A true godsend.


 No.925524

>>925516

What's your work?


 No.925625

>>917937 (OP)

when are people going to realize that this is mostly tongue-in-cheek.

burgers are baited so easily.


 No.930415

vuomi


 No.930485>>930490 >>931508

Daily reminder

Those who can do, those who can't criticize


 No.930490

>>930485

The cat-v community does do things. They're very involved with 9front and Uriel wrote werc, which one of Infinity Next's proposed alternatives used.


 No.931312

Come to muh board

>>>/videogames/


 No.931331

>>917937 (OP)

All this because some spaniard muslim rape baby hated his life, even in dead hes still a harmful being.


 No.931475>>931476

File (hide): bc7da13e5d56a55⋯.jpg (78.81 KB, 960x794, 480:397, markets.jpg) (h) (u)


 No.931476>>931487

>>931475

By efficient they mean as opposed to the endless communist autocracy.


 No.931487>>931493

>>931476

labor power transmuted into exchange value is by definition, bloat


 No.931493

>>931487

not as bloated as everything else becomes


 No.931508

>>930485

and thus, bash was born


 No.931518

>>920717

>Lisp machines aren't in production because they don't work. You see, what lispkike fails to recognize is that if it good, it would still be in market, but they aren't.

The end of Lisp machines had nothing to do with technical aspects of the hardware. While it says the K-machine is a "RISC-like architecture," it's a tagged architecture, not a UNIX/C RISC.

http://fare.tunes.org/tmp/emergent/kmachine.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolics

>An internal war between Noftsker and the CEO the board had hired in 1986, Brian Sear, over whether to follow Sun's suggested lead and focus on selling their software, or to re-emphasize their superior hardware, and the ensuing lack of focus when both Noftsker and Sear were fired from the company caused sales to plummet. This fact, combined with some ill-advised real estate deals by company management during the boom years (they had entered into large long-term lease obligations in California), drove Symbolics into bankruptcy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_Machines

>LMI was reincarnated as GigaMos Systems; Greenblatt was one of its officers. GigaMos, through the ownership of a Canadian backer named Guy Montpetit, bought the assets of LMI through a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization. Prior to the incorporation of GigaMos,[7] LMI developed a new Lisp machine called the "K-machine" which used a RISC-like architecture. Montpetit subsequently became embroiled in a 1989 Canadian political scandal which, as a side-effect, resulted in the seizure of all the assets of GigaMos, rendering the company unable to meet payroll.

>The multic machines had HUGE latency and were huge GUI driven piles of shit.

Multics machines have very low latency. They could support thousands of users from all over the world on a couple megabytes of RAM. I'm not certain enough to say there was absolutely no Multics GUI, but it used a shell and introduced the name "shell" for that concept.

>You see, Capitalism is like natural selection. The good stuff is bought and the suppilers of that product are given profit, which in turn gives them income to produce more of said product. Supply and demand, and why the IBM PC took off.

Lisp machine companies going out of business does not prevent anyone from building Lisp machines today.

>However, if you have a REALLY shitty product, AKA Multics machines, no one buys them, and Multics goes out of business.

Multics is better than most OSes made today, but it's an OS for large organizations. People do not need thousands of simultaneous users, even though Multics could easily support that many on much less powerful hardware than today's phones. The company that sold Multics is still in business today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multics

>Multics also supported extremely aggressive on-line reconfiguration: central processing units, memory banks, disk drives, etc. could be added and removed while the system continued operating. At the MIT system, where most early software development was done, it was common practice to split the multiprocessor system into two separate systems during off-hours by incrementally removing enough components to form a second working system, leaving the rest still running the original logged-in users. System software development testing could be done on the second machine, then the components of the second system were added back onto the main user system, without ever having shut it down. Multics supported multiple CPUs; it was one of the earliest multiprocessor systems.

>Even RISC workstations, the thing lispkike hates the most- did 10x better in the market than the garbage pile that was idea of the lisp machine. RISC computers are even still produced today like the Raspberry Pi and every router/IOT device you can think off.

RISCs suck because they slow down every language besides C. Lisp machines are defined by the language and everything else is translated into Lisp while retaining source level debugging in the original language, so the architecture can change for each machine.

    Actually, it's more the hardware vendors fault.  For
about 15 years now, the solution has been to throw more
hardware (memory, cpu cycles, graphics co-processors, and so
on) at the users. UNIX has the dubious advantage of looking
more like "a real operating system" to the microprocessor
crowd (who are used to CPM/MSDOS/etc).

So they think that by installing unix, it makes their
system into a "real computer". In fact, unix is just a
minicomputer operating system (at best). So what they end
up with is a box with more MIPs than a 70s mainframe, more
memory than a 70s mainframe, more disk than a 70s mainframe,
and a 70s minicomputer operating system. And it runs about
as fast as a 70s minicomputer, asn supports as many users.

The wonder is that anyone is surprised.


 No.932194>>933080

>>917937 (OP)

>Vim is harmful

polite sage


 No.933056

>>917937 (OP)

How do I install SpiderOak on tmplOS?


 No.933078>>933185

I'm still waiting for my HURD based OS


 No.933080>>933177

>>932194

>hjkl

>not jkl;

<just rebind it

>ok how about I throw on a lisp interpreter too


 No.933172

>>921637

I bet you unironically compare package counts of systems running different distros.


 No.933177

>>933080

lisp is better left uninterpreted


 No.933181

>>919610

>If you *force* people to contribute back their otherwise proprietary code, you'd be surprised to find out that what they contribute is a bunch of sloppy hacks, and nonsense that's completely irrelevant to most users of the software, thus adding a bunch of unnecessary bloat (which they still accept).

But you're not required to contribute back to the upstream repository. The requirement is that the source code using GPL components has the same license e.g source code. If you use LGPL, then the requirement is to disclose the project uses LGPL components and provide source code for that portion only.

It would be cuckold behavior in a common situation where a simple open source application is used, improved in proprietary code, and deprecates said open source predecessor. Since proprietary software is unknown to the original creator, the open source effort in comparison is left to "keep up", often pro bono, while proprietary software has the financial incentive of sales and the resulting upscale in pace of development.


 No.933185

>>933078

It's not happening any time soon while they're working on the problem of hardware drivers. At the moment, they're working on an idea known as a rump kernel as their intended solution to the driver problem.


 No.933186

>>919610

Stallman's solution to hardware companies distributing proprietary software drivers is to encourage the free software activists to invest into writing free software replacements to the drivers.


 No.933192>>933198 >>933228

File (hide): db87a961b6f7591⋯.png (384.31 KB, 412x395, 412:395, slaps.png) (h) (u)

ITT: brainlets who don't understand tongue-in-cheek humor.


 No.933198

>>933192

<not playing your GPL copy of quake at LAN parties


 No.933228

>>933192

I lend him my smartphone.


 No.937173

this thread tbh


 No.937224>>937355

>>920717

>Capitalism is like natural selection

Hmm... yeah makes sense.

Capitalism gives us wonderful things like microsoft, apple, google and facebook.

Natural selection gives us wonderful things like niggers and brainless normies.

I can see the relation between them.


 No.937227

>>920040

>>921561

>Try opening a simple text page, but very big in size in modern browser. It will fail and stutter even with this task, so nothing to do with frameworks.

Nigger, the browser has to load the support for all the cancer it has support to from the start. It doesn't matter if you just open a plain text file or a webgl 3D simulation.

As long as new bloated "technologies" continue to get adopted and implemented on the web then the browsers will follow and continue to consume more and more resources and more and more bloated.


 No.937337

>>922980

Awk stuff is only a small subset of what Perl (and Ruby) can do. I doubt anyone has ever written any non-trivial CGI scripts or other web-related stuff (including database) in awk, for starters.

I'm sure it could be done, but it would be rather painful. For starters, the shell tools like awk and sed require lots and lots of metacharacter escaping, which is rather error-prone, and quite ugly and verbose.


 No.937346

File (hide): efe2c04d103cf06⋯.jpg (33.81 KB, 500x370, 50:37, laugh 5.jpg) (h) (u)

>>919219

>thinking moving your hand to the mouse is faster because you're too much of a retard to use the keyboard properly


 No.937355

>>937224

Goverments impose so much regulations that only big companies can afford to obey them. And big companies together often propose more regulations to be aproved to the goverment for, in their words, to protect the customers. Small entrepreneurs can't compete with this amount of burocracy, so this is definitely NOT capitalism, it's a oligarchy.

Also, goverment buys software from companies like Microsoft with taxpayer's money giving it more and more power unrelated to any form of capitalism.

In short, if you have any entity using stolen money to buy product or services and imposing laws that prevent anyone to compete, such system is not capitalistic.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Screencap][Nerve Center][Cancer][Update] ( Scroll to new posts) ( Auto) 5
159 replies | 12 images | Page ?
[Post a Reply]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ashleyj / aze / fascist / general / just / miku / omnichan / sissy ][ watchlist ]