iTunes... is bad

[z05DSL3A]

Why are we arguing?

It's the tribal nature of Man. You want to nail you colours to the mast of the chosen tribe and posture with the perceived strengths you have over the others.

[AngelHoof]

I've got something that will end the argument from all sides!

This image explains everything:

http://xkcd.com/386/

[helios]

If that's not important, then what is?
¯\(°_o)/¯

[m4ster r0shi]

Sitting in the middle of a dark empty room and focusing until you're able to move the kundalini energy from the base of your spine to your brain, which will allow you to manipulate the energy of the void and instantly manifest anything you want. ^_^

[S6k9GNh0]

helios, I thought you would have noticed that it was a joke lol. I didn't mean it seriously at all. But the theory and reason on why it is that way still applies. The idea of compile-time optimization and configuration isn't bad in my opinion. But remember that some Windows applications often use a lot more dependencies. For instance, open up one of these Windows-specific apps' that claim to be mature and you'll find 20+ DLLs sprawled all over the place having different and obscure names that make you sometimes say wtf. That rarely happens on Linux now adays and they try and use common libraries for everyone to use for cleanliness and organization. Just because compilation is an effort, you'll often find yourself having to find if you have a common library which more often than not, you'll already have because of the dependency of another application you needed to install it for. The situation for compatibility hell is no more dangerous on Linux than it is on Windows or any others. In this case, your complaining about compiling itself because of the difficulty to grab all of the dependencies. You still have to do that on Windows and almost all Linux package managers will provide a stable development release for the package you are looking for where as Windows does not.

@xkcd image: LOL

EDIT: @Albatross, come on. Your ruining my fun.

[helios]

But remember that some Windows applications often use a lot more dependencies. For instance, open up one of these Windows-specific apps' that claim to be mature and you'll find 20+ DLLs sprawled all over the place having different and obscure names that make you sometimes say wtf.

Yes, but there's a very important difference. Binary compatibility allows the developer to bundle dependencies with the program. Sure, it introduces redundancy into the system, but it's not like storage is that expensive nowadays. It also prevents DLL Hell. By providing the library the program was designed for, system-wide updates don't affect its operation.

obscure names

Don't get me started on typical UNIX library names.

libxmlrpc_xmltok.so.3.6.15

grab all of the dependencies. You still have to do that on Windows

LOL. Yeah, I can totally remember when I had to fetch over 9000 DLLs when I tried to run Visual Studio. Come on, dude. Seriously.

[1yR4jE8b]

I'm pretty sure he meant tracking down dependencies for programs you compile yourself. I don't remember the last time I had to compile Visual Studio from source.

[helios]

I'm pretty sure he meant tracking down dependencies for programs you compile yourself.

In that case, getting dependencies for compilation under Linux is so easy only because of how unnaturally common it is to compile programs.
Try this experiment: make a statistic of how many non-programmer users have a compiler of any kind installed in their system, discriminating by operating system.

[chrisname]

I guess some people are just so used to windows it's hard to get used to other operating systems. It's like inertia or something.

Try this experiment: make a statistic of how many non-programmer users have a compiler of any kind installed in their system, discriminating by operating system.

Every UNIX-like system I've used (Linux, FreeBSD, MINIX, OpenSolaris) and all the others that I know of come with gcc pre-installed.

[Albatross]

Ugh... /desk
I can't believe we're having this discussion.

Every UNIX-like system I've used (Linux, FreeBSD, MINIX, OpenSolaris) and all the others that I know of come with gcc pre-installed.

One UNIX-compliant system that does not come with gcc: Mac OS X. You can get it from Apple for free, but it's not installed by default.

-Albatross

[1yR4jE8b]

I guess some people are just so used to windows it's hard to get used to other operating systems. It's like inertia or something.

More like Stockholm Syndome...

[chrisname]

Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in abducted hostages, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger or risk in which they have been placed.

I see what you did there!

@Albatross,
What's a Mac OSX?

[Albatross]

...very funny, chrisname. Very funny.

Macintosh 10.6 Snow Leopard

-Albatross

[chrisname]

(I'm pretending not to know what it is because I don't like it).
What's an Albatross?










just kidding!

[Albatross]

An Albatross is an alias of a mad programmer known only as Albatross.
What's a chrisname's post?

-Albatross










Hee hee...

[chrisname]

What's a... what... frrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

<sadMac>
ERROR: but rather than tell you anything useful about the problem (like Linux's "panic" screen or even windows' BSOD), I'll just show you this pretty picture.
</sadMac>

Which reminds me... the guys at the apple store near where I live are so easy to troll; I once downloaded a picture of a Linux kernel panic screen, put it in MS powerpoint and made it go fullscreen... and they thought it was actually broken (without noticing that it had "linux" on the screen in several places).

I think this is the picture I used: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/5/50/20071202134607!2007-09-20_Linux_2.6_Kernel_Panic.png

[Albatross]

I win!

Oooh... that was a cruel practical joke. But on a more important note, one problem I have with Mac OS X is that is so "perfect" for everyone that few ever have to learn about how it works, and therefore when it breaks, they're stuck more than a Windows user would be. It doesn't help that all the useful system files are hidden and that the error screen is fairly... um... uncommunicative.

I still don't know why we're arguing.

-Albatross

[z05DSL3A]

<sadMac> ERROR: but rather than tell you anything useful about the problem..., I'll just show you this pretty picture.

I guess that the hex error codes are not useful info about the problem...

I still don't know why we're arguing.

Because my OS has got bigger, hairier balls than yours.

[Albatross]

Grey Wolf, unless I misunderstood something, we're both running Mac OS X (although I have modified mine quite a bit).

Also... the last time I checked, balls didn't do much for pleasant social interactions.

-Albatross

[chrisname]

I guess that the hex error codes are not useful info about the problem...

Oh, I must have missed all the useful information on this kernel panic screen:
http://homepage.mac.com/chrisphin/graphics/kernelpanic.jpg

Although perhaps you thought I was referring to this: http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~cema/courses/CSE5910/lectureFiles/images/lect7a/Sad_mac.png
I guess I should have been more clear -- I was actually referring to the OSX panic screen as a Sad Mac, rather than the old error screen.