[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

nospam wrote:
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

they can be accessed via the terminal if absolutely necessary, but in
normal operation, there's absolutely no need, especially since there
are gui wrappers around a lot of what's in there.

GUIs rot the brain.

they do not.

They do. Oh, they're very helpful for some tasks and for selecting
from limited choices. The operative word is "limited".


And are not scriptable.

very wrong.

I see.
AfterShot Pro has a GUI.

Please show me how you script that GUI to select all files of
the name type IMG_[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9].CR2 where the (repeated
as necessary) sum of the digits is 3 or 5, rotate the image by
last 2 digits to the right and create a JPEG of -2, -1, 0, +1,
+2 stops each.

If GUIs are scriptable, then that should be no problem at all.

With CLIs this is no big problem. Need proof?

And don't allow
things the GUI designer didn't implement.

also wrong.

I see.
AfterShot Pro has a GUI.
Given a couple thousand type IMG_[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9].CR2 files,
select all images with the third digit a 3 or the last digit
is a 4 without having to select the files manually. In a CLI
something like
ls IMG_??3?.CR2 IMG_???4.CR2 | uniq
is sufficient. How do you solve that problem the GUI designer
didn't implement?


Sure, YOU wouldn't know the difference.

you clearly don't.

Teach me.
AfterShot Pro has a trial version that's freely downloadable
he
http://apps.corel.com/lp/aftershot/download/index.html


Let me guess: you can't solve the above examples. You'll thus
claim that the above is irrelevant to reality, and thus it doesn't
matter that GUIs aren't scriptable and can't do things the GUI
designer didn't implement.

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

nospam wrote:
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

Check them (good systems have their config files
editable by editors) and their settings. Look into the log
files (which are arguably system files).

i launch the console app which displays all log files, for the system
and individual apps, including compressed ones. *it* worries about
where they all live and how to display them, not the user.

WOW.

So an app you wrote and told to log debug output to
/tmp/myapp.{date}.{random} would be found by your console app?

yet another twist.

the console app shows what gets written to stdout and stderr,

And log files are something *completely* different.

and in
the unlikely event you write to another file

Are you even aware that STDOUT and STDERR are not even a
file? Oh, no, you don't have any idea.

for some reason, it can
read that too.

Only if you direct it to the file. Therefore you need to
know where the files are. QED.


meanwhile, most people don't look at log files.

Meanwhile, most people don't do most things, therefore most
things are not needed.


How?

open it.

How do I open it without knowing where it is? Oh, yes, you
need to *know* where the file is.

Ah, YES, EVERY LAST APP needs to cooperate with the console app
for that task and tell it.

nonsense.

If you *know* where the file is, right.
Which according to your claim should not be needed.


Because the console app isn't allowed
to just use the file system to determine where a logfile might
lie, because that would mean it doesn't worry about where they
all live --- no, that would mean people follow conventions where
one doesn't NEED a console app --- any other program would do, too.

most people wouldn't know what anything in the log files mean.

most people are *not* geeks nor do they care to be.

Most people don't do photography. So photoshop et al are
completely unneccessary, so are cameras outside a mobile phone
camera with a fix-focus 2MPix camera. That's enough for snapshots.

So computers should not support such frivolities.

-Wolfgang

PS: There are many more people looking at logfiles than just geeks.
That's obvious to anyone with a brain and a smattering of
knowledge in that area.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

nospam wrote:
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

however, everything benefits from the
additional performance of ssd.

Try editing 500 GB of movie data on a 128 GB SSD. Then
you'll see how much you'll benefit.

quite a bit actually.

the system & editing app along with the rest of the apps will be on ssd
and therefore everything will be much faster.

the movie can be on a normal hard drive.

NO normal HD. Just an SSD.


a network drive on the other hand, is where i'd put a 3tb drive.

Sure. And you're using WLAN. Have fun even getting close to the
10 MB/s 100MBit Ethernet offers.

i must be having a lot of fun then.

802.11n easily beats 100base-t

Yes, it does, if you talk about brutto transmission data in
optimal circumstances.

nope. standard normal day to day usage.

Let me guess: close distance, only 1 thin wall, only one active client
at a time.

Standard normal day to day usage is gigabit ethernet.


Promise me to never measure transmitted data in the real world,
you'd be in for a big disappointment.

i have, and i'm not disappointed at all. 802.11n is quite comfortable.

.... on a 30 MBit internet connection.


and 802.11ac has gigabit speeds.

By the time that's adapted widely we'll have 10-100 GB on cable.

cables are very last decade

You are very last century.


and most people don't need 100gb networks
anyway.

Yep, people keep saying that. 640k is enough for everyone.


if a laptop only has ssd, then the swap *is* there.

So your laptop doesn't have "only" SSD.

very few laptops have two drives.

Most do. Yes, you can swap out the second drive for a DVD or
blue ray.

most laptops do *not* have two hard drives, however, some people might
swap *out* the internal dvd drive (not in) for an ssd, if there is an
internal dvd drive at all, that is.

"very few laptops have two drives." - "internal dvd drive"

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

nospam wrote:
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

who cares where files are?

People trying to retrive them.

they don't need to know *where* they are, only which ones they want to
use.

The *where* is part of the definition of *which ones*.

no it isn't.

users want content. where that content comes from doesn't matter.

Ah, so users want TV shows, but not computer games, since it
doesn't matter if that content comes from the TV station instead
of the computer.

Do you see the stupidity of your claim?

i see the stupidity of your response.

Disagreeing with you is a sign of intelligence.


music apps, such as itunes, don't display a hierarchical list of music
(which makes no sense anyway). the user can sort by artist, album,
etc.,

Yes, that's a hierarchical list. You're learing.

it's *not* the file system hierarchy, which is what this is about, and
may not be hierarchical at all.

To use your argument: Practically all people aren't stupid enough
to use just one directory for all their music files.

Most people use an album/track hierarchy, or an artist/album/track
hierarchy.

you do *not* need to know where in the file system those songs are, or
which file systems. some could be stored locally, some on a network
drive and some in the cloud. the app will find them, wherever they
happen to be.

Or so you claim. Tell me, how will they find the songs on the
disconnected network drive? And how did they get on the network
drive in the first place? Someone decided to put them there
.... so it matters to that person if they are local or not.


create custom playlists and quite a bit more.

photo apps, such as aperture or lightroom, don't display a hierarchical
list either. the user can view photos by keyword, faces, date taken,
location, camera type, etc.

Yes, that's a hierarchical list. You're learing.

it's *not* the file system hierarchy, which is what this is about, and
may not be hierarchical at all.

To use your argument: Practically all people aren't stupid enough
to use just one directory for all their music files.

Most people use an album/track hierarchy, or an artist/album/track
hierarchy.

you do *not* need to know where in the file system those photos are, or
which file systems. some could be stored locally, some on a network
drive and some in the cloud. the app will find them, wherever they
happen to be.

Or so you claim. Tell me, how will they find the songs on the
disconnected network drive? And how did they get on the network
drive in the first place? Someone decided to put them there
.... so it matters to that person if they are local or not.


where the actual files are doesn't matter. it's all managed by the apps.

If you want to be tied to said app (singular) and are an idiot.

there are apps that are compatible with lightroom,

Lightroom for music files and your mp3-player for RAWs. Yes.

but more
importantly, i choose the best app for a given task,

Technically impossible, you don't have the time to find the
best app, and the best app changes potentially with each
revision of each imaginable app.

one which saves me
a lot of time so i can go do other more interesting stuff.

You choose a suboptimal app and stick with it, and thus you tie
yourself to a single app and won't change to a better one.


someone who does *not* choose the best app could easily be considered
an idiot.

You don't choose the best app.


managing files directly with the file system is very primitive.

Actually, it isn't.

actually it is,

Actually it isn't.

actually, it is, and it's going away, much like the command line has
all but gone away, except for a small number of geeks who are fixated
in the past.

for example, there is no file system access for users in ios, android,
at least not without jailbreak/rooting which a tiny minority do and
that's generally to get around a restriction, such as unlocking a
carrier locked device or to run unapproved and/or illicit software, not
because they want file system access.

So your computer is a *mobile phone* where you don't have more
than a modicum of control. That's 'safer'. And pretty well for
clumsy idiots who need dumbed down systems which they can't damage
that easily.

But with more than a few apps you'll soon be needing some
hierarchy --- and back you are.


and newer systems are moving beyond direct access to
the file system, particularly with the cloud.

So dropbox doesn't work out of a folder and cannot contain
folders, for example?

it can but there's not a pressing need to look at any of that.

many apps directly support dropbox and manage everything themselves.

Ah, so any dropbox like app needs to be "directly support"ed
by all other apps. Clever. Let's do that for every other
app as well.

[re-added context]
there
are much more efficient ways to manage files now.

Seaching for keywords?
That's very primitive, *and* work intensive.

it's actually much easier. if i want waterfall pictures, i can search
for waterfall and get all of them, no matter when or where i shot them.

Only if you TAGGED THEM ALL, nobrain.
And never misspelled waterfall.

i can narrow that search if i want, or include other things for a wider
selection. if i want photos of a particular person, i can query for
that person. the photos might be local or they might be remote. it
doesn't matter. what matters is getting the desired photos quickly.

Yep, so which wonder app detects the person correctly and in
all cases?

it doesn't have to detect it perfectly in all cases.
even if it does 70-80% and leaves the remainder for manual sorting, it
will *significantly*

as in "can be measured reliably as different", but not more.

cut the amount of time needed to spend sorting
photos.

In fact you need to spend time to correct all the errors the
program makes.


the more photos it sees the better it gets.

So which wonder app ist that?


once again, i have a computer so i can do *less* work. the more work
the computer can do for me the better off i am.

Yep, that's why you promote ways that increase work and decrease
understanding.


manually digging through the file system is what's primitive. let the
computer do the work *for* you.

So you tagged every one of your ... ah ... I am not supposed
to use the word "file" any more, am I, in your world? How
did you tag the temporary file your newsreader made when it
stored your posting?

why would anyone tag a temporary file? why would anyone care what the
newsreader does internally?

i edit a post, maybe saving a draft to finish at a later time, which is
tracked by the newsreader app. i don't care where it's stored or in
what format. the newsreader handles all of that.

And thus you cannot switch between newsreaders any mo the other
newsreaders don't support your newsreader and since you don't know
anything about files, there's no way you can fix it.


the
backups happen automatically, and only the first one takes a while.
after that, the incrementals are a minute or two.

Are you sure you have incrementals?

absolutely.

And if so, why don't you
use a larger drive for backup?

i use a drive large enough for months of incrementals. i also archive
important stuff every so often.

So you don't store the initial full backup, and don't create
or change much data.

of course i store the initial full backup. where in the world did you
get the idea i didn't? it's on the same drive as the incrementals.

I see, you never ever use your main disk near capacity.


Up to the second you get an unreadable sector and need to find
out which file to restore from backup (or to ignore it, since
the sector belongs to an already deleted file).

i know which file because the backup program tells me file xyz can't be
read.

Which would mean you need to read *all* files on your hard
drive. Which takes a looong looong time (and thus the backup
program doesn't do that unless the file is changed). My method is
much faster and works with non-backupped areas.

one way is scan the whole drive and compare dates, which isn't that
slow although it's not the most efficient. another way is look at
exactly which files have changed, which is *very* fast.

Yep, and how does your backup program tell
you file xyz can't be read, if it doesn't try?

why wouldn't it try?

"another way is look at exactly which files have changed, which
is *very* fast."
Do I need to mark the dots and draw the lines and paint the image
in full colour before you nincompoop start to understand what
the words you are saying do in fact imply?

Hint (you won't get it, but still): an unreadable file hasn't been
changed by the computer, hence it does not carry any marker that
says "file changed". THEREFORE, every file must be tried to be
read if you want to find out if and which ones are unreadable.

You didn't get that at all, did you?

Don't worry, most people don't understand computers, so
you're with the crowd.

ah, the elitist card.

No, the expert card. I'm an expert. You are definitely NOT.


i understand computers,

I trust that you do indeed believe that.

but as you say, most people don't nor do they
care to and aren't interested in digging through the file system to
find things. they just want to get work done.

Which is why the file system is so very useful.


There *are* a lot of things that don't need to be backed up --- or are
uneconomical to back up.

yep, and those can be excluded. for example, vm swap files don't need
to be backed up and are automatically skipped.

Which is stupid, since they contain the hibernation data.

it's not stupid at all. there's no need to backup hibernation data,

Or any other data.

nor
is it stored in the vm swap files anyway. there's a separate file for
that, assuming hibernation is even enabled.

Assuming you hibernate the VM instead of the system running in
the VM.


The user can get that information pretty easily. How about
lightroom? Where can I get the trivial, yet very important
information which file that is?

it's not important at all, but you can show the original file if you
need to.

So all I need to do is manually ask lightroom for every of my
xx.000 files where they are. Great. That's such an advance
in technology.

it is an advance in technology. it is a huge time saver. i'm far more
productive than i ever was before lightroom came along.

That's because you used a very bad app before lightroom, so of
course LR made you more productive. That doesn't say you couldn't
be more productive. Nor does it prove having to manually ask
lightroom for every of my xx.000 files where they are is in any
way productive.


Maybe I want to run some program
on it or send it per email or upload it via FTP to my webspace ...

lightroom can export and directly upload the images, with optional
modifications such as resizing it for its intended use or removing
metadata and not affecting the original. you don't need to even see the
actual file.

So I need to manually export every file and run a program on
it and then import the results manually again. Clever.

you clearly don't understand lightroom.

You clearly don't understand what I am saying, and think resizing
and removing metatdata is all one would ever want to batch process.

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

nospam wrote:
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

They are terribly inefficient. Install MS-DOS on a modern high-end PC,
and
you'll see just how fast the hardware really is.

and then do what with it?

Run programs.

on dos?????

Sure. That's what we did back then ... sometimes we did even
start Windows.

that was then. this is now.

people also used manual typewriters long ago too. there's no reason to
go back to that.

I see, you don't like anything that's older than, say, 2 years,
because it's old.


Other people use Dosbox. That wastes many times the cycles it
effectively runs the programs with --- the hardware is that fast
that this is viable.

As to your next claim that there are no programs:
http://www.dosbox.com/comp_list.php?letter=a

that says there are 3638 games in the database. that's nothing.

3638/0 is still infinity.

there are roughly 650,000 apps available for ios devices and 600,000
apps for android devices, and then there's windows and mac os x apps in
addition to that.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/27/google-play-hits-600000-apps/

And that means you can play all the dos games or C=64 games on
IOS, right?


photoshop, lightroom, firefox and other browsers, plus just about
everything else i use, will not run on dos.

Everyone is you. Again.

you really think that very many people use dos these days? seriously?

Everyone is you. Again. You can't think beyond your own
nose. Again.

btw, what image editor do you use on dos? this ought to be good.

You obviously are too lazy to google.


no modern software will run on ms-dos,

Which is actually also wrong, as a quick google will show.
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ak621/DOS/DOS-Fal.html

so what you'd end up with would
be a doorstop. that makes it as inefficient as anything could possibly
be, and significantly more expensive than an actual doorstop.

Who needs "modern"? Banks still run Cobol programs that were
30-40 years old when the Y2k problem was an item.

people who want to run photoshop, lightroom, windows apps, mac os x
apps and even linux apps care about modern.

Wasn't it you telling us all that nobody should care where
his files are --- and now you claim people care about what
frigging language their apps are written in?

i claimed no such thing.

Amnesia?

users don't care what language an app is written in. what they care
about is getting work done and they look for apps to help them do that.

Yep, and you can do so in DOS.


how many linux apps were
written in cobol, anyway?

The there are quite a few cobol compilers for Linux.

how many people actually use them, versus gcc?

Many Cobol compilers translate to C, which is then processed
by gcc. So your question doesn't make sense.

And the question is not "how many people use (any given compiler)",
but "how many people are affected by (any given program)".
Cobol handles more transactions per day than Google processes
web searches.

People are
actively migrating Cobol programs

actively migrating to something more modern. imagine that.

more modern hardware, yes. imagine that.
The programs are still in Cobol.


(not "apps". Apps are tiny
GUI-bound thingies that you think of as cool. Apps are *not*
what makes your phone connect to the network, handle WiFi, let
it ring when calls come in, etc etc etc) to Linux.

that's all part of the operating system.

All the OS does is making the hardware available to programs.


As to "is Cobol important", see e.g. he

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Application...OL-Apps-10-Rea
sons-Why-Its-Important-736307/
in short: you couldn't live without it, even if you did not know.

it's still in the minority.

there are far, far more people using something *other* than cobol.

mobile devices is where it's at these days, not cobol legacy systems.

Mobile devices that won't work without Cobol connecting them.



the ones who ship crap don't tend to last too long.

Explain microsoft.

they're the exception,

Everyone is the exception. Explain Corel.

so we're up to two now?

Explain yourself.


and they're faltering. they've had many failures
recently and that looks like it's going to continue.

"faltering"? Have they suddenly lost 99% of their money so
they are actually only a couple magnitudes richer than most
of the developer companies?

microsoft is faltering.

"faltering"? Have they suddenly lost 99% of their money so
they are actually only a couple magnitudes richer than most
of the developer companies?

[blah blah deleted]

the microsoft kin was a huge, huge failure.

It put a huge dent of 0.01% into Microsoft's wealth?

so what?

Failure, yes. Like many projects from many companies. "huge,
huge failure"? Hah. A "huge, huge failure" is when the company
fails due to that and the executive personel is in prison.

the kin is another example in a line of failures, and more importantly,
it's a symptom of a bigger problem within microsoft. the fact they even
shipped the kin says a lot about how screwed up they are.

Those who don't have failures don't have successes.


windows phone, which is
struggling with a market share of a couple percent, is not exactly a
success either.

It's putting a huge dent of 0.0001% into Microsoft's wealth?

Windows 1.0 and 2.0 were huge failures, too. Think about that.

windows 3.x and certainly windows 95 were not. think about that.

See? Learning from failures.

there won't ever be a kin 2 and windows phone will at best be a distant
third place player. it's an ios & android world going forward.

Yep, and before that it was a different world, and after that it
will be a different world. Only idiots like you think it's IOS and
Android forever, and at the same time claim that Windows forever
is not true --- beause only idiots don't manage to transfer the
clues from one to the other.


a lot of people are expecting windows 8 to fail,
including one game company who said it will be a 'catastrophe.'

So how many times "one game company" equals the worth of Microsoft?
How many people listen to "one game company" (I mean except you
and people only hearing what they want to hear)? How many listen
to Microsoft?

not that many listen to microsoft anymore.

Practically all desktop and laptop users do.

they are listening to apple
and google, as they look toward the future.

ROFL.


every release of chrome, safari, etc. brags about how much faster the
javascript engine is, how much the render engine is, etc.

Noone has sat down and improved the algorithms, that's why
they brag about a few percent. Look at how slow and bloated
we browsers have become.

perhaps you need to switch browsers. the ones i use are not slow. in
fact, they're faster than they used to be and keep getting faster (same
hardware too).

"not slow" on your hardware and because you don't have any
comparison.

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

nospam wrote:
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

a) only 4x-5x, the surcharge is already 10x per GB.
b) You want your whole system to only have 128 or 256 GB? Maybe.
I store photos. They take up that much on a weekend's
shooting trip.

i store photos too, and they live on a network server so they are
accessible to multiple machines.

So that they are much slower to access than with local storage.
And all that because you want faster. Clever.

-Wolfgang

[nospam[_3_]]

In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

They are terribly inefficient. Install MS-DOS on a modern high-end
PC,
and
you'll see just how fast the hardware really is.

and then do what with it?

Run programs.

on dos?????

Sure. That's what we did back then ... sometimes we did even
start Windows.

that was then. this is now.

people also used manual typewriters long ago too. there's no reason to
go back to that.

I see, you don't like anything that's older than, say, 2 years,
because it's old.

nonsense.

And that means you can play all the dos games or C=64 games on
IOS, right?

there's a c64 emulator and probably a dos one too.

photoshop, lightroom, firefox and other browsers, plus just about
everything else i use, will not run on dos.

Everyone is you. Again.

you really think that very many people use dos these days? seriously?

Everyone is you. Again. You can't think beyond your own
nose. Again.

that describes you.

just because *you* use dos (and mxmanic for that matter) doesn't mean
very many others do.

most people use windows, followed by mac os x. dos isn't even a dot on
the chart.

btw, what image editor do you use on dos? this ought to be good.

You obviously are too lazy to google.

i'm asking you. google will not tell me which one *you* use.

no modern software will run on ms-dos,

Which is actually also wrong, as a quick google will show.
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ak621/DOS/DOS-Fal.html

photoshop, lightroom, aperture and final cut pro all run on dos?

users don't care what language an app is written in. what they care
about is getting work done and they look for apps to help them do that.

Yep, and you can do so in DOS.

not as effectively as with modern apps.

how many linux apps were
written in cobol, anyway?

The there are quite a few cobol compilers for Linux.

how many people actually use them, versus gcc?

Many Cobol compilers translate to C, which is then processed
by gcc. So your question doesn't make sense.

nor does your answer.

how many people are actively writing new cobol apps?

And the question is not "how many people use (any given compiler)",
but "how many people are affected by (any given program)".
Cobol handles more transactions per day than Google processes
web searches.

no, that's not the question.

and they're faltering. they've had many failures
recently and that looks like it's going to continue.

"faltering"? Have they suddenly lost 99% of their money so
they are actually only a couple magnitudes richer than most
of the developer companies?

microsoft is faltering.

"faltering"? Have they suddenly lost 99% of their money so
they are actually only a couple magnitudes richer than most
of the developer companies?

they don't need to lose 99% of their money to be faltering.

they're losing ground against apple, google and others, and unless that
changes, they will end up a fraction of their former self.

the microsoft kin was a huge, huge failure.

It put a huge dent of 0.01% into Microsoft's wealth?

so what?

Failure, yes. Like many projects from many companies. "huge,
huge failure"? Hah. A "huge, huge failure" is when the company
fails due to that and the executive personel is in prison.

nonsense.

prison is not a requirement for huge failure.

sales of the kin were horrible and the product was killed just 2 months
after being introduced. it was a huge failure. they lost a *lot* of
money on it.

there won't ever be a kin 2 and windows phone will at best be a distant
third place player. it's an ios & android world going forward.

Yep, and before that it was a different world, and after that it
will be a different world. Only idiots like you think it's IOS and
Android forever, and at the same time claim that Windows forever
is not true --- beause only idiots don't manage to transfer the
clues from one to the other.

i never said ios and android will be forever, but they will be the
dominant mobile operating systems for a very long time.

windows won't be forever and unless microsoft can find another
successful product, they're going to become much smaller than they are
now. so far, they have yet to do that. their mobile strategy is not
very compelling.

it's sort of like kodak. they were king of the film era and failed to
transition to digital. now they're bankrupt.

a lot of people are expecting windows 8 to fail,
including one game company who said it will be a 'catastrophe.'

So how many times "one game company" equals the worth of Microsoft?
How many people listen to "one game company" (I mean except you
and people only hearing what they want to hear)? How many listen
to Microsoft?

not that many listen to microsoft anymore.

Practically all desktop and laptop users do.

but not tablet and smartphone users, which is where the future is.

[nospam[_3_]]

In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

a) only 4x-5x, the surcharge is already 10x per GB.
b) You want your whole system to only have 128 or 256 GB? Maybe.
I store photos. They take up that much on a weekend's
shooting trip.

i store photos too, and they live on a network server so they are
accessible to multiple machines.

So that they are much slower to access than with local storage.
And all that because you want faster. Clever.

it's fast enough and if i want them local i make a local copy.

everything doesn't have to be the fastest possible speed.

[nospam[_3_]]

In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

So an app you wrote and told to log debug output to
/tmp/myapp.{date}.{random} would be found by your console app?

yet another twist.

the console app shows what gets written to stdout and stderr,

And log files are something *completely* different.

sometimes.

and in
the unlikely event you write to another file

Are you even aware that STDOUT and STDERR are not even a
file? Oh, no, you don't have any idea.

console will show what is output by printf or cout from an app. it is
not necessary to know where that data happens to be in the file system.

the ide can also show that info in a window, and it's possible it's not
even in a file at all. it might not even last beyond the debug session.

oh no, you don't have any idea about other ways of doing things.

for some reason, it can
read that too.

Only if you direct it to the file. Therefore you need to
know where the files are. QED.

nope. see above.

meanwhile, most people don't look at log files.

Meanwhile, most people don't do most things, therefore most
things are not needed.

many things are not needed.

How?

open it.

How do I open it without knowing where it is? Oh, yes, you
need to *know* where the file is.

no you don't. it's already taken care of.

PS: There are many more people looking at logfiles than just geeks.
That's obvious to anyone with a brain and a smattering of
knowledge in that area.

not enough to make it important.

there are *far* more users who *don't* look at logfiles or even know
what to do with what's in them.

[nospam[_3_]]

In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

a network drive on the other hand, is where i'd put a 3tb drive.

Sure. And you're using WLAN. Have fun even getting close to the
10 MB/s 100MBit Ethernet offers.

i must be having a lot of fun then.

802.11n easily beats 100base-t

Yes, it does, if you talk about brutto transmission data in
optimal circumstances.

nope. standard normal day to day usage.

Let me guess: close distance, only 1 thin wall, only one active client
at a time.

you guessed wrong. 3-4 clients, sometimes through a wall.

obviously, if i go far enough away the performance drops, but that's
easily fixed with another base station if it turns out to be an actual
problem.

Standard normal day to day usage is gigabit ethernet.

not for mobile devices such as tablets and laptops, it isn't. wireless
is where it's at.

Promise me to never measure transmitted data in the real world,
you'd be in for a big disappointment.

i have, and i'm not disappointed at all. 802.11n is quite comfortable.

... on a 30 MBit internet connection.

i'm not talking about the internet connection.

i'm talking about transferring files between machines or servers.

[nospam[_3_]]

In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

music apps, such as itunes, don't display a hierarchical list of music
(which makes no sense anyway). the user can sort by artist, album,
etc.,

Yes, that's a hierarchical list. You're learing.

it's *not* the file system hierarchy, which is what this is about, and
may not be hierarchical at all.

To use your argument: Practically all people aren't stupid enough
to use just one directory for all their music files.

Most people use an album/track hierarchy, or an artist/album/track
hierarchy.

actually, they don't. the most popular mp3 player, the ipod (and its
siblings such as the iphone & ipad) work with itunes, which manages
where files go and displays files in a more useful way, such as showing
the most played songs, songs rated 4 stars or higher or songs from the
1960s.

good luck doing that in the file system.

you do *not* need to know where in the file system those songs are, or
which file systems. some could be stored locally, some on a network
drive and some in the cloud. the app will find them, wherever they
happen to be.

Or so you claim. Tell me, how will they find the songs on the
disconnected network drive?

by looking in itunes.

if they want to play a song on a disconnected drive they'll obviously
need to connect to it first.

And how did they get on the network
drive in the first place?

by dragging to it when it was connected.

Someone decided to put them there
... so it matters to that person if they are local or not.

yes it does.

you do *not* need to know where in the file system those photos are, or
which file systems. some could be stored locally, some on a network
drive and some in the cloud. the app will find them, wherever they
happen to be.

Or so you claim. Tell me, how will they find the songs on the
disconnected network drive? And how did they get on the network
drive in the first place? Someone decided to put them there
... so it matters to that person if they are local or not.

i assume you mean photos, rather than asking again about music, but
it's the same thing either way.

in fact, you can even view and edit offline images in lightroom (and i
think in aperture too). it caches a local copy.

obviously, you will need to connect to the server for the original raw
data to export a final image, but that shouldn't be a surprise.

but more
importantly, i choose the best app for a given task,

Technically impossible, you don't have the time to find the
best app, and the best app changes potentially with each
revision of each imaginable app.

not really.

one which saves me
a lot of time so i can go do other more interesting stuff.

You choose a suboptimal app and stick with it, and thus you tie
yourself to a single app and won't change to a better one.

nope. i change apps if something better comes along.

someone who does *not* choose the best app could easily be considered
an idiot.

You don't choose the best app.

yes, i most certainly do choose the best app, and only i can make that
determination anyway.

managing files directly with the file system is very primitive.

Actually, it isn't.

actually it is,

Actually it isn't.

actually, it is, and it's going away, much like the command line has
all but gone away, except for a small number of geeks who are fixated
in the past.

for example, there is no file system access for users in ios, android,
at least not without jailbreak/rooting which a tiny minority do and
that's generally to get around a restriction, such as unlocking a
carrier locked device or to run unapproved and/or illicit software, not
because they want file system access.

So your computer is a *mobile phone* where you don't have more
than a modicum of control. That's 'safer'. And pretty well for
clumsy idiots who need dumbed down systems which they can't damage
that easily.

But with more than a few apps you'll soon be needing some
hierarchy --- and back you are.

nope.

you're very fixated on access to the file system.

think out of the box for a change.

and newer systems are moving beyond direct access to
the file system, particularly with the cloud.

So dropbox doesn't work out of a folder and cannot contain
folders, for example?

it can but there's not a pressing need to look at any of that.

many apps directly support dropbox and manage everything themselves.

Ah, so any dropbox like app needs to be "directly support"ed
by all other apps. Clever. Let's do that for every other
app as well.

nope. only the app in question needs to support dropbox, as many apps
do. some don't even need that if they save the file to the dropbox
folder.

Yep, so which wonder app detects the person correctly and in
all cases?

it doesn't have to detect it perfectly in all cases.
even if it does 70-80% and leaves the remainder for manual sorting, it
will *significantly*

as in "can be measured reliably as different", but not more.

cut the amount of time needed to spend sorting
photos.

In fact you need to spend time to correct all the errors the
program makes.

that is a *lot* less work than doing the entire thing myself.

optical character recognition is not perfect, but correcting a few
mistakes is a hell of a lot easier than typing everything in by hand.

the more photos it sees the better it gets.

So which wonder app ist that?

aperture, iphoto and picasa have face recognition.

once again, i have a computer so i can do *less* work. the more work
the computer can do for me the better off i am.

Yep, that's why you promote ways that increase work and decrease
understanding.

you're thinking of tony. he loves extra work and also has very little
understanding.

manually digging through the file system is what's primitive. let the
computer do the work *for* you.

So you tagged every one of your ... ah ... I am not supposed
to use the word "file" any more, am I, in your world? How
did you tag the temporary file your newsreader made when it
stored your posting?

why would anyone tag a temporary file? why would anyone care what the
newsreader does internally?

i edit a post, maybe saving a draft to finish at a later time, which is
tracked by the newsreader app. i don't care where it's stored or in
what format. the newsreader handles all of that.

And thus you cannot switch between newsreaders any mo the other
newsreaders don't support your newsreader and since you don't know
anything about files, there's no way you can fix it.

there's no need to edit in one newsreader and then post in a different
newsreader, and i'm happy with the one i use anyway.

i use a drive large enough for months of incrementals. i also archive
important stuff every so often.

So you don't store the initial full backup, and don't create
or change much data.

of course i store the initial full backup. where in the world did you
get the idea i didn't? it's on the same drive as the incrementals.

I see, you never ever use your main disk near capacity.

what does one have to do with the other?

in any event, there's *very* little space left on my main drive. it's
98% full, according to df.

Hint (you won't get it, but still): an unreadable file hasn't been
changed by the computer, hence it does not carry any marker that
says "file changed". THEREFORE, every file must be tried to be
read if you want to find out if and which ones are unreadable.

backup programs only care about what files have changed. if the file
didn't change then there's no need to read it again. if it was readable
when the first backup was made, then you already have a good copy of
it. if it wasn't, then you found out about the problem already and
hopefully resolved it rather than keep using a disk with a known issue.

There *are* a lot of things that don't need to be backed up --- or are
uneconomical to back up.

yep, and those can be excluded. for example, vm swap files don't need
to be backed up and are automatically skipped.

Which is stupid, since they contain the hibernation data.

it's not stupid at all. there's no need to backup hibernation data,

Or any other data.

wrong. hibernation data does *not* need to be backed up, and will be
invalid anyway. the next time you hibernate, new data will be saved.

The user can get that information pretty easily. How about
lightroom? Where can I get the trivial, yet very important
information which file that is?

it's not important at all, but you can show the original file if you
need to.

So all I need to do is manually ask lightroom for every of my
xx.000 files where they are. Great. That's such an advance
in technology.

it is an advance in technology. it is a huge time saver. i'm far more
productive than i ever was before lightroom came along.

That's because you used a very bad app before lightroom, so of
course LR made you more productive.

photoshop was a bad app? i used the best that was available at the
time.

if something better comes along at some point, i'll switch.

Maybe I want to run some program
on it or send it per email or upload it via FTP to my webspace ...

lightroom can export and directly upload the images, with optional
modifications such as resizing it for its intended use or removing
metadata and not affecting the original. you don't need to even see the
actual file.

So I need to manually export every file and run a program on
it and then import the results manually again. Clever.

you clearly don't understand lightroom.

You clearly don't understand what I am saying, and think resizing
and removing metatdata is all one would ever want to batch process.

you clearly don't understand what i'm saying and think that file system
access is vital, when it's not at all.

direct file system access *is* going away, whether you like it or not.

[Doug McDonald[_6_]]

On 8/17/2012 4:11 PM, nospam wrote:

you're very fixated on access to the file system.

think out of the box for a change.


YOU are fixated on the ideal world so beloved of Apple-lovers
and like folks.

YOU assume that everything will work perfectly together
and that nothing accidental will happen.

Things don;t always work like that.

Doug Mcdonald

[Eric Stevens]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:11:08 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

So an app you wrote and told to log debug output to
/tmp/myapp.{date}.{random} would be found by your console app?

yet another twist.

the console app shows what gets written to stdout and stderr,

And log files are something *completely* different.

sometimes.

and in
the unlikely event you write to another file

Are you even aware that STDOUT and STDERR are not even a
file? Oh, no, you don't have any idea.

console will show what is output by printf or cout from an app. it is
not necessary to know where that data happens to be in the file system.

the ide can also show that info in a window, and it's possible it's not
even in a file at all. it might not even last beyond the debug session.

oh no, you don't have any idea about other ways of doing things.

for some reason, it can
read that too.

Only if you direct it to the file. Therefore you need to
know where the files are. QED.

nope. see above.

I hate to think of the mess which your file system becomes if you
always approach it with that attitude. :-(

meanwhile, most people don't look at log files.

Meanwhile, most people don't do most things, therefore most
things are not needed.

many things are not needed.

How?

open it.

How do I open it without knowing where it is? Oh, yes, you
need to *know* where the file is.

no you don't. it's already taken care of.

PS: There are many more people looking at logfiles than just geeks.
That's obvious to anyone with a brain and a smattering of
knowledge in that area.

not enough to make it important.

there are *far* more users who *don't* look at logfiles or even know
what to do with what's in them.

'Most people' don't know how to read scanner codes in their car, let
alone understand what they mean. Are we suggesting we should do
without them?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam[_3_]]

In article , Doug McDonald
wrote:

you're very fixated on access to the file system.

think out of the box for a change.

YOU are fixated on the ideal world so beloved of Apple-lovers
and like folks.

it has nothing to do with apple.

YOU assume that everything will work perfectly together
and that nothing accidental will happen.

Things don;t always work like that.

i never said they did, nor does that have anything to do with the topic.

[nospam[_3_]]

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

PS: There are many more people looking at logfiles than just geeks.
That's obvious to anyone with a brain and a smattering of
knowledge in that area.

not enough to make it important.

there are *far* more users who *don't* look at logfiles or even know
what to do with what's in them.

'Most people' don't know how to read scanner codes in their car, let
alone understand what they mean. Are we suggesting we should do
without them?

not the same thing.

[Eric Stevens]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 22:39:55 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

PS: There are many more people looking at logfiles than just geeks.
That's obvious to anyone with a brain and a smattering of
knowledge in that area.

not enough to make it important.

there are *far* more users who *don't* look at logfiles or even know
what to do with what's in them.

'Most people' don't know how to read scanner codes in their car, let
alone understand what they mean. Are we suggesting we should do
without them?

not the same thing.

It's very much the same thing. Among other things, atomotive scanners
read the error-code log-files in the car.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam[_3_]]

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

PS: There are many more people looking at logfiles than just geeks.
That's obvious to anyone with a brain and a smattering of
knowledge in that area.

not enough to make it important.

there are *far* more users who *don't* look at logfiles or even know
what to do with what's in them.

'Most people' don't know how to read scanner codes in their car, let
alone understand what they mean. Are we suggesting we should do
without them?

not the same thing.

It's very much the same thing. Among other things, atomotive scanners
read the error-code log-files in the car.

it's not the same thing because technicians who fix computers or cars
have very different needs and training than typical users who edit
photos and drive to the grocery store.

nevertheless, it actually supports my point.

code readers don't give you a list of logged values the sensors
recorded. instead, they tell you what's wrong in english (the better
ones do, the cheap ones make you look up the code).

more importantly, the typical driver sees the check engine light come
on, they take it to a shop and the mechanic takes care of the rest.

[Eric Stevens]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 11:35:07 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

PS: There are many more people looking at logfiles than just geeks.
That's obvious to anyone with a brain and a smattering of
knowledge in that area.

not enough to make it important.

there are *far* more users who *don't* look at logfiles or even know
what to do with what's in them.

'Most people' don't know how to read scanner codes in their car, let
alone understand what they mean. Are we suggesting we should do
without them?

not the same thing.

It's very much the same thing. Among other things, atomotive scanners
read the error-code log-files in the car.

it's not the same thing because technicians who fix computers or cars
have very different needs and training than typical users who edit
photos and drive to the grocery store.

nevertheless, it actually supports my point.

code readers don't give you a list of logged values the sensors
recorded. instead, they tell you what's wrong in english (the better
ones do, the cheap ones make you look up the code).

more importantly, the typical driver sees the check engine light come
on, they take it to a shop and the mechanic takes care of the rest.

And the mechanic needs the on-board log files.

Same with computers. The mechanic (or whatever you call them) also
need the on-board log files.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

nospam wrote:
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

So an app you wrote and told to log debug output to
/tmp/myapp.{date}.{random} would be found by your console app?

yet another twist.

the console app shows what gets written to stdout and stderr,

And log files are something *completely* different.

sometimes.

It's called log FILES for a reason.
Hence: always.


and in
the unlikely event you write to another file

Are you even aware that STDOUT and STDERR are not even a
file? Oh, no, you don't have any idea.

console will show what is output by printf or cout from an app.

What, not the output of "say" and "echo"?

it is
not necessary to know where that data happens to be in the file system.

Of course you are right, since you *always* capture the output
of *all* programs and store the output --- in case you need them
later --- in files.

Congratulations, you just reinvented log files, just in the bad
and stupid way, with no way to collect from several sources into
a smaller number of files or via network. Nor can you collect
from background programs ...


the ide can also show that info in a window, and it's possible it's not
even in a file at all. it might not even last beyond the debug session.

Wow, an IDE(!) that can show information(!) in a window(!).
That must be a very new thing, I guess noone has ever heard
of something like that.

Still, it's not log files you are talking about.

oh no, you don't have any idea about other ways of doing things.

program 2&1 | less
is certainly completely new to me. You guessed it, I only used
that for decades now. And that's not a log file.


for some reason, it can
read that too.

Only if you direct it to the file. Therefore you need to
know where the files are. QED.

nope. see above.

STDOUT != file
STDERR != file


meanwhile, most people don't look at log files.

Meanwhile, most people don't do most things, therefore most
things are not needed.

many things are not needed.

So you decide what's needed, your majesty?


How?

open it.

How do I open it without knowing where it is? Oh, yes, you
need to *know* where the file is.

no you don't. it's already taken care of.

STDOUT != file
STDERR != file


PS: There are many more people looking at logfiles than just geeks.
That's obvious to anyone with a brain and a smattering of
knowledge in that area.

not enough to make it important.

You don't even know what a log file is and *you* believe you
know enough to decide for everyone?

there are *far* more users who *don't* look at logfiles or even know
what to do with what's in them.

There are also *far* more users who *don't* use photoshop or even
know what to do with photoshop ... let's do away with it.
Same for MacOS. Away with it.

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

nospam wrote:
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

they can be accessed via the terminal if absolutely necessary, but in
normal operation, there's absolutely no need, especially since there
are gui wrappers around a lot of what's in there.

GUIs rot the brain.

they do not.

They do. Oh, they're very helpful for some tasks and for selecting
from limited choices. The operative word is "limited".

in some cases that's true. in other cases it's not.

And are not scriptable.

very wrong.

I see.
AfterShot Pro has a GUI.

Please show me how you script that GUI to select all files of
the name type IMG_[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9].CR2 where the (repeated
as necessary) sum of the digits is 3 or 5, rotate the image by
last 2 digits to the right and create a JPEG of -2, -1, 0, +1,
+2 stops each.

If GUIs are scriptable, then that should be no problem at all.

With CLIs this is no big problem. Need proof?

i don't know about that particular app,

That's why I gave you the link to the trial version.

but regardless, what it can or
cannot do is not representative of all gui apps.

If GUIs are scriptable, all are.

photoshop can be scripted using javascript, visual basic and
applescript. photoshop is a gui app.

Mass murderers are humans, therfore all humans are mass
murderers. That's really your logic?

Oh, and I notice that you found that the GUI of photoshop is
not scriptable.

mac apps can be scripted with applescript.

Noone said that there are not applications with a GUI that
can also be scripted via a CLI.

applescript also supports recording, making it very easy to automate a
task just by enabling recording and doing what is needed within the
app. the resulting script can be tweaked if needed. even easier.

Recording is to scripting like lomography to advertising
photography.


even your absurdly contrived example that has no basis in reality could
be done in applescript, but the real question is why would anyone want
to do such a ridiculous thing?

So you can do it in applescript? Please show the result.


And don't allow
things the GUI designer didn't implement.

also wrong.

I see.
AfterShot Pro has a GUI.
Given a couple thousand type IMG_[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9].CR2 files,
select all images with the third digit a 3 or the last digit
is a 4 without having to select the files manually. In a CLI
something like
ls IMG_??3?.CR2 IMG_???4.CR2 | uniq
is sufficient. How do you solve that problem the GUI designer
didn't implement?

that can be done in applescript.

Show the code. I'd like to see how you select the files in
ASP, in the main window.


Let me guess: you can't solve the above examples. You'll thus
claim that the above is irrelevant to reality, and thus it doesn't
matter that GUIs aren't scriptable and can't do things the GUI
designer didn't implement.

you guessed wrong.

I guessed almost right: you cannot solve the examples and you claim
my examples are irrelevant.

The rest you even dare to claim the opposite, based on 2 counter
examples that are a tiny minority of all GUIs.

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

nospam wrote:
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

a network drive on the other hand, is where i'd put a 3tb drive.

Sure. And you're using WLAN. Have fun even getting close to the
10 MB/s 100MBit Ethernet offers.

i must be having a lot of fun then.

802.11n easily beats 100base-t

Yes, it does, if you talk about brutto transmission data in
optimal circumstances.

nope. standard normal day to day usage.

Let me guess: close distance, only 1 thin wall, only one active client
at a time.

you guessed wrong. 3-4 clients, sometimes through a wall.

Yes, 3-4 inactive clients, one active client, a thin wall.

obviously, if i go far enough away

Which is very near ...

the performance drops, but that's
easily fixed with another base station

somewhere in the garden

if it turns out to be an actual
problem.


Standard normal day to day usage is gigabit ethernet.

not for mobile devices such as tablets and laptops, it isn't. wireless
is where it's at.

Maybe for you since you only use a DSL or cable modem, everyone
else is at gigabit ethernet, because it's 10 times faster.


Promise me to never measure transmitted data in the real world,
you'd be in for a big disappointment.

i have, and i'm not disappointed at all. 802.11n is quite comfortable.

... on a 30 MBit internet connection.

i'm not talking about the internet connection.

i'm talking about transferring files between machines or servers.

.... under optimal conditions with very compressable files.

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

nospam wrote:
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

music apps, such as itunes, don't display a hierarchical list of music
(which makes no sense anyway). the user can sort by artist, album,
etc.,

Yes, that's a hierarchical list. You're learing.

it's *not* the file system hierarchy, which is what this is about, and
may not be hierarchical at all.

To use your argument: Practically all people aren't stupid enough
to use just one directory for all their music files.

Most people use an album/track hierarchy, or an artist/album/track
hierarchy.

actually, they don't. the most popular mp3 player, the ipod (and its
siblings such as the iphone & ipad) work with itunes, which manages
where files go and displays files in a more useful way, such as showing
the most played songs, songs rated 4 stars or higher or songs from the
1960s.

You are aware that iPods use file systems and can be accessed
as file systems? The problem is that they're too castrated to
actually play music placed on them in that way. And of course,
they don't want to give you your music back once you placed it
on them. Another castration.

If you think your life is better because you use castrated tools
.... well, it's your sexual perversion, and you can keep it.


good luck doing that in the file system.

Funny how players that allow you to place music onto them via USB
mass drive and that (obviously) use a file system can do that ...


you do *not* need to know where in the file system those songs are, or
which file systems. some could be stored locally, some on a network
drive and some in the cloud. the app will find them, wherever they
happen to be.

Or so you claim. Tell me, how will they find the songs on the
disconnected network drive?

by looking in itunes.

So iTunes magically reads the disconnected network drive,
divining all new files and removed files and moved files?


And how did they get on the network
drive in the first place?

by dragging to it when it was connected.

You ... drag files? With a rope?

What if someone used a CLI to place music there, maybe even
with an OS that doesn't run iTunes?


Someone decided to put them there
... so it matters to that person if they are local or not.

yes it does.

So it matters where the files are.
QED.


you do *not* need to know where in the file system those photos are, or
which file systems. some could be stored locally, some on a network
drive and some in the cloud. the app will find them, wherever they
happen to be.

Or so you claim. Tell me, how will they find the songs on the
disconnected network drive? And how did they get on the network
drive in the first place? Someone decided to put them there
... so it matters to that person if they are local or not.

i assume you mean photos, rather than asking again about music, but
it's the same thing either way.

in fact, you can even view and edit offline images in lightroom (and i
think in aperture too). it caches a local copy.

Then the image isn't offline.


but more
importantly, i choose the best app for a given task,

Technically impossible, you don't have the time to find the
best app, and the best app changes potentially with each
revision of each imaginable app.

not really.

Because you REALLY meant that you choose some popular app
that seems to work, and maybe decide between 2 or 3 apps.


one which saves me
a lot of time so i can go do other more interesting stuff.

You choose a suboptimal app and stick with it, and thus you tie
yourself to a single app and won't change to a better one.

nope. i change apps if something better comes along.

Wrong.
You meant ... something better becomes known to you as something
better and 'better' also means that you can overcome the vendor
lock in you love. Just say "iTunes", "Apple", and co.


someone who does *not* choose the best app could easily be considered
an idiot.

You don't choose the best app.

yes, i most certainly do choose the best app, and only i can make that
determination anyway.

Most certainly you don't. You haven't even KNOWN ABOUT AfterShot
Pro, you yourself said so, so how can you know it's not the best
app for you?

And if you didn't lie to yourself you'd know that.


managing files directly with the file system is very primitive.

Actually, it isn't.

actually it is,

Actually it isn't.

actually, it is, and it's going away, much like the command line has
all but gone away, except for a small number of geeks who are fixated
in the past.

for example, there is no file system access for users in ios, android,
at least not without jailbreak/rooting which a tiny minority do and
that's generally to get around a restriction, such as unlocking a
carrier locked device or to run unapproved and/or illicit software, not
because they want file system access.

So your computer is a *mobile phone* where you don't have more
than a modicum of control. That's 'safer'. And pretty well for
clumsy idiots who need dumbed down systems which they can't damage
that easily.

But with more than a few apps you'll soon be needing some
hierarchy --- and back you are.

nope.

you're very fixated on access to the file system.

YOU're fixated on it.


think out of the box for a change.

Tell me, do you use a flat long list to select your applications?
Or maybe several screens of icons?


and newer systems are moving beyond direct access to
the file system, particularly with the cloud.

So dropbox doesn't work out of a folder and cannot contain
folders, for example?

it can but there's not a pressing need to look at any of that.

many apps directly support dropbox and manage everything themselves.

Ah, so any dropbox like app needs to be "directly support"ed
by all other apps. Clever. Let's do that for every other
app as well.

nope. only the app in question needs to support dropbox,

i.e. every app anyone might want to use with dropbox. Which
turns out to be ... every app.

as many apps
do. some don't even need that if they save the file to the dropbox
folder.

Folder? What's that? That's part of a file system! You loose.


Yep, so which wonder app detects the person correctly and in
all cases?

it doesn't have to detect it perfectly in all cases.
even if it does 70-80% and leaves the remainder for manual sorting, it
will *significantly*

as in "can be measured reliably as different", but not more.

cut the amount of time needed to spend sorting
photos.

In fact you need to spend time to correct all the errors the
program makes.

that is a *lot* less work than doing the entire thing myself.

Or so you say.

optical character recognition is not perfect, but correcting a few
mistakes is a hell of a lot easier than typing everything in by hand.

Try a 99% perfect character recogition. You're faster typing it
all in by hand, at least if you can touch type. Try it.


the more photos it sees the better it gets.

So which wonder app ist that?

aperture, iphoto and picasa have face recognition.

That wasn't the question.


once again, i have a computer so i can do *less* work. the more work
the computer can do for me the better off i am.

Yep, that's why you promote ways that increase work and decrease
understanding.

you're thinking of tony. he loves extra work and also has very little
understanding.

Tony tries to remove the file system?


manually digging through the file system is what's primitive. let the
computer do the work *for* you.

So you tagged every one of your ... ah ... I am not supposed
to use the word "file" any more, am I, in your world? How
did you tag the temporary file your newsreader made when it
stored your posting?

why would anyone tag a temporary file? why would anyone care what the
newsreader does internally?

i edit a post, maybe saving a draft to finish at a later time, which is
tracked by the newsreader app. i don't care where it's stored or in
what format. the newsreader handles all of that.

And thus you cannot switch between newsreaders any mo the other
newsreaders don't support your newsreader and since you don't know
anything about files, there's no way you can fix it.

there's no need to edit in one newsreader and then post in a different
newsreader, and i'm happy with the one i use anyway.

Exactly as I thought: delusional, vendor lock in, denial.


i use a drive large enough for months of incrementals. i also archive
important stuff every so often.

So you don't store the initial full backup, and don't create
or change much data.

of course i store the initial full backup. where in the world did you
get the idea i didn't? it's on the same drive as the incrementals.

I see, you never ever use your main disk near capacity.

what does one have to do with the other?

in any event, there's *very* little space left on my main drive. it's
98% full, according to df.

So you store your full backup in the 98% and all your incrementals
in the 2% left (40 GB if you use 2TB drives, less if smaller) on
the other drive of your pair of drives.

I smell a giant rat!


Hint (you won't get it, but still): an unreadable file hasn't been
changed by the computer, hence it does not carry any marker that
says "file changed". THEREFORE, every file must be tried to be
read if you want to find out if and which ones are unreadable.

backup programs only care about what files have changed. if the file
didn't change then there's no need to read it again. if it was readable
when the first backup was made, then you already have a good copy of
it. if it wasn't, then you found out about the problem already and
hopefully resolved it rather than keep using a disk with a known issue.

You claimed the backup program found files turned unreadable.
Now you admit it doesn't.

How nice.


There *are* a lot of things that don't need to be backed up --- or are
uneconomical to back up.

yep, and those can be excluded. for example, vm swap files don't need
to be backed up and are automatically skipped.

Which is stupid, since they contain the hibernation data.

it's not stupid at all. there's no need to backup hibernation data,

Or any other data.

wrong. hibernation data does *not* need to be backed up, and will be
invalid anyway.

If it's invalid, then hibernation never works.


The user can get that information pretty easily. How about
lightroom? Where can I get the trivial, yet very important
information which file that is?

it's not important at all, but you can show the original file if you
need to.

So all I need to do is manually ask lightroom for every of my
xx.000 files where they are. Great. That's such an advance
in technology.

it is an advance in technology. it is a huge time saver. i'm far more
productive than i ever was before lightroom came along.

That's because you used a very bad app before lightroom, so of
course LR made you more productive.

photoshop was a bad app?

It is.

i used the best that was available at the
time.

What you TOUGHT was that. Probably based on "many people use
that".

if something better comes along at some point, i'll switch.

Or so you think.


Maybe I want to run some program
on it or send it per email or upload it via FTP to my webspace ...

lightroom can export and directly upload the images, with optional
modifications such as resizing it for its intended use or removing
metadata and not affecting the original. you don't need to even see the
actual file.

So I need to manually export every file and run a program on
it and then import the results manually again. Clever.

you clearly don't understand lightroom.

You clearly don't understand what I am saying, and think resizing
and removing metatdata is all one would ever want to batch process.

you clearly don't understand what i'm saying and think that file system
access is vital, when it's not at all.

I clearly understand what you say --- however, your claims are
based on a complete nonunderstanding on your part.

direct file system access *is* going away, whether you like it or not.

Yes, your majesty. It'll be as you decreed. Unless the people
revolt, as they usually do when you decree idiotic stuff.

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

nospam wrote:
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

They are terribly inefficient. Install MS-DOS on a modern high-end
PC,
and
you'll see just how fast the hardware really is.

and then do what with it?

Run programs.

on dos?????

Sure. That's what we did back then ... sometimes we did even
start Windows.

that was then. this is now.

people also used manual typewriters long ago too. there's no reason to
go back to that.

I see, you don't like anything that's older than, say, 2 years,
because it's old.

nonsense.

Oh, so you like manual type writers and run programs on DOS?


And that means you can play all the dos games or C=64 games on
IOS, right?

there's a c64 emulator

Which was rejected by Apple ... and only has a very limited
number of games --- no way to add your own.

and probably a dos one too.

Which was rejected by Apple ... and only has a very limited
number of games --- no way to add your own.


Yep, you can play all the DOS games and C=64 games --- if you
define "all" == "6 pre-chosen ones"


photoshop, lightroom, firefox and other browsers, plus just about
everything else i use, will not run on dos.

Everyone is you. Again.

you really think that very many people use dos these days? seriously?

Everyone is you. Again. You can't think beyond your own
nose. Again.

that describes you.

That describes you.

just because *you* use dos (and mxmanic for that matter) doesn't mean
very many others do.

most people use windows, followed by mac os x. dos isn't even a dot on
the chart.

So let's disallow Mac OS X, noone uses it.


btw, what image editor do you use on dos? this ought to be good.

You obviously are too lazy to google.

i'm asking you. google will not tell me which one *you* use.

What brain do you use?


no modern software will run on ms-dos,

Which is actually also wrong, as a quick google will show.
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ak621/DOS/DOS-Fal.html

photoshop, lightroom, aperture and final cut pro all run on dos?

| Everyone is you. Again. You can't think beyond your own
| nose. Again.

You're an idiot.


users don't care what language an app is written in. what they care
about is getting work done and they look for apps to help them do that.

Yep, and you can do so in DOS.

not as effectively as with modern apps.

And you know that is a fact because you don't use DOS.


how many linux apps were
written in cobol, anyway?

The there are quite a few cobol compilers for Linux.

how many people actually use them, versus gcc?

Many Cobol compilers translate to C, which is then processed
by gcc. So your question doesn't make sense.

nor does your answer.

My answer does make sense, it's just that you are too
braindead to understand.


how many people are actively writing new cobol apps?

More than people who are writing the new "photoshop,
lightroom, aperture and final cut pro". Which according to
you are the most important programs ever.


And the question is not "how many people use (any given compiler)",
but "how many people are affected by (any given program)".
Cobol handles more transactions per day than Google processes
web searches.

no, that's not the question.

I cannot help that you don't want to see the reality. That's
not even surprising, that's your standard behaviour.


and they're faltering. they've had many failures
recently and that looks like it's going to continue.

"faltering"? Have they suddenly lost 99% of their money so
they are actually only a couple magnitudes richer than most
of the developer companies?

microsoft is faltering.

"faltering"? Have they suddenly lost 99% of their money so
they are actually only a couple magnitudes richer than most
of the developer companies?

they don't need to lose 99% of their money to be faltering.

they're losing ground against apple, google and others, and unless that
changes, they will end up a fraction of their former self.

And if you repeat that 10.000 times, you may even believe
that that's true and that that would have any impact.


the microsoft kin was a huge, huge failure.

It put a huge dent of 0.01% into Microsoft's wealth?

so what?

Failure, yes. Like many projects from many companies. "huge,
huge failure"? Hah. A "huge, huge failure" is when the company
fails due to that and the executive personel is in prison.

nonsense.

prison is not a requirement for huge failure.

It is for "a huge, huge failure".


sales of the kin were horrible and the product was killed just 2 months
after being introduced. it was a huge failure. they lost a *lot* of
money on it.

Yes, probably 0.01% of their money. If they do that 10.000 times,
then we talk.


there won't ever be a kin 2 and windows phone will at best be a distant
third place player. it's an ios & android world going forward.

Yep, and before that it was a different world, and after that it
will be a different world. Only idiots like you think it's IOS and
Android forever, and at the same time claim that Windows forever
is not true --- beause only idiots don't manage to transfer the
clues from one to the other.

i never said ios and android will be forever, but they will be the
dominant mobile operating systems for a very long time.

Android has been available for 4 years and has ~70% market
share. So why do you think noone else can douplicate that?
There's a more than even chance that someone duplicates that
in a decade.


windows won't be forever

And yet Windows has been out since 1985, 27 years ago ...


it's sort of like kodak. they were king of the film era and failed to
transition to digital. now they're bankrupt.

Kodak lived for 120 years. Many other companies lived much
shorter.

Next you'll find some example of a company that lived for 3
centuries and then the Catholic Church as examples.


a lot of people are expecting windows 8 to fail,
including one game company who said it will be a 'catastrophe.'

So how many times "one game company" equals the worth of Microsoft?
How many people listen to "one game company" (I mean except you
and people only hearing what they want to hear)? How many listen
to Microsoft?

not that many listen to microsoft anymore.

Practically all desktop and laptop users do.

but not tablet and smartphone users, which is where the future is.

Ah, yes, *you* know the future. We all know that augmented reality
is the real future, and therefore we'll do away with such crude
stuff like tablets and smartphones. Images will be created by
glasses, contact lenses or direct connections to the optical
nerve or to the brain itself.

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

nospam wrote:
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

a) only 4x-5x, the surcharge is already 10x per GB.
b) You want your whole system to only have 128 or 256 GB? Maybe.
I store photos. They take up that much on a weekend's
shooting trip.

i store photos too, and they live on a network server so they are
accessible to multiple machines.

So that they are much slower to access than with local storage.
And all that because you want faster. Clever.

it's fast enough

more than an order of magnitude slower ...

everything doesn't have to be the fastest possible speed.

But that's why you use SSDs in the first place, isn't it?

You really don't know what you want ...

-Wolfgang

[nospam[_3_]]

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

code readers don't give you a list of logged values the sensors
recorded. instead, they tell you what's wrong in english (the better
ones do, the cheap ones make you look up the code).

more importantly, the typical driver sees the check engine light come
on, they take it to a shop and the mechanic takes care of the rest.

And the mechanic needs the on-board log files.

no he doesn't.

all he does is look at the code and does what is necessary to solve the
problem. that may involve further testing, depending on what the code
is. most of the time, it tells you exactly what needs fixing.

Same with computers. The mechanic (or whatever you call them) also
need the on-board log files.

a technician might need it if he was diagnosing a problem, but normal
users definitely do not.

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:12:20 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

code readers don't give you a list of logged values the sensors
recorded. instead, they tell you what's wrong in english (the better
ones do, the cheap ones make you look up the code).

more importantly, the typical driver sees the check engine light come
on, they take it to a shop and the mechanic takes care of the rest.

And the mechanic needs the on-board log files.

no he doesn't.

all he does is look at the code and does what is necessary to solve the
problem. that may involve further testing, depending on what the code
is. most of the time, it tells you exactly what needs fixing.

From where do you think he gets the historic error codes? Please don't
tell me there are no such things as historic error codes. My Honda
keeps them until either the memory overflows or is reset.

Same with computers. The mechanic (or whatever you call them) also
need the on-board log files.

a technician might need it if he was diagnosing a problem, but normal
users definitely do not.

Who said that normal users need them?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam[_3_]]

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

code readers don't give you a list of logged values the sensors
recorded. instead, they tell you what's wrong in english (the better
ones do, the cheap ones make you look up the code).

more importantly, the typical driver sees the check engine light come
on, they take it to a shop and the mechanic takes care of the rest.

And the mechanic needs the on-board log files.

no he doesn't.

all he does is look at the code and does what is necessary to solve the
problem. that may involve further testing, depending on what the code
is. most of the time, it tells you exactly what needs fixing.

From where do you think he gets the historic error codes? Please don't
tell me there are no such things as historic error codes. My Honda
keeps them until either the memory overflows or is reset.

that's not a logfile. all the codereader does is tell you what's wrong
with the car in english (or give a code you have to look up if you
didn't get the better model). there is no access to the internals of
the car's computer nor is there raw data of the various sensors.

there *might* be a history of some of the codes, but not necessarily.
my car has no indication that the maf sensor was replaced. it gave a
code, the sensor was replaced, the code was cleared and that's the end
of that.

still, that's very different than log files on a computer.

Same with computers. The mechanic (or whatever you call them) also
need the on-board log files.

a technician might need it if he was diagnosing a problem, but normal
users definitely do not.

Who said that normal users need them?

wolfgang.

most users don't need them at all and even technicians don't need them
most of the time. they run diagnostic software which tells them what's
wrong.

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:24:29 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

code readers don't give you a list of logged values the sensors
recorded. instead, they tell you what's wrong in english (the better
ones do, the cheap ones make you look up the code).

more importantly, the typical driver sees the check engine light come
on, they take it to a shop and the mechanic takes care of the rest.

And the mechanic needs the on-board log files.

no he doesn't.

all he does is look at the code and does what is necessary to solve the
problem. that may involve further testing, depending on what the code
is. most of the time, it tells you exactly what needs fixing.

From where do you think he gets the historic error codes? Please don't
tell me there are no such things as historic error codes. My Honda
keeps them until either the memory overflows or is reset.

that's not a logfile. all the codereader does is tell you what's wrong
with the car in english (or give a code you have to look up if you
didn't get the better model). there is no access to the internals of
the car's computer nor is there raw data of the various sensors.

Historic error codes means e.g. there have been 8 occasions that the
oxygen level has been too low in the left bank of cylinders etc. They
don't just tell you what's wrong now: they can tell you what's been
wrong in the past.

there *might* be a history of some of the codes, but not necessarily.

.... but not necessarily not either.

my car has no indication that the maf sensor was replaced. it gave a
code, the sensor was replaced, the code was cleared and that's the end
of that.

Nor does my old computer give any indication that drive C: was
replaced. It just stopped logging random read errors.

still, that's very different than log files on a computer.

So you say.

Same with computers. The mechanic (or whatever you call them) also
need the on-board log files.

a technician might need it if he was diagnosing a problem, but normal
users definitely do not.

Who said that normal users need them?

wolfgang.

most users don't need them at all and even technicians don't need them
most of the time. they run diagnostic software which tells them what's
wrong.

Works well with intermittent faults. :-(
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens

And the mechanic needs the on-board log files.

no he doesn't.

all he does is look at the code and does what is necessary to solve the
problem. that may involve further testing, depending on what the code
is. most of the time, it tells you exactly what needs fixing.

From where do you think he gets the historic error codes? Please don't
tell me there are no such things as historic error codes. My Honda
keeps them until either the memory overflows or is reset.

that's not a logfile.

Oh, yes, that exactly IS a logfile. It is a storage of
historic error codes.

there *might* be a history of some of the codes, but not necessarily.

Oh, there absolutely is a history. Otherwise you'd not get
codes unless the engine was runnung and experiencing the
glitch/problem/bad sensor reading RIGHT NOW.

my car has no indication that the maf sensor was replaced. it gave a
code,

.... which was logged. In a logfile. Which was them read out
by the mechanic using a reader. And interpreted by the mechanic.

the sensor was replaced, the code was cleared and that's the end
of that.

So you basically say the logfile was deleted?


still, that's very different than log files on a computer.

Not at all, the only difference is that the onboard computer
doesn't have the same type of monitor, keyboard, mouse interface
that a PC has and doesn't use huge rotating hard drives.


Same with computers. The mechanic (or whatever you call them) also
need the on-board log files.

a technician might need it if he was diagnosing a problem, but normal
users definitely do not.

Who said that normal users need them?

wolfgang.

most users don't need them at all

Some do, as you admit yourself.
Hence: Normal users need them.

and even technicians don't need them
most of the time.

There are only technicians and normal users? That's like saying
there are only women and children.

they run diagnostic software which tells them what's
wrong.

Yes, your lowly trained first level technicians use programs that
read the logfiles.

-Wolfgang