9 May
2018
9 May
'18
8:15 p.m.
30+ years later…
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/commandline/2018/05/08/extended-eol-in-not…
<https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/commandline/2018/05/08/extended-eol-in-notepad/>
---
Robert Diamond
rob(a)robdiamond.com
9 May
9 May
9:54 p.m.
On 05/09/2018 02:15 PM, Robert Diamond wrote:
I guess I'm just a curmudgeon.
I can't be arsed to care that much about Notepad supporting unix new line.
Wordpad, which ships with Windows (even if it's not installed by
default), has supported unix new line for as long as I can remember.
So … I don't feel Notepad supporting unix new lines to be that big of a
deal.
What am I missing?
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
9:57 p.m.
Double-click on a .txt file will invoke Notepad, unless you’ve reconfigured things.
d
On 10 May 2018, at 07:54, Grant Taylor via TUHS
<tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org> wrote:
On 05/09/2018 02:15 PM, Robert Diamond wrote:
I guess I'm just a curmudgeon.
I can't be arsed to care that much about Notepad supporting unix new line.
Wordpad, which ships with Windows (even if it's not installed by default), has
supported unix new line for as long as I can remember.
So … I don't feel Notepad supporting unix new lines to be that big of a deal.
What am I missing?
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
10:23 p.m.
On 05/09/2018 03:57 PM, David Arnold wrote:
Double-click on a .txt file will invoke Notepad,
unless you’ve
reconfigured things.
Right-click on a .txt file
Left-click on Open With
Left-click on Wordpad
(Optionally) Left-click on "always use this program…"
Sure, it's a preference change. But it's a user level preference.
Is it nice that Notepad will now open files with unix new lines? Sure.
Do I think it's worth some of the hype that I'm seeing? Nope.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
11:08 p.m.
On 05/09/18 18:23, Grant Taylor via TUHS wrote:
[...]
Is it nice that Notepad will now open files with unix new lines? Sure.
Do I think it's worth some of the hype that I'm seeing? Nope.
Maybe you do not work with people who only know grunt-and-poke.
I usually making notes in LF-based text format and received so much
flack over it that I began running unix2dos before uploading or
sending anything. With this, I can now skip the last step.
N.
11:10 p.m.
On 09/05/2018, Nemo <cym224(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Oops -- I may have accidentally posted a duplicate. Apologies.
N.
11:28 p.m.
On 05/09/2018 05:08 PM, Nemo wrote:
Maybe you do not work with people who only know
grunt-and-poke.
Oh, I've worked with them before.
I just go out of my way to edgumicate them. I'll learn them gud.
(Maybe the 3' pipe wrench has something to do with it.)
Suffice it to say that I will bend over backwards to teach people how to
fish for themselves. I will likely give them fish exactly once.
I usually making notes in LF-based text format and
received so much
flack over it that I began running unix2dos before uploading or sending
anything. With this, I can now skip the last step.
I'll believe that in five years. After the version of Notepad that
supports unix new lines is on current and (then) older systems. Until
then, you'll probably still be pandering to them.
I did say that I'm a curmudgeon, didn't I?
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
10 May
10 May
1:34 p.m.
On 9 May 2018 at 19:28, Grant Taylor via TUHS <tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org> wrote:
On 05/09/2018 05:08 PM, Nemo wrote:
I can only dream of this... The grunt-and-pokers are all in Legal and
they can damage me more than I can damage them.
N.
Maybe you do not work with people who only know grunt-and-poke.
Oh, I've worked with them before.
I just go out of my way to edgumicate them. I'll learn them gud.
(Maybe the 3' pipe wrench has something to do with it.)
Suffice it to say that I will bend over backwards to teach people how to
fish for themselves. I will likely give them fish exactly once.
[...]
3:24 p.m.
On 05/10/2018 07:34 AM, Nemo wrote:
I can only dream of this... The grunt-and-pokers are
all in Legal and
they can damage me more than I can damage them.
I frequently figured out a way to make it so that the grunt-and-pokers
felt like it behooved them to learn how to do things on their own. The
likely suspects are 1) faster response time (I came in later than they
did) and 2) it saved money in that they didn't have to wait on me and I
didn't have to delay work on other projects. Thus the (sometimes
begrudgingly) agreed that learning how to turn on the overhead lights
was better than waiting on me to come in and do it later. (Effectively
speaking.)
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
11 May
11 May
2:16 a.m.
The upside for me as someone who packages software for Windows is that I can have
README.txt, LICENSE.txt, etc, files in the Windows package and they’ll work out of the box
for people who haven’t done the reconfiguration dance you describe.
Previously, I’ve had to run unix2dos on all the text files in the Windows package.
So in a few years when I stop supporting anything older than
Windows-10.whatever-this-one-is-called, I’ll be able to simplify my packaging scripts
slightly.
As you say … not really worthy of the hype.
d
On 10 May 2018, at 08:23, Grant Taylor via TUHS
<tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org> wrote:
On 05/09/2018 03:57 PM, David Arnold wrote:
Double-click on a .txt file will invoke Notepad,
unless you’ve reconfigured things.
Right-click on a .txt file
Left-click on Open With
Left-click on Wordpad
(Optionally) Left-click on "always use this program…"
Sure, it's a preference change. But it's a user level preference.
Is it nice that Notepad will now open files with unix new lines? Sure.
Do I think it's worth some of the hype that I'm seeing? Nope.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
2:21 a.m.
On 05/10/2018 08:16 PM, David Arnold wrote:
As you say … not really worthy of the hype.
Is it a nice feature to have? Yes.
Will it save people (like yourself) time? Likely.
Is it worth hype (that I'm seeing)? I don't think so.
Read: My opinion is that Notepad's new feature is not worth the hype
that I am seeing.
I feel like Notepad's new feature is going to impact fewer people than
something like the Windows XP firewall being enabled by default did.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
9 May
9 May
10:30 p.m.
On 5/9/2018 5:54 PM, Grant Taylor via TUHS wrote:
What am I missing?
I was reading comments on an article about this today, and someone
raised the idea that Windows is dead, and Microsoft will just switch to
Linux.
Can you imagine a world where one operating system dominates the playing
field, both server and client? And while some would say "well, UNIX won"
- I don't consider Linux to be "UNIX" just as many here do not.
They have SQL Server for Linux now, and they have a Linux subsystem for
Windows that allows you to run Linux binaries on Windows. I'd love to
see some benchmarks of SQL Server on Linux vs. Windows.
How long before they take the Windows GUI and video drivers and slap it
on top of Linux for a test spin? (if they haven't already)
I wonder how Dave Cutler would feel about that? :)
art k.
10:54 p.m.
On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 06:30:47PM -0400, Arthur Krewat wrote:
How long before they take the Windows GUI and video
drivers and slap it on
top of Linux for a test spin? (if they haven't already)
I've actually wanted this for decades. The Windows programming environment
leaves a lot to be desired. And nobody, except app writers, cares about
the kernel, it could be linux and so long as they had backwards compat
Windows APIs everyone would be happy.
10 May
10 May
9:09 p.m.
On Wed, 9 May 2018, Arthur Krewat wrote:
Can you imagine a world where one operating system
dominates the playing
field, both server and client? And while some would say "well, UNIX won"
- I don't consider Linux to be "UNIX" just as many here do not.
LINUX Is Not UniX.
--
Dave Horsfall BSc DTM (VK2KFU) -- FuglySoft -- Gosford IT -- Unix/C/Perl (AbW)
People who fail to / understand security / surely will suffer. (tks: RichardM)
9:21 p.m.
On Wed, 9 May 2018, Arthur Krewat wrote:
> Can you imagine a world where one operating system dominates the playing
> field, both server and client? And while some would say "well, UNIX won"
> - I don't consider Linux to be "UNIX" just as many here do not.
Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org> wrote:
LINUX Is Not UniX.
Yada yada yada.
Given the choice between Windows dominating the world and Linux dominating
the world, I suspect everyone would still prefer it to be Linux, even
with all its shortcomings.
Nonetheless, I doubt that M$FT will abandon Windows for a Linux kernel
anytime soon.
Arnold
9:47 p.m.
Dave Horsfall [05/10/2018 11:09 PM]:
On Wed, 9 May 2018, Arthur Krewat wrote:
Quoting Dennis:
"I don’t really distinguish between Linux and things that are more or
less direct descendants of Unix. I think they’re all the same at some
level. Often, people ask me, "Do you feel jealous about Linux being the
big thing." And the answer is no, for the same reason. I think they’re
the same."
. Linux Magazine: The Guru (15 June 2001)..
Can you imagine a world where one operating
system dominates the playing
field, both server and client? And while some would say "well, UNIX won"
- I don't consider Linux to be "UNIX" just as many here do not.
LINUX Is Not UniX. 
9:49 p.m.
below...
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:09 PM, Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org> wrote:
LINUX Is Not UniX.
A few thoughts ...
1.) Be careful - the US courts have said that *UNIX is not a code base or
any one implementation - it's a set of ideas.* That is the whole basis of
the BSDi case and why in the end AT&T lost. It WAS their ideas, but it
just can not be a trade secret. If AT&T had been able to claim it as a
trade secret, Linux, Minix, Coherent *et al *would have been in violation
too (which is why it was so silly to sue them).
2.) I believe that Linux is the current popular implementation of UNIX.
Yes it hurts my fingers by some of the changes, but it looks, smells and
quacks like duck. Linux uses the AT&T IP -- the published ideas. All of
us on this list, just like Linus, are 'mentally contaminated' by Ken and
Dennis's core idea. That's the basic fact and it not going away.
3.) Claiming LINUX Is Not UniX is like saying FORTRAN95 is not FORTRAN
because its not like F2, F4, F77 etc... I'd like to point out that in
fact, modern FTN compilers can pretty much accept the old code - which
pretty darned amazing (and thankfully I'm not a compiler writer). But
for guys like me in the HPC business, FORTRAN is still useful, as it pays
our salary. The thing we have to remember is that the target matured, and
moved on. It aint quite like it was and there is no going back.
I think that's the point and Ted and Larry have suggested so many times.
Linux took the token from AT&T, BSD, Solaris, *etc*... and moved it. Some
of us, myself included, find many of the changes gratuitous and a PITA, but
that is the price of progress. I remember that a lot of people at AT&T
thought the BSD changes were gratuitous too. So Linux is the 3rd path of
the UNIX heritage.
Clem
ᐧ
ᐧ
10:59 p.m.
Very well said Clem.
Linux is not Unix.
Linux is unix.
Note the case difference.
Linux does not have the licensing to claim to be a proper Unix (clone)
and thus the privilege to use the uppercase "U". But (IMHO) Linux is
very much in the unix spirit or idea.
Analogy: A Toyota Tacoma is not a Ford Ranger (Unix) but they are both
pickup trucks (unix).
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
11 May
11 May
12:35 a.m.
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 4:59 PM, Grant Taylor via TUHS <tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org
wrote:
Very well said Clem.
Linux is not Unix.
Linux is unix.
Linux is not UNIX.
According to the UNIX trademark guidelines, the second one is not
permitted... :)
Note the case difference.
Linux does not have the licensing to claim to be a proper Unix (clone) and
thus the privilege to use the uppercase "U". But (IMHO) Linux is very much
in the unix spirit or idea.
There were a couple of very specific distributions of Linux that passed the
Unix licensing tests from the X/Open group years ago, but I don't know what
happened after that.
Analogy: A Toyota Tacoma is not a Ford Ranger (Unix)
but they are both
pickup trucks (unix).
I was going to say that Linux is a UNIX-like operating system, but The Open
Group doesn't like that either :)
Warner
1:29 a.m.
Why does it matter? A rose by any other name....
I will observe that people who are insisting on Linux and how it
should be named usually have some kind of agenda. Take for example,
someone who tried to rename Linux as GNU/Linux.
For people who want to insist that Linux is not Unix; that's fine. I
usually like to yank their chain by saying, tongue in cheek, that
sure, Linux is not Unix, but it is largely compatible with Legacy Unix
systems. :-)
- Ted
1:09 p.m.
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 9:29 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso(a)mit.edu> wrote:
Why does it matter? A rose by any other name....
Exactly...
I will observe that people who are insisting on Linux and how it
should be named usually have some kind of agenda. Take for example,
someone who tried to rename Linux as GNU/Linux.
You I think hit it on the head (unfortunately).
For people who want to insist that Linux is not Unix; that's fine. I
usually like to yank their chain by saying, tongue in cheek, that
sure, Linux is not Unix, but it is largely compatible with Legacy Unix
systems. :-)
Touché
ᐧ
10 May
10 May
11:13 p.m.
That was the impression I got from the various Unix and UNIX(TM)
documents that Groklaw discussed during The SCO Group's Foot-In-Mouth
case against Linux, IBM and The Rest Of The World.
Wesley Parish
On 5/11/18, Clem Cole <clemc(a)ccc.com> wrote:
below...
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:09 PM, Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org> wrote:
LINUX Is Not UniX.
A few thoughts ...
1.) Be careful - the US courts have said that *UNIX is not a code base or
any one implementation - it's a set of ideas.* That is the whole basis of
the BSDi case and why in the end AT&T lost. It WAS their ideas, but it
just can not be a trade secret. If AT&T had been able to claim it as a
trade secret, Linux, Minix, Coherent *et al *would have been in violation
too (which is why it was so silly to sue them).
2.) I believe that Linux is the current popular implementation of UNIX.
Yes it hurts my fingers by some of the changes, but it looks, smells and
quacks like duck. Linux uses the AT&T IP -- the published ideas. All of
us on this list, just like Linus, are 'mentally contaminated' by Ken and
Dennis's core idea. That's the basic fact and it not going away.
3.) Claiming LINUX Is Not UniX is like saying FORTRAN95 is not FORTRAN
because its not like F2, F4, F77 etc... I'd like to point out that in
fact, modern FTN compilers can pretty much accept the old code - which
pretty darned amazing (and thankfully I'm not a compiler writer). But
for guys like me in the HPC business, FORTRAN is still useful, as it pays
our salary. The thing we have to remember is that the target matured, and
moved on. It aint quite like it was and there is no going back.
I think that's the point and Ted and Larry have suggested so many times.
Linux took the token from AT&T, BSD, Solaris, *etc*... and moved it. Some
of us, myself included, find many of the changes gratuitous and a PITA, but
that is the price of progress. I remember that a lot of people at AT&T
thought the BSD changes were gratuitous too. So Linux is the 3rd path of
the UNIX heritage.
Clem
ᐧ
ᐧ
2180
days inactive
2182
days old
22 comments
14 participants
participants (14)
-
arnold＠skeeve.com -
Arthur Krewat -
Clem Cole -
Dave Horsfall -
David Arnold -
Grant Taylor -
Harald Arnesen -
Larry McVoy -
Nemo -
Robert Diamond -
Theodore Y. Ts'o -
Tim Bradshaw -
Warner Losh -
Wesley Parish