Re: Linux is heaven to install compared to Windows 9X
> % Yes. You will have to change mouse
> % protocol in XFree86 configuration
> % And a lot of users have nightmares
> % they consider editing any config
> % So they prefer the windows
> % when anything change" style.
> % modern distros, installing is not
> % difficult anymore (and sometimes
> % than windows installation). But when
> % comes to install/change hardware
> % installation...
> I'm tempted to say "If they wan't
> MS-Windows, they know where to find
> it", but that would be too easy.
> When is the last time you've read a
> config file that didn't consist of about
> 90% comments describing exactly what
> each line of configuration code meant.
> This is not rocket science.
> BTW: When was the last time that you
> have come in contact with a distro that
> didn't include *at least* one graphical
> utility for configuring (and
> reconfiguring) various system settings.
> The advent of TCL(and perl)/Tk has made
> this ridiculously easy.
> Besides, It's not like Windows gets it
> right every time (or even mostly), in my
> experience Windows makes a great many
> mistakes when configuring hardware,
> which are generally harder to correct
> than changing a setting in a well
> documented human readable text file.
This opportunity for Gentoo evangelism is too good to pass up...
But seriously, Debian is fairly lacking in graphical tools, and I find that it's easier to tell people "Add a line to /etc/fstab" than "Start up the mount point administration tool, which is somewhere in the 400,000,000 things in the menu, add a "mount point" with these settings... and so on.
Actually, to take this one step further, I edit config files directly an just about every system I come across (even Mandriva and Xandros) It's just easier, and it highlights the true flexibility of Linux.
Yet another disadvantage of GUI config tools is that, if you're dependent on them, you're up the proverbial creek if your /etc/X11/xorg.conf gets corrupted.
And, to further drive the point home, (I'll use Gnome apps here, because I hate KDE. But that's totally beside the point) Nearly every Gnome application stores configuration in GConf. The "preferences" dialogs show a miniscule number of options, because the very nature of a graphical interface. So, the ONLY way to get Nautilus not to draw the background (which wreaks havoc with fluxbox) is to edit the gconf files directly (or you could use gconf-editor, but...)
So, the plaintext config files may not be great, but they are aheck of a lot better than the graphical tools.
Re: I used to not comment....
> But now I love to. I tried it one day
> and I'll never write uncommented code
> again. I comment so much its crazy, and
> thats a good thing I think.
> Yeah I used to write awful spaghettie
> code with no indenting, no comments,
> But now I don't understand why anyone
> wouldn't comment. Unless you type 20WPM
> it won't take more than a few seconds to
> add a good comment to eaach line, and
> it'll save you at least 10 times that
> amount of time, not to mention the money
> you will essentially save.
> I started working on someone else's open
> source project, and he just doesn't
> comment. You get about 5 words at the
> top of some of the biggest functions.
> 500 lines of code with nothing but
> "Parse the file" as a
> I comment nearly every significant line
> with a useful comment, not something
> that explains the command. I always
> explain the logic behind the code. Weird
> things that people need to know - I
> explain. This often means things like 4
> lines of comments for something as
> simple as "exit;".
> Each program also has a nice explanation
> at the top and I use lots of headers and
> comments as dividers between big
> My goal is for any programmer (including
> myself) to be able to understand the
> logic of my code the first time through.
> Having to read through someone's code 15
> times to get an idea of what's going on
> is NOT good. With little shell and perl
> scripts that are 30 lines that's not a
> huge problem, but when you're writing
> huge applications, good luck even
> keeping up with it once its 10s of
> thousands of lines long if you didn't
Actually, then there's my ad-hoc C/C++ code.
There's just something wrong with something that looks like an entry to the Obfuscated C Contest, except it breaks the length restriction, especially if it contains /*ermm...*/ embedded in the 22nd line as the only comment visible on my 1600x1200 screen using a 12 pixel font.
Even worse (with the code in question), is that the code would just not work if the comment was chamged, added, removed, or just plain moved.
At least the code worked (I think)... but I have never done anything that bad again.