peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (04/11/88)
In article <1961@dino.ulowell.edu>, miner@ulowell.UUCP writes: > In article <900@nuchat.UUCP> peter@nuchat.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > >I'm sure they're great programs, but I just don't like the way they taste. > >I have been given to understand, for example, that Conman includes a pipe > >device. What's a pipe doing there? It doesn't make sense to me. > > There is no pipe in Conman, get your facts straight! Well, I was told that you had to be running ConMan to use the pipes in WShell. By Bill Hawes himself. That sounds like there's a pipe there. > You haven't even worked with the system! How do you expect anyone to respect > your opinions? Don't critique what you have not tried! I haven't tried heroin or cocaine either. No, that's not fair. Look, as soon as I get the necessary funds approved (by my wife) I'll try it out. > If you looked at Bill Hawes programs you would see that he preaches and > follows this same philosophy. Well, ConMan doesn't. I used it for a few days and got totally disgusted with it. It doesn't fit well into the Amiga: it should have a new name, for example, rather than patching console.device. Than I could do a NewCLI CONMAN:... and still use the old console.device. Why would I want to? Well... I couldn't use it while checking out my programs because it allocates and frees memory as commands scroll through the command history. Which meant I could never be sure whether I really had a memory leak or not. If I still had access to the old console.device I could have opened up a new CLI window with it and done my tests there. Since most of what I do on this machine *is* programming that makes it completely useless for me. Somewhere on my list of things to do is a better console.device. But first I have some work to do on Browser, and I want to go back and polish my file requestor a bit, and then there's "launch", and I've probably got to do a bit more work on Tracers, and then there's my real job... This is all beginning to remind me of Richard Stallman. Another brilliant programmer who doesn't seem to have a good overall perspective. At least you guys don't want to bring back file version numbers (I hope). -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- "Have you hugged your U wolf today?" ...!bellcore!tness1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions, these are *values*.
langz@athena.mit.edu (Lang Zerner) (04/12/88)
In article <1816@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1961@dino.ulowell.edu>, miner@ulowell.UUCP writes: >> If you looked at Bill Hawes programs you would see that he preaches and >> follows this same philosophy. > >Well, ConMan doesn't. I used it for a few days and got totally disgusted with >it. It doesn't fit well into the Amiga: it should have a new name, for example ... [Pete gives plenty of good reasons why a programmer would want Conman to have a different name than CON:] ... >If I still had access to the old console.device I could have opened up a new >CLI window with it and done my tests there. Since most of what I do on this >machine *is* programming that makes it completely useless for me. > Peter, have you even *looked* at the documentation for Conman? I've only read the documentation for Conman twice, and what you are looking for is designed into the system. I don't have the docs in front of me right now (I'm at work), but they state quite clearly that if you prefer, you can mount Conman as a different device named something like CNM:. I'm not sure of the exact name. As a lowly user, I never understood why anyone would want the old CON: when they could have Conman instead, but now I see that Hawes is actually catering to a wider audience than just users. >This is all beginning to remind me of Richard Stallman. Another brilliant >programmer who doesn't seem to have a good overall perspective. Actually it looks more to me like another brilliant programmer (yes, that's you Pete! :-) who adheres to the "if all else fails" school of use of documentation. >-- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter Be seeing you... --Lang Zerner langz@athena.mit.edu ihnp4!mit-eddie!athena.mit.edu!langz "To be clever enough to get a great deal of money, one must first be stupid enough to want it." -- G.K. Chesterson
walker@sas.UUCP (Doug Walker) (04/13/88)
In article <1816@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > >Well, ConMan doesn't. I used it for a few days and got totally disgusted with >it. It doesn't fit well into the Amiga: it should have a new name, for example, >rather than patching console.device. Than I could do a NewCLI CONMAN:... and >still use the old console.device. Why would I want to? Well... > >I couldn't use it while checking out my programs because it allocates and >frees memory as commands scroll through the command history. Which meant I >could never be sure whether I really had a memory leak or not. As I understand it, it doesn't allocate and free memory. There is a fixed memory buffer allocated for history when the console window is opened. The buffer will hold a lot of short commands, or a few long commands, but it doesn't grow and shrink. There is a major advantage to calling it CON: instead of CONMAN:, however. pre-existing programs can take advantage of CONMAN whether or not they even are aware of its existence. Thus, we get command recall in windows that have no notion of command recall at all. I think the 'drawbacks' you have listed for CONMAN are nitpicks (or mis- apprehensions). CONMAN is the greatest thing since sliced bread for those of us who don't enjoy typing the same commands over and over, and it fits effortlessly into the system. Actually, I'd rather slice my own bread than do without CONMAN now.
mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) (04/14/88)
Peter da Silva writes: > Well, ConMan doesn't. I used it for a few days and got totally > disgusted with it. It doesn't fit well into the Amiga: it should > have a new name, for exampl\ e, rather than patching console.device. > Than I could do a NewCLI CONMAN:... and still use the old > console.device. Why would I want to? Well... You *can* give Conman a different name than CON: -- I forget what that name is, but it is plainly spelled out in the documentation. I agree that your idea for a console device replacement (ANSI sequences for menus, gadgets, close, scroll bars) is a very good idea; in the meantime, I appreciate what Conman does for me. --M Michael Portuesi / Carnegie Mellon University ARPA/UUCP: mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu BITNET: rainwalker@drycas "Memories are uncertain friends, when recalled by messages" -- OMD, "Messages"
page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) (04/14/88)
[sigh. I'm arguing with peter, who argues with everyone. Why bother?] peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) wrote: >[conman] should have a new name, for example, rather than patching >console.device. Than I could do a NewCLI CONMAN: Read the conman docs. Mount a device called CNC: and tell conman to leave CON: alone. Type newcli cnc: all you want. ..Bob -- Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@swan.ulowell.edu ulowell!page
miner@dino.ulowell.edu (Rich Miner) (04/14/88)
In article <1816@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1961@dino.ulowell.edu>, miner@ulowell.UUCP writes: >> If you looked at Bill Hawes programs you would see that he preaches and >> follows this same philosophy. > >Well, ConMan doesn't. I used it for a few days and got totally disgusted with >it.It doesn't fit well into the Amiga: it should have a new name, for example, >rather than patching console.device. Than I could do a NewCLI CONMAN:... and >still use the old console.device. Why would I want to? Well... I give you credit for trying the program this time before commenting, but next time read the manual. Direct from ConMan docs: !Other Names. !ConMan answers to several names in addition to "CON:". You can define it !as the "CNC:" device by appending the included "mountlist" file to your !DEVS:mountlist and then issuing the command "mount CNC:". The CNC: device !can then be used just like a CON: window. This allows the CON: definition !to be left intact, in case there are any incompatibilities between ConMan !and your existing software (but please let me know of any problems!) >Somewhere on my list of things to do is a better console.device. Do you still feel this way? I hope you get to talk to Bill Hawes at DevCon, you have some very strong, ill conceived ideas about what he is doing. -- Rich miner@dino.ulowell.edu 617/452-5000x2693 UL-CPE Imaging Research Lab
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (04/14/88)
In article ... langz@athena.mit.edu (Lang Zerner) writes: > Peter, have you even *looked* at the documentation for Conman? I've only read > the documentation for Conman twice, and what you are looking for is designed > into the system. Yep, and there wasn't any mention of that in the version of ConMan that I was using. I guess it was just an old version. I know I should call more BBSes and download more Rad Warez, but Usenet takes up all my allocated BBS time... and we don't even have a reliable feed. We're working on it, though. I shudder to think what will happen when we actually get it. > Actually it looks more to me like another brilliant programmer (yes, that's you > Pete! :-) who adheres to the "if all else fails" school of use of > documentation. "Pete" is "Pete Goodeve". My name's "Peter", as in "Peter da Silva". Please. I know, I'm being picky, but it's just one of those little things that bug me. I'm not a big fan of diminutives. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- "Have you hugged your U wolf today?" ...!bellcore!tness1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions, these are *values*.
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (04/17/88)
In article <6211@swan.ulowell.edu>, page@ulowell.UUCP writes: > [sigh. I'm arguing with peter, who argues with everyone. Why bother?] [sigh. More network latency] > Read the conman docs. First get the latest version of ConMan, it seems. > Mount a device called CNC: and tell conman to leave CON: alone. > Type newcli cnc: all you want. Where can I get a version of ConMan that supports this? The version I have patches the device list (I presume) and replaces console.device. That's all it does. I didn't see any reference to CNC: in the docs. Anyway, if this version works this way I take back everything bad I said about it. When I get it. Does it come with AREXX? -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- "Have you hugged your U wolf today?" ...!bellcore!tness1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions, these are *values*.
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (04/17/88)
In article <1967@dino.ulowell.edu>, miner@ulowell.UUCP writes: > >Somewhere on my list of things to do is a better console.device. > Do you still feel this way? Yes. ConMan still doesn't do any of the things in my own wish-list for the console device. > I hope you get to talk to Bill Hawes at DevCon, you have some very strong, > ill conceived ideas about what he is doing. Sorry, won't be there. $$$ -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- "Have you hugged your U wolf today?" ...!bellcore!tness1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions, these are *values*.