From: CodeMonk on
Betov wrote:
>
> A good thing, by the way...
>

What I like about it is that the privilege level sticks around for a
while too. That way if I decide to do something else root-like, I
don't have to reenter the password again and again and again ...

- Scott
From: Betov on
santosh <santosh.k83(a)gmail.com> �crivait news:fash8a$usr$1(a)aioe.org:

> an OS wouldn't exist without programmers, so it is simultaneously of
> interest to, and used by, programmers and users.

Right. The reason why, if Command-Lines may be appreciated
by some programmers, they must be covered by user-interfaces,
for the users. These interfaces do not deprive the programmers
from anything, but the programmers cannot inflict these methods
on the users' heads. Which is still the situation, actually:
See any Linux Forum : "I have this problem" ---> "use that
Command-Line". And, sad to say, given the state of many UIs,
the Command-Line way, is, actually, simpler than the UI...


Betov.

< http://rosasm.org >



From: Betov on
Herbert Kleebauer <klee(a)unibwm.de> �crivait
news:46D1E060.54D5181F(a)unibwm.de:

> Betov wrote:
>> Herbert Kleebauer <klee(a)unibwm.de> �crivait news:46D1AE4C.C2324A88
>
>> > Maybe this has nothing to do with "free works" but is because
>> > they don't have to make a living from there work and therefore
>> > are free to make a proper design and don't have to implement
>> > a crappy interface just because the paying user wants it.
>>
>> How ridiculously arrogant!
>
> You really should start to provide arguments instead of
> your opinion.

Under some level of stupidity, i fall short of arguments.
Read what you have written above, Herbert:

1) This has nothing to do with "free works".

2) This is because they don't make money from it.

Where is your logic, on those two points?

2) they don't make money from it.

3) therefore are free to make a proper design.

Translation: The programmers who are payed for a job do
stupidities to please their users, because a user is, by
definition, an idiot. And, all the contrary, a Programmer
who writes for nobody does a god job.

Well, Herbert... congratulations. What do you want me to
comment on that?


> Didn't you implement RosAsm's user interface
> in a way you prefer and which greatly differs from the
> preference of most assembly programmers? How ridiculously arrogant!

From _which_ Assembly Programmer? From you, who prefer your
fancyfooool home made syntax? Who else? Where have you seen
an Assembly Programmer around, who would have some serious
criticisms to tell about RosAsm user interface? Who?

Personally, the last one i heard about, was JohnFound, years
ago. He emmitted a couple of correct remarks, that i have
considered valid, and i have modified the interface accordingly.
And then? Do you have something to say on this topic?

And admitting that RosAsm would not be a good interface, what
relationship with the topic? You disquiet me, Herbert. Are
you ill?

:)

Betov.

< http://rosasm.org >




From: Betov on
CodeMonk <jascwa(a)yahoo.com> �crivait news:4NlAi.17778$7e6.12530
@bignews4.bellsouth.net:

> Betov wrote:
>>
>> A good thing, by the way...
>>
>
> What I like about it is that the privilege level sticks around for a
> while too. That way if I decide to do something else root-like, I
> don't have to reenter the password again and again and again ...

Seconded. I appreciated too. (Even though i fail to really
understand what their holly "maniaco-security" becomes in
between... :).


Betov.

< http://rosasm.org >


From: Herbert Kleebauer on
Betov wrote:
> Herbert Kleebauer <klee(a)unibwm.de> �crivait

> >> >> OK, i cannot shout at volunteers free works, but, saying that
> >> >> the actual mess is "intelligent" is the reverse of truth.

> >> > Maybe this has nothing to do with "free works" but is because
> >> > they don't have to make a living from there work and therefore
> >> > are free to make a proper design and don't have to implement
> >> > a crappy interface just because the paying user wants it.
> >>
> >> How ridiculously arrogant!
> >
> > You really should start to provide arguments instead of
> > your opinion.
>
> Under some level of stupidity, i fall short of arguments.
> Read what you have written above, Herbert:
>
> 1) This has nothing to do with "free works".
>
> 2) This is because they don't make money from it.
>
> Where is your logic, on those two points?

It's not MY logic, it's logic. You said: "i cannot shout at
volunteers free works", this is wrong. Just because somebody
doesn't get paid for his work doesn't mean he can do bad work.
And if he does bad work, you can "shout at him". But if somebody
is paid for his work, he is no longer free to decide what to do.
If he is told to make a bad product, he has to do so in order to
get the money. But you "cannot shout at volunteers free works"
if it is a good work, not because it's free but because it's
good. And he is only free to produce a good product because
he works for free, so nobody can order him to make a bad
product just because the customer wants it this way.

If a friend cooks an exquisite dinner for you, then you
can't shout at him, but not because he cooked for free
but because it was exquisite. But he was only free to make
that exquisite dinner because he did it for free. On the
next day, when he is working again at McDonalds, he has
to make Hamburgers an nothing else. Then you can shout
at him, not because he is paid for his job but because
of the food he produced.


> 2) they don't make money from it.
>
> 3) therefore are free to make a proper design.
>
> Translation: The programmers who are payed for a job do
> stupidities to please their users, because a user is, by
> definition, an idiot. And, all the contrary, a Programmer
> who writes for nobody does a god job.

Like a farmer who has to produce vegetables for the supermarket:
it must look great, but it doesn't matter how much poison is
left or if there is any nutritional value. But somebody who
works for free in his garden is more interested in healthy
than good looking vegetables.


> Well, Herbert... congratulations. What do you want me to
> comment on that?

No comments, arguments please.


> > Didn't you implement RosAsm's user interface
> > in a way you prefer and which greatly differs from the
> > preference of most assembly programmers? How ridiculously arrogant!
>
> From _which_ Assembly Programmer? From you, who prefer your
> fancyfooool home made syntax? Who else? Where have you seen
> an Assembly Programmer around, who would have some serious
> criticisms to tell about RosAsm user interface? Who?

Maybe the vegetables you have to offer (RosAsm) are so bad
looking that nobody want's to try them (even if they are
the healthiest of the world).


> Personally, the last one i heard about, was JohnFound, years
> ago. He emmitted a couple of correct remarks, that i have
> considered valid, and i have modified the interface accordingly.
> And then? Do you have something to say on this topic?

No, I'm always speechless after looking at code in Intel syntax.
I then have to look at some good looking C code to recover.


> And admitting that RosAsm would not be a good interface, what
> relationship with the topic? You disquiet me, Herbert. Are
> you ill?

The relationship is, that you are working for free and therefore
would be free to produce a well thoughtout product without
consideration for the paying customer. And what did you produce:
an Intel syntax assembler with multi statements in one line and
no command line interface. No wonder that neither the mass (they
want a Hamburger) nor the gourmet (they want something perfect)
want's to use RosAsm.