pifflesnort

11 ms·

31.
by pifflesnort 13y ago
I can't help but wonder what the long-term business effects are of intentionally damaging your relationships with your customers by wasting their time and choosing to prioritize arbitrary business priorities (eg, e-mail click-through rates)
32.
by pifflesnort 13y ago
It's good design to provide a worse experience to your customers? This is why I've always enjoyed Apple products. They don't perform these kind of ridiculous mental gymnastics to justify doing a worse job for their customers.
33.
by pifflesnort 13y ago
> For every problem, how many times did package management work flawlessly? None. It built a massive teetering edifice of fragile interdependencies that incurs staggering human cost in maintenance, and has almost singlehandedly stood
34.
by pifflesnort 13y ago
> Package management will make OS upgrades easier. You don't need a UNIX package manager for this. See also: every modern OS, ever. > Dependencies as opposed to static linking will allow the CPU to run and cache used code better
35.
by pifflesnort 13y ago
> No. I said they solve some problems and don't solve others. Yes, they don't solve the problem of distributing messy UNIX software with complex and unstable dependency graphs, written for systems with anemic base libraries, that inst
36.
by pifflesnort 13y ago
Guess what you don't need if you don't make a UNIX software mess? Answer: unpacking, mounting, managing and downloading dependencies.
37.
by pifflesnort 13y ago
So you're saying that Mac OS, Mac OS X, Android, and iOS are all broken? And Linux's software distribution mechanism is working for end users? > I'm sorry, but I don't think BeOS was ever aimed at someone other than developers. It wo
38.
by pifflesnort 13y ago
I've implemented OAuth client-side a few times in a few languages. The signing process itself may not be that difficult to understand, but there are a lot of fiddly moving pieces, the specs are painful to read, and everyone has their own un
39.
by pifflesnort 13y ago
What you're really saying is "I disagree with you, but I'm going to take a rhetorical roundabout in which I attempt to disqualify your argument by calling it 'not helpful'" > All your criticism can be summed up by "it doesn't look like
40.
by pifflesnort 13y ago
> If you find it so depressing, instead of criticism, offer help. You are not helping. You are only offering your opinion. So you're saying that reasoned constructive criticism is not helping? You can't offer 'help' to people that don
41.
by pifflesnort 13y ago
> It's really not. Imagine a file system where all the "real" file locations are hidden, and the visible file structure just symlinks to these "real" locations. Practically no overhead at all. There will be a minor performance hit with
42.
by pifflesnort 13y ago
> So... when you find a bug in one, the only thing to do is an OS upgrade? Yes. Which, ideally, is cheap and easy to do. > And what about new APIs that come along? Will third-party libraries exist at all, or will users have to wa
43.
by pifflesnort 13y ago
A peer commentator already mentioned this. I already explained: The solution is to provide sufficiently broad set of tightly integrated base system libraries; there are few, if any, duplicate dependencies across most applications. -- htt
44.
by pifflesnort 13y ago
The solution is to provide sufficiently broad set of tightly integrated base system libraries; there are few, if any, duplicate dependencies across most applications. To use OpenSSL as an example, on OS X applications all make use of Secure
45.
by pifflesnort 13y ago
> This is typically NBD (well, no huge deal), but it deserves mention. Managing remnant traces of .app files requires either manually navigating the OS and deleting files, or using 3rd party apps. Apple has moved to solve this problem
46.
by pifflesnort 13y ago
> It's possible I'm missing something fundamental, here, in which case please help me out. What is your ideal-world vision of how an OS should handle installing & managing binaries & dependencies? Drag (anywhere) to install. D
47.
by pifflesnort 14y ago
> A pseudo-filesystem is not high-overhead, unless you believe symlinks and pointers are high-overhead. Retrieving data from multiple on-disk compressed package archives and presenting them as a union pseudofs is a heck of a lot more
48.
by pifflesnort 14y ago
> Faithful recreation as a core value? > Lack of ui/ux contributors? It's really both of these. For a long time, the constraint was fidelity with BeOS R5, which kept focus on an achievable goal. However, there has been some inte
49.
by pifflesnort 14y ago
> High-overhead based on what, the compressed packages? I'm guessing you're a fan of the OSX .dmg approach... which also supports file compression. DMG is an archive distribution format. The packaging pseudo-filesystem is going to be
50.
by pifflesnort 14y ago
I'm familiar with the proposal -- it has all the same problems of Linux package managers, but then they bolted on an even more complex, error prone, and high-overhead virtual file system to present different views of the package graph. The
51.
by pifflesnort 14y ago
It's absolutely bizarre that the developers have adopted the Linux idea of package management, including shared library dependency hell that requires maintaining the dependency graph in lockstep. You only need a traditional UNIX package man
52.
by pifflesnort 14y ago
> The so-called meritocracy you think exists does not. Its just structural discrimination of a different stripe. What does this have to do with evaluating papers? Why would we divert ourselves from a technical mission to pick up an un
53.
by pifflesnort 14y ago
If by "outreach and encouragement" you mean outright subsidizing the trip for a specific target gender. Did this actually improve the technical content of the conference, or did it simply redefine the objective measure by which PyCon determ
54.
by pifflesnort 14y ago
> Can you name a few major projects, preferably on the same kind of scale as the examples that have been mentioned in other posts in this discussion, that were built using TDD? Operating systems? No. Sorry. Operating systems, as a rul
55.
by pifflesnort 14y ago
> If it's as good as they claim, why aren't there large numbers of successful TDD projects to cite as examples every time this discussion comes up? What exactly makes you think there aren't?
56.
by pifflesnort 14y ago
> I disagree completely - the code is awesome and has built billion dollar industries and has made most peoples lives better. It shipped. That doesn't prove your point. Code that is expensive to produce and ships is better than no cod
57.
by pifflesnort 14y ago
> Egalitarian means giving everyone an equal starting point free of cultural background. What is a 'starting point'? Open source certainly doesn't provide equal starting points, because each individual is evaluated on merit, the acqui
58.
by pifflesnort 14y ago
I'm curious as to whether you've actually worked on the Linux kernel, or the UNIX descendants, or TCP/IP stacks. I have. The only reason they work at all is the enormous number of man years spent banging on the poorly tested code after its
59.
by pifflesnort 14y ago
You're going to need to be more specific than that. What, exactly , do they need to do differently, and why ? At 'serious' technical conferences, presentations are based on papers, papers are based on work already done. The conference its
60.
by pifflesnort 14y ago
I've never seen untested code that wasn't crap, or didn't require just as much work (if not more) to ferret out all the bugs (including watching everyone like a hawk).

More ›