[#41581] Ruby 1.6.7 dieing of segfault — Dossy <dossy@...>

I've got something that's fairly reproducible in 1.6.7. Is

11 messages 2002/06/02
[#41582] Re: Ruby 1.6.7 dieing of segfault — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu.nokada@...> 2002/06/02

Hi,

[#41660] dynamic attr_accessor?? — Markus Jais <mjais@...>

hello

16 messages 2002/06/03

[#41755] HTML Parser suggestions wanted — Ned Konz <ned@...>

I've written an HTML parser that builds trees from HTML source. After

13 messages 2002/06/04

[#41809] eval and local variable — "Park Heesob" <phasis@...>

15 messages 2002/06/05

[#41819] mod_ruby and module space — "Sean O'Dell" <sean@...>

It seems that if I execute a script using mod_ruby, I cannot call

18 messages 2002/06/05

[#41867] Pascal-like 'with' statement? — Philip Mak <pmak@...>

Is there something like Pascal's with statement? I'd like to turn this

18 messages 2002/06/06

[#41919] 1-second events — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...>

I need to create an event that occurs exactly once per second.

15 messages 2002/06/06

[#42086] ANN: REXML 2.3.5 && 2.2.3 — Sean Russell <ser@...>

<posted & mailed>

31 messages 2002/06/09
[#42091] Re: ANN: REXML 2.3.5 && 2.2.3 — Sean Russell <ser@...> 2002/06/09

<posted & mailed>

[#42092] RE: ANN: REXML 2.3.5 && 2.2.3 — <james@...> 2002/06/09

> Well, XMLSchema may be troublesome to interpret, but it isn't

[#42192] ruby-dev summary 17252-17356 — Minero Aoki <aamine@...>

Hi all,

81 messages 2002/06/11
[#42290] Re: a new block parameter/variable notation (Re: ruby-dev summary 17252-17356) — Kent Dahl <kentda@...> 2002/06/12

Not wanting to flog a dead horse, but I just wonder what the final word

[#42295] Re: a new block parameter/variable notation (Re: ruby-dev summary 17252-17356) — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2002/06/12

Hi,

[#42455] Application server & web developement enviroment — "Radu M. Obad磚 <whizkid@...>

Howdy,

14 messages 2002/06/14
[#42459] Re: Application server & web developement enviroment — Austin Ziegler <austin@...> 2002/06/14

On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 15:55:31 +0900, Radu M. Obadwrote:

[#42472] ANN: Programmierung in Ruby — "Juergen Katins" <katins.juergen@...>

Programmierung in Ruby Online gibt es jetzt mit ausfrlichem

14 messages 2002/06/14

[#42504] Are Unix tools just slow? — Chris Gehlker <gehlker@...>

Awhile back I was asking for help with a unixy way to search the mounted

48 messages 2002/06/14
[#42506] Re: Are Unix tools just slow? — Rick Bradley <rick@...> 2002/06/14

* Chris Gehlker (gehlker@fastq.com) [020614 17:18]:

[#42512] Re: Are Unix tools just slow? — Chris Gehlker <gehlker@...> 2002/06/15

On 6/14/02 3:34 PM, "Rick Bradley" <rick@rickbradley.com> wrote:

[#42513] opengl for ruby, please help — ccos <ccos@...> 2002/06/15

unix newby failing miserably here:

[#42516] Re: Are Unix tools just slow? — "Daniel P. Zepeda" <daniel@...> 2002/06/15

On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 07:14:38 +0900

[#42507] mpg123 — Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@...>

Hi,

15 messages 2002/06/14

[#42546] File.new('foo', 0600 , 'wb') — Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@...>

Hi,

21 messages 2002/06/15
[#42552] Re: File.new('foo', 0600 , 'wb') — Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@...> 2002/06/15

Dossy wrote:

[#42591] Kernel#select questions — Wilkes Joiner <boognish23@...>

I'm trying to track down a bug where Kernel#select is returning [[],[],[]] as

12 messages 2002/06/17

[#42617] eRuby on Mac OS X — Jim Menard <jimm@...>

I've searched ruby-talk for this topic, and the only messages I found show

13 messages 2002/06/17

[#42674] REXML in C — "Radu M. Obad磚 <whizkid@...>

Hi,

20 messages 2002/06/18

[#42771] Why is I/O slow? — Clifford Heath <cjh_nospam@...>

Ok, folk, time to try again. It's nothing to do with SHA-1.

61 messages 2002/06/20
[#42831] Re: Why is I/O slow? — Clifford Heath <cjh_nospam@...> 2002/06/21

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#42836] RE: Why is I/O slow? — "Mike Campbell" <michael_s_campbell@...> 2002/06/21

> With respect, this doesn't sound like a smart idea. The glibc folk have

[#42838] Re: Why is I/O slow? — Albert Wagner <alwagner@...> 2002/06/21

On Thursday 20 June 2002 10:10 pm, Mike Campbell wrote:

[#42839] Re: Why is I/O slow? — Austin Ziegler <austin@...> 2002/06/21

On Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:16:24 +0900, Albert Wagner wrote:

[#42928] GOOD DEAL — "DR. ISA BELLO" <dr_isa@...>

FROM:DR ISA BELLO

11 messages 2002/06/22

[#42982] No exceptions from String#to_i — "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>

I've been bitten by this before... maybe

19 messages 2002/06/24
[#42983] Re: No exceptions from String#to_i — ts <decoux@...> 2002/06/24

>>>>> "H" == Hal E Fulton <hal9000@hypermetrics.com> writes:

[#42986] Re: No exceptions from String#to_i — Nikodemus Siivola <tsiivola@...> 2002/06/24

[#43122] Re: help (ruby-talk ML) — Benjamin Peterson <bjsp123@...>

20 messages 2002/06/27
[#43123] Re: help (ruby-talk ML) — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2002/06/27

Benjamin Peterson <bjsp123@yahoo.com> writes:

[#43124] RE: help (ruby-talk ML) — Bob Calco <robert.calco@...> 2002/06/27

Yes, I would gladly volunteer considerable effort to this end. I have

[#43147] Ruby on Mac OS X — Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@...>

Hi,

24 messages 2002/06/28

[#43174] eruby SAFE question — Dylan Northrup <docx@...>

I'm trying to implement a replacement for the standard apache file listings

39 messages 2002/06/28
[#43249] documentation licenses (was: eruby SAFE question) — Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@...> 2002/06/30

Dave Thomas wrote:

[#43250] Re: documentation licenses (was: eruby SAFE question) — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2002/06/30

Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com> writes:

[#43255] RE: documentation licenses (was: eruby SAFE question) — <james@...> 2002/06/30

>

[#43280] Re: documentation licenses (was: eruby SAFE question) — "Juergen Katins" <juergen.katins@...> 2002/07/01

Tobias Reif wrote

[#43282] Re: documentation licenses (was: eruby SAFE question) — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2002/07/01

On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Juergen Katins wrote:

[#43381] RE: documentation licenses (was: eruby SAFE question) — <james@...> 2002/07/02

> From: David Alan Black [mailto:dblack@candle.superlink.net]

(ot) linux zealotry annoys me

From: Austin Ziegler <austin@...>
Date: 2002-06-21 15:57:54 UTC
List: ruby-talk #42873
On Fri, 21 Jun 2002 23:15:55 +0900, Albert Wagner wrote:
> On Thursday 20 June 2002 10:31 pm, Austin Ziegler wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:16:24 +0900, Albert Wagner wrote:
> <sniip> 
>>> Isn't it sad that when good stuff is invented on Linux that we
>>> rush to make it available on windows so that windows users never
>>> have any motivation to leave that crap behind?
>> No.
>> 
>> 1. The very first thing that I learned when doing computing for a
>> living is "use the best tool for the job."
> The only argument that you offer below for windows as "the best
> tool" is a "shallow" learning curve and a simple installation.

Not true. A shallow learning curve is only part of it, but it is a
big part of it for 95%+ of users out there. My girlfriend is rather
computer literate, but *still* doesn't use nearly half the number of
power shortcuts available in Windows. She'd be completely *lost* in
a user-unfriendly environment like Linux. There are, of course,
other reasons that Windows is (at times) the best tool. I've
addressed some of them in other posts.

>> Despite the vitriol from some folks,
> The vitriol is aimed as MS as a predatory corporation that has
> wreaked havoc on competitors with monopolistic business practices.

The vitriol gets in the way of getting the job done, and it turns
off people who might otherwise be interested in what you have to
say.

>> there are times when Windows is not only the best tool for the
>> job, but it's the ONLY tool for the job.
> It is the only tool for the job when the decisions as to what to
> purchase are made by technically illiterate suits.

This is patently false. Earlier, I gave the example of ERStudio for
ER diagramming. This is one of many tools which is available for
Windows ONLY, and there's no equivalent X-Windows tool available.
This tool is the best tool available for this practice, and I say
this with a bit of experience -- because I've tried all of the other
ones out there, and I ended up recommending this one for its
comprehensiveness. As I've said before, I eat regex for breakfast --
I'm not a "technically illiterate suit".

>> 2. Windows stability has been increasing at least as fast as
>> Linux usability over the last several years, if not faster.
> Comparing stability of one with usability of another is comparing
> apples and oranges. Besides, I see no increase in windows
> stability, simply change for the sake of selling the same
> functionality over and over again.

Certainly, it's comparing apples and oranges. But I have greater
uptime and stability from my Windows XP laptop than I do from my
Linux desktop/server. The security on both is about the same,
because I have taken the time to make sure that I use tools which
reduce my exposure to Windows security holes, and I have neither the
time nor the expertise to lock up my Linux box yet make it usable in
the way that I need it usable.

>> Linux (and most other unices) still suffers from the problem that
>> there is no single unifying UI guideline set, so that while
>> Windows programs look and feel -- and perform -- pretty much the
>> same all over, every Linux GUI program is different.
> No options vs. several options is hardly an advantage, except to
> the very lazy.

This is a foolish statement, as it isn't "no options," which you
could find out if you did a minimum of research instead of relying
upon what appears to be foolish zealotry. I've addressed this point

>> The learning curve for Windows programs is shallower because of
>> the consistency.
> Pick a single linux GUI and you also have consistency. Again,
> lack of options is hardly an advantage.

Again, this is a false statement. I can have a plain X-Windows
program running and a KDE program running, and the likelihood that
they share even the same keystrokes for copy/paste (simple stuff!)
is almost nil. It MIGHT be the same for GNOME and KDE apps, but
there are still differences.

>> 3. Windows isn't the only platform out there which doesn't use
>> glibc by default. IMO, Matz is absolutely correct to emphasize
>> portability over 'The Linux Way'.
> And IMO, this is wrong.

And IMO, you're a fool for this attitude. Linux isn't even a
particularly good example of a powerful operating system -- it's
just common in the same way that Windows is common. (I'd say that
Windows::MacOS and Linux::*BSD are about the same..., and I'm not
just referring to Darwin.)

>> 4. I use both Linux and Windows boxen (and far prefer the Windows
>> because there are problems with the Linux install that I have
>> neither the inclination, the time or the expertise to solve),
> Yes. If you are used to windows installations, the great range of
> options available in any flavor of *nix is a daunting task.

Poor, foolish zealot. I've been dealing with real unix for a LONG
time. But the reality is that I have a job to get done, and Linux
box administration is NOT part of that job. It is, every time I have
to deal with it, a great annoyance. (For example, all of a sudden
last week, my ftp server decided to stop accepting connections. I
made no configuration changes to anything -- I played with the
various settings in xinetd, etc. all to no benefit. Fortunately, I
still have Samba running -- even though I have to manually start it
every time, despite my configuration files telling Samba to start it
every time I reboot.) Don't get me wrong: I get annoyed when I have
to do anything to stabilise or configure Windows, too. Those aren't
my job -- I'm a software designer and developer. I don't have *time*
or *desire* to be a systems administrator. It gets in the way of
doing my real job.

Is that too hard for you to understand?

>> but for very different purposes. The fact that I can develop and
>> test on Windows (my primary terminal/front-end OS) and then test
>> and deploy on Linux with Perl, Python, or Ruby is of great
>> benefit.
> But without the technical expertise to even install a *nix system,
> how can your "portable" application really be optimal for a target
> *nix system. And you are obviously not talking about GUI
> applications, but text only.

Actually, no, I'm not. I'm talking primarily about web-based
applications. Similarly, though, I can write a Ruby/tk program and
it will work Everywhere. It won't necessarily be pretty, and a lot
of the usability problems I have with Unix-based graphics toolkits
all around will still be there, but I can easily do cross-platform
anything.

>> Again, the right tool for the job -- not Linux Everywhere.
> Bah!

Bah, indeed. Zealots annoy me.

-austin
-- Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2002.06.21 at 11.39.50


In This Thread