On 18 Jul 2024 03:56:29 GMT, rbowman wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 23:49:54 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On 17 Jul 2024 23:22:02 GMT, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 22:03:58 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> MOTIF/CDE pioneered multiple desktops. Something that Windows still
>>>> can’t get right.
>>>
>>> The multiple desktops aren't that bad.
>>
>> In Windows? They need application support for them to work properly.
On
>> *nix, this Just Works™.
>
> Exactly what are you talking about?

Having trouble keeping track of what you yourself are saying? Sorry I
can’t help with that.

On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 05:26:55 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

>>> In Windows? They need application support for them to work properly.

What exactly do you mena by that? You throw shit out without an
explanation.

On 18 Jul 2024 06:28:21 GMT, rbowman wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 05:26:55 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>>>> In Windows? They need application support for them to work properly.
>
> What exactly do you mena by that?

Some examples of the issues:

<https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/windows-11-multiple-desktop-is-extremely/28c90593-1469-48a4-935e-075cac8e1c0c>
<https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/why-does-my-current-desktop-get-copied-to-a-new/4124b7bf-4025-4f1f-b42d-b0ac5a7c5e78>
<https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/virtual-desktop-cannot-open-same-application-on/ebd79a6b-53de-44f7-8423-a29b70a36126>

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>> It is the reason why the use of a GUI has to be declared within the
>>> executable, before it can even start executing. So that the part of the
>>> kernel that is responsible for launching executables can decide whether
>>> to set up the process to use a GUI or not.
>>
>> No, you have it exactly backwards. The distinction in the executable
>> determines whether it is attached to a console ...
>
> You mean a GUI console?

Not necessarily. The console could be a GUI (conhost or Windows
Terminal), just as in Linux the terminal implementatiom could be a GUI
such as xterm but it equally could be some other process, for example an
SSH Server. The executable doesn’t care either way.

The real difference is that Windows executables declare a dependency on
a console up front, Linux executables adapt to the situation they find
themselves in. Evidently the Windows approach isn’t to your taste but
it’s absolutely not the same as “every process having a GUI”.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On Thu, 18 Jul 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 05:26:55 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>>>> In Windows? They need application support for them to work properly.
>
> What exactly do you mena by that? You throw shit out without an
> explanation.
>

Haven't you learned by now that that is Lawrence reason for living. ;) Not
the first time and not the last.

On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:04:09 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

> The real difference is that Windows executables declare a dependency on
> a console up front, Linux executables adapt to the situation they find
> themselves in.

So processes may not be tied to the GUI, but the GUI is still tied into
the kernel. This is why it’s not possible to have a modular, replaceable
GUI, as on *nix systems.

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> writes:
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 08:48:06 -0000 (UTC), Jack Strangio wrote:
>
> > (Aually, I was using X11 desktops on UNIX, and had heard 'Wonderful
> > Things'
> > about this new 'Windows thing'. So I tried it and was aghast at just
> > how **bad** and primitive it was, compared to what I was already using.)
>
> Athena and Motif aren't exactly the height of sophistication :)

Compared to Windows 3.1, they were champagne!

At that time I was using Novell's Unixware. Miles in front of Windows.

Jack
--
"You've used the wrong solder flux on the circuit board.", Tom said acidly.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> The real difference is that Windows executables declare a dependency on
>> a console up front, Linux executables adapt to the situation they find
>> themselves in.
>
> So processes may not be tied to the GUI, but the GUI is still tied
> into the kernel.

That conclusion doesn’t follow. AFAICT the kernel just launches
something called conhost.exe, but doesn’t much care what that does.

That’s a separate issue from the integration of GDI into the kernel
since NT 4, which AFAIK is largely irrelevant to most modern
applications anyway.

Anyway, I’m now tired of fighting your confirmation bias concerning the
relationship between the Windows GUI and the Windows kernel. Perhaps one
day you’ll calm down and start looking at the situation as it really is,
rather than reinterpreting everything to support your preconceptions.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On 2024-07-16, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> writes:
>> On 2024-07-15, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:38 +0100 (BST), John Dallman wrote:
>>>> ldo@nz.invalid (Lawrence D'Oliveiro) wrote:
>
>>>>> But it is fundamental in Windows, is it not, that every process has
>>>>> a GUI. Unless it is a _service_, which runs in the background, and
>>>>> is managed separately.
>>>>
>>>> No, it is not. "Console applications" run with stdin, stdout & stderr,
>>>> rather like traditional Unix programs. They can also have character
>>>> graphics UIs, in terminal windows.
>>>
>>> So why do Python scripts, for example, have to come in two varieties on
>>> Windows, with different extensions “.PY” versus “.PYW”?
>>
>> Windows definately does do "console" applications. What is missing, is
>> the ability to run a console application without the GUI running itself,
>> but the standard C "Hello world" program does run on Windows
>
> I’m not sure what you mean by “the GUI running itself”. Windows
> executables either use the CUI (console) or GUI subsystem, and this is
> represented by a field in the PE file header, rather than being a
> behavior of the application after it starts.
>
> CUI subsystem applications always run within a console, either inherited
> from the parent process, or created automatically if there isn’t one to
> inherit. GUI subsystem applications don’t normally get one (but can
> create one). Presumably a GUI subsystem application doesn’t have to open
> any Window at all if it doesn’t want to.
>
> In Python the .py vs .pyw distinction presumably allows file
> associations to a CUI subsystem version of the interpreter and a GUI
> subsystem version of the interpreter.
>
> References:
> * https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20090101-00/?p=19643
> * https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/console/creation-of-a-console
> * https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winnt/ns-winnt-image_optional_header32
>
You can run Linux without X or Wayland. You can run in pure text mode,
no graphics at all. Windows, as far as I can tell, boots into a GUI
always. Am I wrong on that?

On 19/07/2024 10:57, Borax Man wrote:
> On 2024-07-16, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> On 2024-07-15, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:38 +0100 (BST), John Dallman wrote:
>>>>> ldo@nz.invalid (Lawrence D'Oliveiro) wrote:
>>
>>>>>> But it is fundamental in Windows, is it not, that every process has
>>>>>> a GUI. Unless it is a _service_, which runs in the background, and
>>>>>> is managed separately.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it is not. "Console applications" run with stdin, stdout & stderr,
>>>>> rather like traditional Unix programs. They can also have character
>>>>> graphics UIs, in terminal windows.
>>>>
>>>> So why do Python scripts, for example, have to come in two varieties on
>>>> Windows, with different extensions “.PY” versus “.PYW”?
>>>
>>> Windows definately does do "console" applications. What is missing, is
>>> the ability to run a console application without the GUI running itself,
>>> but the standard C "Hello world" program does run on Windows
>>
>> I’m not sure what you mean by “the GUI running itself”. Windows
>> executables either use the CUI (console) or GUI subsystem, and this is
>> represented by a field in the PE file header, rather than being a
>> behavior of the application after it starts.
>>
>> CUI subsystem applications always run within a console, either inherited
>> from the parent process, or created automatically if there isn’t one to
>> inherit. GUI subsystem applications don’t normally get one (but can
>> create one). Presumably a GUI subsystem application doesn’t have to open
>> any Window at all if it doesn’t want to.
>>
>> In Python the .py vs .pyw distinction presumably allows file
>> associations to a CUI subsystem version of the interpreter and a GUI
>> subsystem version of the interpreter.
>>
>> References:
>> * https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20090101-00/?p=19643
>> * https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/console/creation-of-a-console
>> * https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winnt/ns-winnt-image_optional_header32
>>
> You can run Linux without X or Wayland. You can run in pure text mode,
> no graphics at all. Windows, as far as I can tell, boots into a GUI
> always. Am I wrong on that?

I think you can still boot DOS

And many still do.

A|houigh most of what DOS can do is done better on a raspberry PI PICO
or arduino...

--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> writes:
> You can run Linux without X or Wayland. You can run in pure text mode,
> no graphics at all. Windows, as far as I can tell, boots into a GUI
> always. Am I wrong on that?

Yes, Windows Nano has no GUI at all. Currently it’s only available as a
container guest, however.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote at 11:56 this Friday (GMT):
> On 19/07/2024 10:57, Borax Man wrote:
>> On 2024-07-16, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>> On 2024-07-15, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:38 +0100 (BST), John Dallman wrote:
>>>>>> ldo@nz.invalid (Lawrence D'Oliveiro) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> But it is fundamental in Windows, is it not, that every process has
>>>>>>> a GUI. Unless it is a _service_, which runs in the background, and
>>>>>>> is managed separately.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it is not. "Console applications" run with stdin, stdout & stderr,
>>>>>> rather like traditional Unix programs. They can also have character
>>>>>> graphics UIs, in terminal windows.
>>>>>
>>>>> So why do Python scripts, for example, have to come in two varieties on
>>>>> Windows, with different extensions “.PY” versus “.PYW”?
>>>>
>>>> Windows definately does do "console" applications. What is missing, is
>>>> the ability to run a console application without the GUI running itself,
>>>> but the standard C "Hello world" program does run on Windows
>>>
>>> I’m not sure what you mean by “the GUI running itself”. Windows
>>> executables either use the CUI (console) or GUI subsystem, and this is
>>> represented by a field in the PE file header, rather than being a
>>> behavior of the application after it starts.
>>>
>>> CUI subsystem applications always run within a console, either inherited
>>> from the parent process, or created automatically if there isn’t one to
>>> inherit. GUI subsystem applications don’t normally get one (but can
>>> create one). Presumably a GUI subsystem application doesn’t have to open
>>> any Window at all if it doesn’t want to.
>>>
>>> In Python the .py vs .pyw distinction presumably allows file
>>> associations to a CUI subsystem version of the interpreter and a GUI
>>> subsystem version of the interpreter.
>>>
>>> References:
>>> * https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20090101-00/?p=19643
>>> * https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/console/creation-of-a-console
>>> * https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winnt/ns-winnt-image_optional_header32
>>>
>> You can run Linux without X or Wayland. You can run in pure text mode,
>> no graphics at all. Windows, as far as I can tell, boots into a GUI
>> always. Am I wrong on that?
>
> I think you can still boot DOS
>
> And many still do.
>
> A|houigh most of what DOS can do is done better on a raspberry PI PICO
> or arduino...

I thought DOS was removed from Windows starting in Windows ME..
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote at 11:56 this Friday (GMT):
>> I think you can still boot DOS
>>
>> And many still do.
>>
>> A|houigh most of what DOS can do is done better on a raspberry PI PICO
>> or arduino...
>
> I thought DOS was removed from Windows starting in Windows ME..

It was, however there's a command-line-only rescue mode in later
Windows desktop releases (though I don't know about the current
ones) that is clearly inspired by DOS and is probably what Windows
users would call a "DOS prompt".

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On Fri, 19 Jul 2024 09:57:46 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:

> You can run Linux without X or Wayland. You can run in pure text mode,
> no graphics at all. Windows, as far as I can tell, boots into a GUI
> always. Am I wrong on that?

I remember Windows Server added a “headless” installation mode at one
point (“Server Core”, according to some online docs). The amusing thing
was, it would have made sense to be able to administer such a setup
remotely, via PowerShell. But PowerShell needed Dotnet, and Dotnet would
not run on a “headless” installation.

I think Microsoft did come up with a fix for that at some point. But there
is still the problem that quite a few things won’t run on it.

On Fri, 19 Jul 2024 09:46:17 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>
>> Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>
>>> The real difference is that Windows executables declare a dependency
>>> on a console up front, Linux executables adapt to the situation they
>>> find themselves in.
>>
>> So processes may not be tied to the GUI, but the GUI is still tied into
>> the kernel.
>
> That conclusion doesn’t follow.

It does because of the lack of customizability of GUI options on Windows.

For example, look at how Valve was able to create the Steam Deck with a
GUI specifically optimized for gaming on the handheld form factor.
Microsoft soon started talking about a “Windows handheld mode” to try to
compete. That was two years ago. It’s still vapourware.

On 2024-07-09, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 23:56:48 +0300, Anssi Saari wrote:
>
>> - I usually eventually will need wget and then likely unzip and possibly
>> some other uncompression tools may follow.
>
> unar seems to work well for decompressing several different archive
> formats in one program.

I was looking into this now [1]; Out of curiosity, what are the
advantages of this utility (unar)? How does it compare to 7z and
BSD tar?

(Not that it needs to have advantages, it might be just another
different way/implementation to deal with archives, and that's quite
okay and welcome. I'm just wondering if there is something that stands
out about it.)

[1] https://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/trusty/man1/unar.1.html

--
Nuno Silva

On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 11:45:02 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote:

> Out of curiosity, what are the advantages of this utility (unar)?

It seems to work well for decompressing several different archive formats
in one program.

On 2024-07-24, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 11:45:02 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote:
>
>> Out of curiosity, what are the advantages of this utility (unar)?
>
> It seems to work well for decompressing several different archive formats
> in one program.

Then, in that regard, it is just like 7z and BSD tar (which, again, is
fine, I was just wondering about other possible features or
differences).

--
Nuno Silva

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote at 22:24 this Friday (GMT):
> candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote at 11:56 this Friday (GMT):
>>> I think you can still boot DOS
>>>
>>> And many still do.
>>>
>>> A|houigh most of what DOS can do is done better on a raspberry PI PICO
>>> or arduino...
>>
>> I thought DOS was removed from Windows starting in Windows ME..
>
> It was, however there's a command-line-only rescue mode in later
> Windows desktop releases (though I don't know about the current
> ones) that is clearly inspired by DOS and is probably what Windows
> users would call a "DOS prompt".

Oh cool, I don't think I've ever seen it.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> wrote:
> candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> writes:
>>
>> To be fair, having Linux as your first OS would be very rare.
>

Who cares. It is the only OS I have used since 1998 at least.

Everything else I look at sucks.

Programs I install
Openshot
Firefox
Gimp
GVIM
thunderbird
mutt
gcc
make
Perl
Python
gdb
vlc
crossfire-gtk
gnuplot
dia
inkscape
scribus
xcalc
oclock
windowmaker
X11
openrc
hexchat
popcorntime
transmission
open-nusismat
make
rsync
ssh!!

at minimum
> Hey, look, guys! I'm a rarity!!
> (Most people would deinitely consider that a GOOD THING!)
>
> Well, almost. I went from MSDOS to UNIX and then Linux. Never had Windows as
> my personal 'daily-driver'.
>
> (Aually, I was using X11 desktops on UNIX, and had heard 'Wonderful Things'
> about this new 'Windows thing'. So I tried it and was aghast at just how
> **bad** and primitive it was, compared to what I was already using.)
>
> Jack

Ruben Safir <mrbrklyn@panix.com> wrote at 01:31 this Friday (GMT):
> Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> writes:
>>>
>>> To be fair, having Linux as your first OS would be very rare.
>>
>
> Who cares. It is the only OS I have used since 1998 at least.
>
> Everything else I look at sucks.
>
> Programs I install
> Openshot
> Firefox
> Gimp
> GVIM
> thunderbird
> mutt
> gcc
> make
> Perl
> Python
> gdb
> vlc
> crossfire-gtk
> gnuplot
> dia
> inkscape
> scribus
> xcalc
> oclock
> windowmaker
> X11
> openrc
> hexchat
> popcorntime
> transmission
> open-nusismat
> make
> rsync
> ssh!!
>
> at minimum
>> Hey, look, guys! I'm a rarity!!
>> (Most people would deinitely consider that a GOOD THING!)
>>
>> Well, almost. I went from MSDOS to UNIX and then Linux. Never had Windows as
>> my personal 'daily-driver'.
>>
>> (Aually, I was using X11 desktops on UNIX, and had heard 'Wonderful Things'
>> about this new 'Windows thing'. So I tried it and was aghast at just how
>> **bad** and primitive it was, compared to what I was already using.)
>>
>> Jack

I thought older windows was good for it's time, but yeah nowadays I'm
leaning more towards Linux. I haven't heard of some of these, thanks for
bringing it up!
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

nano
git
openssh
gnutls
links
bash
automake
autoconf
gcc
mutt
htop
iotop
gomuks
tmux
WordGrinder

and that's it.

When I'm done I go home and spend the evening with family.

--
Phillip Frabott
----------
- Adam: Is a void really a void if it returns?
- Jack: No, it's just nullspace at that point.
----------

On Fri, 15 Nov 2024, Phillip Frabott wrote:

> nano
> git
> openssh
> gnutls
> links
> bash
> automake
> autoconf
> gcc
> mutt
> htop
> iotop
> gomuks
> tmux
> WordGrinder
>
> and that's it.
>
> When I'm done I go home and spend the evening with family.

Wordgrinder is not a common choice. Could you please tell me a bit about
it? Wat is it with wordgrinder that guys you joy when writing texts?

On 11/16/2024 04:31, D wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2024, Phillip Frabott wrote:
>
>> nano
>> git
>> openssh
>> gnutls
>> links
>> bash
>> automake
>> autoconf
>> gcc
>> mutt
>> htop
>> iotop
>> gomuks
>> tmux
>> WordGrinder
>>
>> and that's it.
>>
>> When I'm done I go home and spend the evening with family.
>
> Wordgrinder is not a common choice. Could you please tell me a bit about
> it? Wat is it with wordgrinder that guys you joy when writing texts?

I should probably note, if it's not apparent in the list above, I live
in bash. I do not use a WM day-to-day. I'm a purist shell-only user.
WordGrinder is the only shell program I was able to find that has
support great support for ODT, a format that I have to be able to use at
work since almost all of our documents are either ODT or MD (Mostly
ODT). It has a pretty decent spell checker that you can add to it's
dictionary and has pretty good formatting support within the limitations
of shell (You won't be adding images, but I don't get paid enough to
make documentation with pretty pictures anyways). It is probably the
most feature-rich shell application I've found so far. You can look at
it here if you want: https://cowlark.com/wordgrinder/

If you have a recommendation for something other then WordGrinder that
works without any Xorg/X11 components installed though, I'd be happy to
try it out. It has to support opening and saving (or
importing/exporting) into ODT and MD formats and must be able to compile
source-only and no docker.

Before you ask, since you'll probably find me in another thread asking
about Gentoo related to KDE, I do have Xorg installed on another machine
but it's only for the small sliver of time where I have to test a
desktop program I'm writing for the company I work for. And I use a
separate machine for that. Most of my time is in headless code though so
it's not often I have to boot it up.

--
Phillip Frabott
----------
- Adam: Is a void really a void if it returns?
- Jack: No, it's just nullspace at that point.
----------

On Sat, 16 Nov 2024, Phillip Frabott wrote:

> On 11/16/2024 04:31, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2024, Phillip Frabott wrote:
>>
>>> nano
>>> git
>>> openssh
>>> gnutls
>>> links
>>> bash
>>> automake
>>> autoconf
>>> gcc
>>> mutt
>>> htop
>>> iotop
>>> gomuks
>>> tmux
>>> WordGrinder
>>>
>>> and that's it.
>>>
>>> When I'm done I go home and spend the evening with family.
>>
>> Wordgrinder is not a common choice. Could you please tell me a bit about
>> it? Wat is it with wordgrinder that guys you joy when writing texts?
>
> I should probably note, if it's not apparent in the list above, I live in
> bash. I do not use a WM day-to-day. I'm a purist shell-only user. WordGrinder
> is the only shell program I was able to find that has support great support
> for ODT, a format that I have to be able to use at work since almost all of
> our documents are either ODT or MD (Mostly ODT). It has a pretty decent spell
> checker that you can add to it's dictionary and has pretty good formatting
> support within the limitations of shell (You won't be adding images, but I
> don't get paid enough to make documentation with pretty pictures anyways). It
> is probably the most feature-rich shell application I've found so far. You
> can look at it here if you want: https://cowlark.com/wordgrinder/
>
> If you have a recommendation for something other then WordGrinder that works
> without any Xorg/X11 components installed though, I'd be happy to try it out.
> It has to support opening and saving (or importing/exporting) into ODT and MD
> formats and must be able to compile source-only and no docker.
>
> Before you ask, since you'll probably find me in another thread asking about
> Gentoo related to KDE, I do have Xorg installed on another machine but it's
> only for the small sliver of time where I have to test a desktop program I'm
> writing for the company I work for. And I use a separate machine for that.
> Most of my time is in headless code though so it's not often I have to boot
> it up.

Thank you for sharing! Very interesting. What type of work do you do where
you are able to get by with only the shell? You must have a very kind
employer! =)

As for word processing, the usual suspects are vim, groff, latex and for
converting documents back and forth, I think that pandoc is very common.

But this is all hearsay, so I am sure there are others here in this group
who know much more about it than I do.