Re: a perfectly understandable error
Whereas I, being an educated computer user, NEVER click through error messages and just blindly hope that they don't come back :p
20 posts • joined 3 Aug 2020
Complains about X11 being over-complex and difficult to work with go back to the 90s. Even at that time, there was a general feeling that X11 should be torn down and built again. Many wished that NeWS had been open-sourced so that it could have been the dominant UNIX-like windowing system. Hence, I think we are well-passed the point where the problem with X11 is "not enough people working on it".
I'm sure that Windows does do stuff under the hood, mainly with converting to different formats instead of requiring you to provide each format yourself. Good, that improves interoperability with others applications and reduces headaches for every single developer who ever touches the system.
And as to being multi-user, if X11 can't handle giving each user session it's own instance of the clipboard system, then what horrible things is IT doing underneath?
I recently built an application that interfaces a windows clipboard with an X11 clipboard.
Windows side - "push contents to clipboard, pull contents from clipboard".
X11 side - "Send a request to the window that owns the select, wait on a conditional mutex for the message to come in on the X11 message handling thread, read the data length and type from that message, tell the other window to delete it, request the data again, wait on the conditional mutex again, now you may read the data (but don't forget to delete it). Oh, hope that the other program doesn't crash or change selections partway through this process."
I'm curious, how does this differ from the copyright law surrounding an ISA? Everybody seems to agree that in order to implement x86 or x86_64, you have to licence them from Intel and AMD respectively. AFAIK, an ISA is really just a very precise listing of very tiny functions. So what's the difference?
In addition to the excellent rebuttal made above, observe that security through security does work AS AN ADDED LAYER in the context of other mitigations.
"I finally figured out their nonstandard encryption algorithm, but it requires just as much compute time to break as AES-256. Two weeks of my life wasted!"
So now, not only is your data secure, but it wasted two weeks of some poor cracker's life ;)
As a consumer, if a fixed-cost item says "as a subscription", I walk the other way.
I mean, ok. If Photoshop was sold as a subscription dirt-cheap, that might be ok because it provides a means of staying up-to-date for the same price as buying every few years. Hell, if you use a lot of creative cloud it's a really good deal. But if it were cheap, Adobe wouldn't be making bank. So nuts to them.
The same applies to almost every subscription-for-fixed-cost-good I have ever seen. It's only cheaper if you were already on the upgrade treadmill.
No, I'm not bitter. Just learning Krita 0_o
It's almost like...
the same people who create large parts of the internet...
and who fund larger parts of the internet...
and are funded BY large parts of the internet...
should not also be running your gateway to the internet.
I have never understood why somebody would choose to use chrome. It's like hiring a burglar to install your locks.
I am currently learning C++. I have wished for this. For example, I only just learned why visual studio keeps trying to replace #define with constexpr.
Though that said, part of my code also needs to compile in C++98. This really highlights one of the strengths of the language; if you write a C++ program that just uses POSIX and the STL, you sure do have a lot of valid build-targets out there.
I have an alternative, maybe naive view (I was just coming into existence when you were debugging the 6502).
I don't think I have ever been aggressively chastised for the aftermath of helping somebody fix their computer. Perhaps this is because for most of my life, computers have been commonplace and my family has a better core understanding of how they work (even if they still need help). In fact, my experience is the opposite. How many times have I said "Mom, I'm only here for a week, please give me your bloody laptop so I can look at XXX". I'm either pointing out problems they don't notice, or insisting that they let me fix the thing.
The people in life have given me a lot, often things I find tedious or don't know how to do. I spent a lot of my time doing something I found fun, and turned it into something useful. If I can repay them with those skills, then I am getting a very good deal. I also often learn things, because their systems and needs are different from mine.
Certainly I get frustrated (mostly when ̶m̶y̶ ̶m̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ people ask my technical opinion, ignore me, and then wind up in exactly the situation I was trying to avoid, or when ̶s̶h̶e̶ they repeatedly make the same mistake and delete all of their DUCKING photos without a backup AGAIN), but that's not limited to computers.
From my experience writing official documentation for a C library, another possibility is that the exact circumstances under which the files are removed from memory are more complex than anybody wanted to explain.
There is always a push to KISS. Judicious use of the word "typically" us often the compromise between giving the full story and saying something untrue. "Typically, when you XXX from XXX the XXX will be deleted and replaced with the XXX from XXX".
Ideally we would have enough information in play for the user to take an educated guess at the true ruleset, but it's hard to tell your editor "I included this sentence so that the reader can solve an exciting puzzle in search of deeper knowledge!"
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020