On Sat, 5 Oct 2024 11:33:51 -0400, DFS wrote:

> "regdiff is a small command line tool to compare two registry files,
> export the registry, merge .REG files and much more.
>
> http://p-nand-q.com/download/regdiff.html
>
> And of course you can add/edit a Registry key and enter comments.

How wonderful. Can you use your choice of editor? Do the comparisons
include the comments? Does it do version control as well? And being a non-
Microsoft tool, I’m sure it’s completely bug-free and will never, ever
corrupt your Registry and render your entire machine unbootable ...

Question to ponder: Why did Microsoft feel the need to add the feature to
PowerShell to be able to browse the Registry as though it were a
filesystem?

On 5 Oct 2024 18:01:35 GMT, rbowman wrote:

> The company I work for uses a system configuration file base on the ini
> format.

Lots of Linux-based software does the same--look at systemd unit files,
they’re all basically .INI format. It’s such a popular format, Python even
includes a standard library module for parsing it.

> There are options, some of which are extra cost, that can be turned
> on if you happen to know they exist.

The common thing in the open-source world is to include comments in the
default config files explaining all the available options (even if not
used) and what they do. Either that, or have example config files in the
source tree (or even included in some documentation/examples subdirectory
as part of the install) that demonstrate the same.

For extra points, include a section-5 man page describing all the config
options.

On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 21:20:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

>> One issue, however, is that an application can search a number of paths
>> to find a configuration: /etc/, /usr/share, /usr/lib, and the user's
>> HOME or HOME/.config or HOME/.local.
>>
> I think it's more so the sysadmin can define a global default if the
> users haven't?

You want a hierarchy of config levels, where the highest precedence goes
to the level that is easiest for the user to change. From top:

* command-line option
* environment variable
* user config file in ~/.config, maybe ~/.local
* system config file in /etc
* installation-default config in /usr/local/share
* distro-default config in /usr/share
* hard-coded

On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 16:00:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

> Powershell isn't very good IMO ...

It tries to be “object-oriented”.

On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 11:31:47 -0400, DFS wrote:

> Office alone has an estimated 1.2B to 1.6B users right now.

Unlikely, since that would exceed the entire Windows installed base.

For comparison, I remember some years ago one hacker decided to do a scan
of users visiting his website, to see if they had the OpenOffice fonts
installed (this was before the LibreOffice fork). He found those fonts
present in about 15% of his visitors.

> Total population is irrelevant.

Well, you did say “the whole planet”. Are you backpedalling from that
claim now?

> April 2022: 345M paid seats of Office 365
> April 2023: 382M paid seats of Office 365

Still a far cry from “1.2B to 1.6B”, isn’t it?

>> And that’s why Microsoft is increasingly resorting to rentware/adware
>> tactics to try to grow its revenues. And prop up its share price.
>
> Good. They're a public corporation. That's what they should do.

The ones who voluntarily hand over money to help them with that aim are
the dupes.

On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 22:03:21 -0400, Joel wrote:

> ... they would never Disney someone else's OS ...

Is that a common term now? ;)

I ask because I remember McDonalds tried to take legal action to stop the
word “McJob” being officially entered into the Oxford English Dictionary
(without success) ... I can imagine Disney doing the same at some
point ...

On Sat, 5 Oct 2024 12:11:10 -0400, DFS wrote:

> There are now between 1.2B and 1.6B MS Office
> users, from all over the world, starting when the Office bundle was
> released in the mid-1990s.

So you are counting total copies of Office sold, not copies in active use
today?

That doesn’t sound like such a large number now, does it?

On 04 Oct 2024 21:15:16 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> Le 04-10-2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit :
>>
>> I’m not sure about the legalities of dual-licensing. If you look at
>> licences like the GPL, they have wording that says “if you don’t accept
>> this licence, then you don’t have permission to use the software”. That
>> kind of precludes getting that permission via an alternative licence
>> ...
>
> There is no reason to put a line of code under two licences, I don't
> believe that exists.

It does. Perl being one example.

On 05 Oct 2024 10:37:26 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> I'm writing for myself but I really need a version control tool. I'm
> using git because it's good, I could use something else. But I really
> need something.

Version control works best for plain-text files. So if you are writing
documentation or fiction or something else that’s going to end up
formatted in something approaching typeset quality, it becomes difficult
to use a conventional WYSIWYG word processor, because they keep all their
data in binary formats.

This is why software developers like to use plain-text formats like
Markdown, troff, TEX, HTML, SGML etc.

On 5 Oct 2024 01:02:55 GMT, rbowman wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 20:49:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> As a software developer (and sometime documentation writer), I wonder
>> how non-programmers can manage without version control. How do they
>> keep track of changes? How do multiple contributors collaborate on a
>> single document?
>
> https://eeperry.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/libreoffice-version-control/
>
> It's not exactly Subversion but it's better than nothing, I guess.

Every WYSIWYG word processor (including Microsoft Word) can do the same
nowadays.

What’s missing is being able to merge changes from multiple contributors.
Not to mention being able to manage multiple branches ...

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

>> ... they [Microsoft] would never Disney someone else's OS ...
>
>Is that a common term now? ;)
>
>I ask because I remember McDonalds tried to take legal action to stop the
>word “McJob” being officially entered into the Oxford English Dictionary
>(without success) ... I can imagine Disney doing the same at some
>point ...

That's just my take on Winblows, it's as advanced as Unix, but you pay
a heavy cost, for the privilege of having M$ as your software provider

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Le 11-10-2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit :
> On 04 Oct 2024 21:15:16 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>> Le 04-10-2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit :
>>>
>>> I’m not sure about the legalities of dual-licensing. If you look at
>>> licences like the GPL, they have wording that says “if you don’t accept
>>> this licence, then you don’t have permission to use the software”. That
>>> kind of precludes getting that permission via an alternative licence
>>> ...
>>
>> There is no reason to put a line of code under two licences, I don't
>> believe that exists.
>
> It does. Perl being one example.

Can you show me the line of perl being under two licences? I'd like to
understand the point.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

Le 11-10-2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit :
> On 05 Oct 2024 10:37:26 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>> I'm writing for myself but I really need a version control tool. I'm
>> using git because it's good, I could use something else. But I really
>> need something.
>
> Version control works best for plain-text files.

Yep. And for my dotfiles, it's really a must. Because when I try to
change something, if at a point I realise I messed everything up, I can
switch back to an old good state effortlessly.

> So if you are writing
> documentation or fiction or something else that’s going to end up
> formatted in something approaching typeset quality, it becomes difficult
> to use a conventional WYSIWYG word processor, because they keep all their
> data in binary formats.

For something approaching typeset quality, it's difficult to use MS
Word, Open Office or Libre Office, because they don't take typesetting
seriously.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 12 Oct 2024 10:02:29 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> Le 11-10-2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit :
>> On 04 Oct 2024 21:15:16 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>
>>> Le 04-10-2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> I’m not sure about the legalities of dual-licensing. If you look at
>>>> licences like the GPL, they have wording that says “if you don’t
>>>> accept this licence, then you don’t have permission to use the
>>>> software”. That kind of precludes getting that permission via an
>>>> alternative licence ...
>>>
>>> There is no reason to put a line of code under two licences, I don't
>>> believe that exists.
>>
>> It does. Perl being one example.
>
> Can you show me the line of perl being under two licences? I'd like to
> understand the point.

I have posted it before:

"Perl5 is Copyright (C) 1993-2005, by Larry Wall and others.

It is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the
terms of either:

a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software
Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option) any later version, or

b) the "Artistic License".

For those of you that choose to use the GNU General Public License, my
interpretation of the GNU General Public License is that no Perl script
falls under the terms of the GPL unless you explicitly put said script
under the terms of the GPL yourself.

Furthermore, any object code linked with perl does not automatically fall
under the terms of the GPL, provided such object code only adds
definitions of subroutines and variables, and does not otherwise impair
the resulting interpreter from executing any standard Perl script. I
consider linking in C subroutines in this manner to be the moral
equivalent of defining subroutines in the Perl language itself. You may
sell such an object file as proprietary provided that you provide or offer
to provide the Perl source, as specified by the GNU General Public
License. (This is merely an alternate way of specifying input to the
program.) You may also sell a binary produced by the dumping of a running
Perl script that belongs to you, provided that you provide or offer to
provide the Perl source as specified by the GPL. (The fact that a Perl
interpreter and your code are in the same binary file is, in this case, a
form of mere aggregation.)

This is my interpretation of the GPL. If you still have concerns or
difficulties understanding my intent, feel free to contact me. Of course,
the Artistic License spells all this out for your protection, so you may
prefer to use that."

https://dev.perl.org/licenses/

Le 12-10-2024, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> a écrit :
> On 12 Oct 2024 10:02:29 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>> Le 11-10-2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit :
>>> On 04 Oct 2024 21:15:16 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>>
>>>> Le 04-10-2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> I’m not sure about the legalities of dual-licensing. If you look at
>>>>> licences like the GPL, they have wording that says “if you don’t
>>>>> accept this licence, then you don’t have permission to use the
>>>>> software”. That kind of precludes getting that permission via an
>>>>> alternative licence ...
>>>>
>>>> There is no reason to put a line of code under two licences, I don't
>>>> believe that exists.
>>>
>>> It does. Perl being one example.
>>
>> Can you show me the line of perl being under two licences? I'd like to
>> understand the point.
>
> I have posted it before:

It's not what I asked to see.

> "Perl5 is Copyright (C) 1993-2005, by Larry Wall and others.
>
> It is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the
> terms of either:
>
> a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software
> Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option) any later version, or
>
> b) the "Artistic License".

It doesn't say it's under both licences, it says it can be redistributed
under any one of those licenses. Which is not the same.

And, some code, like Linux are really licensed under more than one
license. But if the whole code is distributed under more than one
license, to my knowledge, each part of it fall under only one license.

So, once again: I don't see the point to have two licenses for one line of
code and I don't believe it exists. I see the point to have more than
one license for a all program because more than one author can provide a
part of it, each one having it's preferred license.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 10/11/2024 6:54 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Oct 2024 11:33:51 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> "regdiff is a small command line tool to compare two registry files,
>> export the registry, merge .REG files and much more.
>>
>> http://p-nand-q.com/download/regdiff.html
>>
>> And of course you can add/edit a Registry key and enter comments.
>
> How wonderful. Can you use your choice of editor? Do the comparisons
> include the comments? Does it do version control as well? And being a non-
> Microsoft tool, I’m sure it’s completely bug-free and will never, ever
> corrupt your Registry and render your entire machine unbootable ...

wth? Just take your beatdown like a man, and do more research before
making uninformed claims about Windows.

Larry Dim Duh: "Not something possible on Dimdows."

> Question to ponder: Why did Microsoft feel the need to add the feature to
> PowerShell to be able to browse the Registry as though it were a
> filesystem?

Not sure what your point is.

You've been able to read the Registry since the beginning with VB/A or
C# or C++.

I was manipulating the Windows Registry nearly 20 years ago with Access VBA.

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>On 10/11/2024 6:54 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> Question to ponder: Why did Microsoft feel the need to add the feature to
>> PowerShell to be able to browse the Registry as though it were a
>> filesystem?
>
>Not sure what your point is.
>
>You've been able to read the Registry since the beginning with VB/A or
>C# or C++.
>
>I was manipulating the Windows Registry nearly 20 years ago with Access VBA.

All of this garbage is conforming to M$'s standards, failing to have a
rational setup, this is why I call it "Winblows", it's bloated, hefty,
it's a drag on a computer. It's a jack of all trades that I just
don't relate to.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 12 Oct 2024 19:04:15 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> It doesn't say it's under both licences, it says it can be redistributed
> under any one of those licenses. Which is not the same.

Perhaps my ise of English and yours differ.

On 10/12/2024 8:01 PM, Joel wrote:
> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 10/11/2024 6:54 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> Question to ponder: Why did Microsoft feel the need to add the feature to
>>> PowerShell to be able to browse the Registry as though it were a
>>> filesystem?
>>
>> Not sure what your point is.
>>
>> You've been able to read the Registry since the beginning with VB/A or
>> C# or C++.
>>
>> I was manipulating the Windows Registry nearly 20 years ago with Access VBA.
>
>
> All of this garbage is conforming to M$'s standards, failing to have a
> rational setup, this is why I call it "Winblows", it's bloated, hefty,
> it's a drag on a computer. It's a jack of all trades that I just
> don't relate to.

An editable central registry of app and OS configuration entries isn't a
bad thing, but the MS implementation is fubar.

Look at the complexity they created:

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/sysinfo/registry-functions

In practice, a user rarely sees or knows anything about the Registry.
But sometimes you have to edit/delete/create a key to fix a MS bug or do
something else. Then you notice the mess.

Here's a stupid key name:
Computer\HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\AppX4jbzrhvphxte25e0gxha6bq555nrgqzy

And here's a stupid subkey named 'FriendlyTypeName':
@{Microsoft.XboxGameCallableUI_1000.22621.1.0_neutral_neutral_cw5n1h2txyewy?ms-resource://Microsoft.XboxGameCallableUI/resources/PkgDisplayName}

The CLASSES_ROOT hive stores file extension associations (and a bunch of
other shit):

https://imgur.com/a/DCeUerw

Look at that! There's so much bullshit in there that I'm going to
reinstall Win11 soon, just to clean it out. I HATE HATE HATE this kind
of mess being on my computer, but I just can't abide the GuhNoo
hobby-crapware you're forced to use with Linux. So I'll have to stick
with Windows.

MS says the max Registry size for an x64 system is "50 percent of
physical memory, up to 1.5 GB." 1.5GB for what should be a few text
entries, but instead becomes an impenetrable, unreadable,
little-documented monstrosity.

If anyone cares:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/windows-server/performance/windows-registry-advanced-users

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:

>I just can't abide the GuhNoo
>hobby-crapware you're forced to use with Linux. So I'll have to stick
>with Windows.

I get that, in a way, there are specific Winblows apps that need
Windows to run, but for my purposes that's irrelevant, just nothing
was tying me to Win11 except wanting to have an up-to-date system, but
the drag, the bloat, the weight, was just too much, for such a great
computer, my computer deserves the elegance of Linux.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 19:51:52 -0400, DFS wrote:

> You've been able to read the Registry since the beginning with VB/A or
> C# or C++.

With special APIs. Normal file-manipulation commands cannot be used with
the Registry. On *nix systems, config files are just ordinary text files,
just located in a special directory, nothing more -- the same file-
manipulation commands work with those files as they work with any other
files.

In particular, you can use your choice of text editor to examine/modify
them. And standard tools like diff and patch to manage changes and
propagate them from one installation to another.

Some sysadmins even put their entire /etc directory under version control.

Dimdows, of course, has never heard of any of this.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post; take it under advisement:

> On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 19:51:52 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> You've been able to read the Registry since the beginning with VB/A or
>> C# or C++.
>
> With special APIs. Normal file-manipulation commands cannot be used with
> the Registry. On *nix systems, config files are just ordinary text files,
> just located in a special directory, nothing more -- the same file-
> manipulation commands work with those files as they work with any other
> files.
>
> In particular, you can use your choice of text editor to examine/modify
> them. And standard tools like diff and patch to manage changes and
> propagate them from one installation to another.
>
> Some sysadmins even put their entire /etc directory under version control.
>
> Dimdows, of course, has never heard of any of this.

Note that some /etc files are accessible via APIs as well. For example
/etc/hosts and gethostbyname(3).

--
Peterson's Rules:
(1) Trucks that overturn on freeways are filled with something sticky.
(2) No cute baby in a carriage is ever a girl when called one.
(3) Things that tick are not always clocks.
(4) Suicide only works when you're bluffing.

On 10/13/2024 2:56 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 19:51:52 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> You've been able to read the Registry since the beginning with VB/A or
>> C# or C++.
>
> With special APIs. Normal file-manipulation commands cannot be used with
> the Registry.

No duh. It's not a normal file. It's a binary database, like the Linux
systemd journal.

> On *nix systems, config files are just ordinary text files,
> just located in a special directory, nothing more --

'in a special directory'... maybe, maybe not.

> the same file-
> manipulation commands work with those files as they work with any other
> files.
>
> In particular, you can use your choice of text editor to examine/modify
> them. And standard tools like diff and patch to manage changes and
> propagate them from one installation to another.
> > Some sysadmins even put their entire /etc directory under version
control.
>
> Dimdows, of course, has never heard of any of this.

You were proven wrong about being able to version control the Windows
Registry and add comments, so now you whine that it's done differently
than Linux? tsk tsk

Note: I hate the messiness of the Windows Registry, and the way system
files are organized on Windows. Both drive me crazy when I'm forced to
deal with them (which is rarely). The Unix FHS is a much better file
layout.

Stallman's belly made the right choice of which OS to shamelessly steal.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 23:02 this Friday (GMT):
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 16:00:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>> Powershell isn't very good IMO ...
>
> It tries to be “object-oriented”.

It what? Object oriented scripting languages is how we get lua..
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 23:13 this Friday (GMT):
> On 05 Oct 2024 10:37:26 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>> I'm writing for myself but I really need a version control tool. I'm
>> using git because it's good, I could use something else. But I really
>> need something.
>
> Version control works best for plain-text files. So if you are writing
> documentation or fiction or something else that’s going to end up
> formatted in something approaching typeset quality, it becomes difficult
> to use a conventional WYSIWYG word processor, because they keep all their
> data in binary formats.

I think technically, a lot of those use a renamed ZIP format.

> This is why software developers like to use plain-text formats like
> Markdown, troff, TEX, HTML, SGML etc.

I prefer plaintext formats because you can use any editor.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom