|
I'm convinced - Linux employs a technique similar to the one Australia has used with its wildlife for years.
Packages often have deliberately brief installation instructions, we talk-up how nasty our critters are.
It tends to raise the bar for entry to a degree that suits all current inhabitants.
You've got google now, whatcha whining for? You shouldv'e tried with all that kind of stuff back when the best search engine was AltaVista.. and IE4 ruled the roost. 
|
|
|
|
|
Are you suggesting that Linux is the Drop Bear of operating systems?
Because I thought that title went to Vista.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Because I thought that title went to Vista.
Are you sure? If Win7 would not exist, I would believe that Mickeysoft has specialized on DropSomethings.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
enhzflep wrote: You've got google now, whatcha whining for?
So, the first response to a Linux rant essentially amounts to "RTFM, n00b!!!1!".
Not much ever changes, I guess...
|
|
|
|
|
AltaVista has been replaced? Where have I been?
|
|
|
|
|
You can try installing it using the terminal, Dropbox is available in the official repo 
i dont trust the software center, sometimes they don't do what was advertise.
|
|
|
|
|
Could you repeat that in English, please?
Google translate couldn't handle it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Agree - I dont trust the Ubuntu software centre either. It uses very old versions of software and isnt very reliable as the OP says in completing the installation. Definitely avoid if you can. 
Fortunately the command line is quite helpful in most instances and will tell you how to install software, with the added benefit it is a much faster process.
|
|
|
|
|
Zterh wrote: i dont trust the software center
It was a .deb download from dropbox.com. I chose to open in Software Center because double-clicking did nothing. At least in Windows, when you double-click an installer, it installs. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: Pretty sad when you install software and cannot even find it to launch it.
That was the exact final straw that made me drop my last (of many) excursion into ubuntu.
They call it progress. I call it "hiding stuff".
Why is it hard for OS designers to understand that we just want to use our programs and files?
Media libraries? Groups? Fancy-schmanzy containers that suck in every picture on the machine (including all the icons, snapshots, borders, and other cr@p used by programs)?
No thanks. Just give me a list of the programs installed, so that I can open them when I need them, and let me see my disc, so that I can put files there and retrieve them from there.
You don't make things simpler by obfuscating simplicity.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Did you argue with it a lot then? 
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not you.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I like Fedora quite a bit, and find that it works quite well, especially with the LXDE desktop (very lightweight).
Ubuntu... Not a chance. That crap is worse than Vista, IMO.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: Pretty sad when you install software and cannot even find it to launch it.
Yup. Fairly common state of affairs as far as I've seen. Install an app, where's the icon? Oh, there's an .sh file I have to use to launch it buried somewhere in the installation directory. Oh, but it's not executable. Need to tell Ubuntu to treat it as an executable. Now how to put a shortcut on the desktop. Oh, that is another 30 minutes wasted googling SO answers until the right set of non-intuitive steps is described. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
This started off as a rant on here but then I realized it was getting long and decided to throw it onto my blog. I've somewhat recently been forced (okay, persuaded) to do some iOS and Android development and it really put the state of developer tools into perspective for me. I was shielded in my little Microsoft bubble of really damn good developer tools and now that the bubble has burst and the red pill has been swallowed, I figured a thank you was in order:
[Code Index] Thank You Microsoft[^]
I was planning to make a transition into more and more mobile stuff but I can't...I've been spoiled with XAML and C#, even considering faults and all, and I just can't go back now. So I'm going to keep focusing more on server-based work, dev tooling and stuff that won't need native mobile apps.
Anyone else here try to make an honest effort to go from the Microsoft ecosystem into Android/iOS development and fail miserably? Well not fail, but ended up hating it?
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Marynowski wrote: Anyone else here try to make an honest effort to go from the Microsoft ecosystem into Android/iOS development and fail miserably? Well not fail, but ended up hating it?
While I can see your point... surely you jest? I couldn't stand editing XAML. The editor was slooooooooooooooow. Did I mention slow?
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
It *was* slow, but it has been improved significantly in each release of Visual Studio. XAML is also expressive enough that I rarely use the editor directly anyway - I usually have it in split screen view and I type the XAML manually. Faster, more accurate, less code bloat. I'm a huge advocate of beautiful hand-written XAML.
Even when the editor was slower, I still never found it to be so bad that it become unusable. Keeping things well organized and split into smaller files helped a lot. There was a period of time before I was particularly good with XAML and relied on the editor more than I do now that I remember it being sluggish but I'll take sluggish over hand coding a UI with actual code or using Interface Builder any day.
The kinds of UIs that you can easily build with XAML is nothing short of amazing.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Marynowski wrote: It *was* slow, but it has been improved significantly in each release of Visual Studio. XAML is also expressive enough that I rarely use the editor directly anyway - I usually have it in split screen view and I type the XAML manually. Faster, more accurate, less code bloat. I'm a huge advocate of beautiful hand-written XAML.
I always disabled the visual editor and the XAML code editor was still slow as dirt. I think you'll find most professionals do that, so it's just assumed.
Mike Marynowski wrote: Even when the editor was slower, I still never found it to be so bad that it become unusable.
I have, on a large medical project. This was back in VS 2012 mind you, but still.
Mike Marynowski wrote: The kinds of UIs that you can easily build with XAML is nothing short of amazing.
Well, I totally agree, but have you used any other UI technologies besides XAML? MS isn't exactly known for originality. There are a ton of things you can do in other platforms. It's simply bringing a web-style layout engine to the desktop is all.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I have. HTML5 development has gotten to a reasonably enjoyable state with a good framework, and my experience using it to build hybrid apps has been quite lovely. Bootstrap is what we generally use right now. Lots of experience with Winforms and Qt which are fine for "standard" desktop application layouts. Interface Builder with its constraint based system is terrible. Built lots of custom game interface engines back in the day.
What other technologies are you suggesting? I don't know of anything that comes even close to the expressibility, cleanliness and flexibility of XAML for modern UI development. HTML5 is kinda coming close in terms of how easy it is to customize but it is nowhere near as powerful or expressive as XAML for complex layouts.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Marynowski wrote: What other technologies are you suggesting?
Well in particular, CSS Level 3 and some pre-processors like SASS/LESS. You can't do good layouts in just HTML. I mean you can, but it's a joke and ugly and static. I'm a bit of a hardcore web developer, and I'd wager, like XAML, most people that knock CSS really don't know much about it.
I remember back in my time spent with XAML, it reminded me of CSS layouts over and over again.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
When I say HTML I obviously mean HTML+CSS. Like I said, it is getting close to XAML. I way rather build a hybrid app in a web container than use any of the native mobile options. I will be thrilled when HTML gets proper shadow DOM. Understanding inheritance of styles is much simpler, much to the credit of how good the live inspection tools have become. Tweaking styles for a web app live is sooooo awesome and easy. Hell you can build half your app by never leaving Chrome now, which is pretty amazing.
XAML holds a special place in my heart though, largely in part because of the integration with .NET and C#. Everything I do in XAML is possible in HTML+CSS+JS but considerably more painful at the moment.
Have you tried TypeScript? I was playing with the 2.0 release the other day and I must say, it is pretty awesome. When HTML gets shadow DOM and fixes the few outstanding issues I have, I might jump ship entirely to HTML/CSS/TS.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Marynowski wrote: When I say HTML I obviously mean HTML+CSS.
I can't make that assumption... obviously. Kinda hard for me to gauge your level of expertise, with a post like "everything MS does is awesome, nom nom, <3 <3." 
Mike Marynowski wrote: I way rather build a hybrid app in a web container than use any of the native mobile options.
As a strong web dev, I'm the exact opposite, especially since there's no need for such a container nowadays. 10 years ago, I could understand that. Those days are gone though.
Mike Marynowski wrote: Everything I do in XAML is possible in HTML+CSS+JS but considerably more painful at the moment.
Because you're better what what you have more experience in. I'd wager it's not more painful, but then again my experience over 20 years has been more pure web dev and just a 2 year stint in Silverlight. So, of course I'd lean that way.
Mike Marynowski wrote: Have you tried TypeScript? I was playing with the 2.0 release the other day and I must say, it is pretty awesome.
Nope, but I'm keen to try it. Used Babel for ES6/2015 a couple times. Although with now Angular all aboard the TS train I'm ready to have another peak at it.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: with a post like "everything MS does is awesome, nom nom, <3 <3."
Well with a few exceptions, Silverlight being one of them, everything they put out *is* awesome lol
Jeremy Falcon wrote: there's no need for such a container nowadays
Yes there is - notifications, app store discovery, integration into the system (i.e. being able to call activities that open other apps), creating a keyboard, *easy* system integrated micro-payments, etc etc etc. I can go on and on here. Web apps on mobile can't do a lot of things native apps or hybrid apps can.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Because you're better what what you have more experience in
Yes, of course, but that's not my point. I don't even mean that in terms of how quickly I can do it, more in terms of the "nicest" and "cleanest" implementation that meets all the requirements. Web stuff is great but common, for a very large class of applications native is much better. Our biggest project involves apps that talks to bingo machines through serial interfaces, output animations across 3 full HD TVs, do system level calls to the OS to arrange video outputs and such, has configurable detailed logging to a local log file (with Log4Net), writes live backup data to a USB stick so if the system goes down it's just a matter of unplugging the stick and plugging it into another computer and off you go again, etc.
The part of the system that staff use to take payments from people on the floor via iPods is a mobile web app, because that's where it made sense to use one. Can we do the rest with a node.js + website system? Yes, but it would be bloody mess and it would be significantly more complicated. And the performance of the animations would be crap.
My point is...HTML/JS apps are not a proper substitute for native development yet, and likely won't be for a while. I like the web, but it is unsuitable for the stuff I do. Hence the painful part.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Marynowski wrote: The part of the system that staff use to take payments from people on the floor via iPods is a mobile web app, because that's where it made sense to use one. Can we do the rest with a node.js + website system? Yes, but it would be bloody mess and it would be significantly more complicated. And the performance of the animations would be crap.
Oh, you're preaching to the choir on that one. As much as I like node, I don't drink the kool-aid thinking it does everything including make toast. But I am glad it exists.
Mike Marynowski wrote: My point is...HTML/JS apps are not a proper substitute for native development yet, and likely won't be for a while. I like the web, but it is unsuitable for the stuff I do. Hence the painful part.
Well sure, but my point was in the context of the web.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Well of course in the context of the web a website will be better, haha. I don't disagree, and we have many websites and web apps as part of our projects where it makes sense.
If you need to go native though, XAML is really in a league of its own for building interfaces as of right now.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
