On 1/3/2024 4:52 PM, John Dallman wrote:
> Me, I regarded Windows 2000 as the peak of their GUI design, and it's
> been getting worse, on average, ever since.

Many have that feeling.

Not quite so many if they actually go back.

I had to recently do some work on XP. I was not impressed.

Arne

On 1/4/2024 2:32 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 13:35:14 -0000 (UTC), Simon Clubley wrote:
>
>> On 2024-01-03, John Dallman <jgd@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Me, I regarded Windows 2000 as the peak of their GUI design, and it's
>>> been getting worse, on average, ever since.
>>>
>> Unfortunately, that seems to be the case with modern GUI designs in
>> general.
>>
>> For example, compare the disaster that is GTK4 with the much cleaner
>> GTK2 ...
>
> Notice what you are comparing here: on the one hand, two different OS
> versions, on the other hand, two different versions of a GUI toolkit that
> lives entirely in userland.
>
> In the first case, you can only change the GUI by entirely replacing the
> OS. In the latter case, it’s just a matter of choosing different packages
> to install. In fact, the common Linux distros continue to offer GUI
> packages based on all three versions of GTK from GTK2 onwards, so
> switching between them is a simple matter of logging out of one and
> logging back into another.

You can, but will GTK2 and GTK3 stay supported?

Arne

On 1/2/2024 5:05 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <un1s48$2r0sq$1@dont-email.me>,
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 19:41:21 -0000 (UTC), Dan Cross wrote:
>>> Furthermore, the rate of change in Linux is high; following along from
>>> outside is fraught.
>>
>> Strange, isn’t it: Microsoft must have access to at least a couple of
>> orders of magnitude greater development resources than that available to
>> the Linux kernel project, yet they cannot keep up with what the Linux
>> developers have achieved.
>
> This presumes that the high rate of change of Linux is actually good. I
> rather suspect it is not.

I am also skeptical about that.

But so far the industry does not consider it a problem.

Arne

On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 16:02:01 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> ... will GTK2 and GTK3 stay supported?

GTK2 has long since been abandoned by the GNU project, yet that hasn’t
stopped other groups from taking it up and continuing to build on it. If
necessary, if it turns out that the GTK3→4 transition is also disruptive
(and seen to be unnecessarily so by at least some people), then the same
thing will happen with GTK3.

This is all open source, remember. As long as somebody cares enough to do
the work, a project will continue to live.

On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 15:58:10 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> What made many of them drop WP was the lack of apps.

No it wasn’t. When Android started, it didn’t have the apps either: for
years afterwards, developers still prioritized Apple’s platform, and only
grudgingly did apps for Android.

But that didn’t stop Android becoming ridiculously popular and dominating
the mobile world. Android was popular because it offered users such a huge
choice of device form factors and capabilities, out of the box.

Microsoft was too focused on emulating the locked-down Apple model.
Windows Phone devices were more defined by what they *couldn’t* do, rather
than what they *could*. That’s why they failed.

In article <un75ou$3pjg7$2@dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>On 1/3/2024 8:31 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <un293n$2tfib$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>> On 1/2/2024 2:25 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>> And, in spite of the fact that it was supposed to be implementing a well-
>>>>> documented API, with plenty of example source code to refer to, they
>>>>> still
>>>>> couldn’t get WSL1 to work right. So they had to chuck it away and
>>>>> bring in
>>>>> a proper Linux kernel instead.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't do anything other than "play" with WSL1, but I thought
>>>> performance was the issue.
>>>>
>>>> I think I did more with MKS Toolkit and Cygwin than WSL.
>>>
>>> Note that Cygwin and WSL does completely different things.
>>>
>>> Cygwin:
>>>
>>> *nix and/or Windows source--Cygwin toolchain-->Windows executable
>>>
>>> WSL:
>>>
>>> *nix source--Linux toolchain-->Linux executable
>>
>> More like:
>
>Less like that.

Nope.

>> "cygwin executes Windows executables that are built
>> from Unix-y sources using compatibility libraries,
>
>Cygwin does not execute executables. Cygwin produces regular
>Windows executables that are executed by Windows line any other
>Windows executable.

Nope. Cygwin is an _environment_ that exists under Windows,
along with a user interface, that supports executing Unix-style
programs. Yes, there's a toolchain, but Cygwin itself is not
only a toolchain. The more important thing, in many ways, is
the Cygwin DLL that supports cygwin execution.

You may quibble with the terminology here; it is true that
technically _windows_ loads and starts those executables running
and the hardware actually does the execution, but it is saying
that "cygwin produced regular Windows executables" is so vague
as to be outright incorrect.

>And as I described above then Cygwin can build both *nix source and
>Windows source (and hybrids of those) not just *nix sources.

You seem to be referring to the cygwin toolchain, which is only
part of cygwin. See https://cygwin.com/ for more.

>> while WSL1
>> executes Linux-branded ELF binaries using a compatibility layer
>> in the Windows kernel."
>
>WSL execute standard Linux binaries - not something just Linux branded.
>And being ELF binaries is not sufficient - it has to be Linux binaries.

These two statements are contradictory. Colloquially, we call
ELF binaries that are specific to a given ABI "branded" for that
ABI. From e.g. the FreeBSD manual:

---
BRANDELF(1) FreeBSD General Commands Manual BRANDELF(1)

NAME
brandelf --- mark an ELF binary for a specific ABI

SYNOPSIS
brandelf [-lv] [-f ELF_ABI_number] [-t string] file ...

DESCRIPTION
The brandelf utility marks an ELF binary to be run under a certain ABI
for FreeBSD.
---

(So, for example, `brandelf -t Linux file`.)

So a, "Linux-branded ELF binary" is an "ELF binary" and a "Linux
binary." People who are familiar with systems programming
understand this terminology readily, but if you have no
experience at this low of a level, it doesn't surprise me that
you would be confused.

>> Toolchains are only tangentially
>> relevant.
>
>Toolschains are really the only thing that matters.

Nope.

>WSL exist to allow developers to run Linux toolchains.

No, WSL exists to allow Windows users to run a "Linux
environment", full-stop, running unmodified Linux-branded
ELF binaries. Users can, of course, run a toolchain if they
wish, but they are not limited to that; believing so is a
failure of imagination.

- Dan C.

On 1/4/2024 5:22 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 16:02:01 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> ... will GTK2 and GTK3 stay supported?
>
> GTK2 has long since been abandoned by the GNU project, yet that hasn’t
> stopped other groups from taking it up and continuing to build on it. If
> necessary, if it turns out that the GTK3→4 transition is also disruptive
> (and seen to be unnecessarily so by at least some people), then the same
> thing will happen with GTK3.
>
> This is all open source, remember. As long as somebody cares enough to do
> the work, a project will continue to live.

And for some usage that may be OK, but other may be a bit reluctant
about projects being EOL'ed by original team and existing because
some users do not like the newer version.

Arne

On 1/4/2024 5:25 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 15:58:10 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

Inserted back:

#But what I heard from most WP users back then was that they
#actually liked the UI.

>> What made many of them drop WP was the lack of apps.
>
> No it wasn’t.

Are you telling me that you know better than me what I heard
back then?

Interesting.

> When Android started, it didn’t have the apps either: for
> years afterwards, developers still prioritized Apple’s platform, and only
> grudgingly did apps for Android.
>
> But that didn’t stop Android becoming ridiculously popular and dominating
> the mobile world. Android was popular because it offered users such a huge
> choice of device form factors and capabilities, out of the box.

Companies did create Android apps. I have no idea whether happy or
grudgingly. But they did.

It took Google 1 year to reach 100000 apps and 4 years to
reach 1 million. Apple took 1 year and 5 years for the same, so
practically the same velocity and same level reached in 2013.

There seemed to be accept in the market that 2 apps are OK but
3 are too much.

Arne

On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 20:13:49 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 1/4/2024 5:25 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 15:58:10 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
> Inserted back:
>
> #But what I heard from most WP users back then was that they #actually
> liked the UI.
>
>>> What made many of them drop WP was the lack of apps.
>>
>> No it wasn’t.
>
> Are you telling me that you know better than me what I heard back then?

Yes. I watched it unfold, in my efforts to learn Android development
myself. I saw the comments about apps and lack of apps.

>> When Android started, it didn’t have the apps either: for
>> years afterwards, developers still prioritized Apple’s platform, and
>> only grudgingly did apps for Android.
>>
>> But that didn’t stop Android becoming ridiculously popular and
>> dominating the mobile world. Android was popular because it offered
>> users such a huge choice of device form factors and capabilities, out
>> of the box.
>
> Companies did create Android apps. I have no idea whether happy or
> grudgingly. But they did.

Yes, eventually, like I said. Even some years later, you could say that
Apple’s platform still had the app advantage. Yet that didn’t stop Android
from outselling it by 3:1. (Not sure what the ratio is now.)

> It took Google 1 year to reach 100000 apps and 4 years to reach 1
> million. Apple took 1 year and 5 years for the same, so practically the
> same velocity and same level reached in 2013.

Not sure about sheer quantity, but there was a definite feeling that the
important apps came first to Apple’s platform for many years.

On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 19:55:18 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 1/4/2024 5:22 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 16:02:01 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>
>>> ... will GTK2 and GTK3 stay supported?
>>
>> GTK2 has long since been abandoned by the GNU project, yet that hasn’t
>> stopped other groups from taking it up and continuing to build on it.
>> If necessary, if it turns out that the GTK3→4 transition is also
>> disruptive (and seen to be unnecessarily so by at least some people),
>> then the same thing will happen with GTK3.
>>
>> This is all open source, remember. As long as somebody cares enough to
>> do the work, a project will continue to live.
>
> And for some usage that may be OK, but other may be a bit reluctant
> about projects being EOL'ed by original team and existing because some
> users do not like the newer version.

They are free to do the same sort of thing: take over development on a
copy of the source, and take it in whatever direction they like. Nobody’s
stopping them.

On 1/4/2024 7:34 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <un75ou$3pjg7$2@dont-email.me>,
> Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> On 1/3/2024 8:31 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> "cygwin executes Windows executables that are built
>>> from Unix-y sources using compatibility libraries,
>>
>> Cygwin does not execute executables. Cygwin produces regular
>> Windows executables that are executed by Windows line any other
>> Windows executable.
>
> Nope. Cygwin is an _environment_ that exists under Windows,
> along with a user interface, that supports executing Unix-style
> programs. Yes, there's a toolchain, but Cygwin itself is not
> only a toolchain. The more important thing, in many ways, is
> the Cygwin DLL that supports cygwin execution.
>
> You may quibble with the terminology here; it is true that
> technically _windows_ loads and starts those executables running
> and the hardware actually does the execution, but it is saying
> that "cygwin produced regular Windows executables" is so vague
> as to be outright incorrect.

It is precisely correct.

Building with Cygwin toolchain produce an executable that
can run on any Windows system as long as the DLL's it use
are present.

It does not need any Cygwin environment.

>> And as I described above then Cygwin can build both *nix source and
>> Windows source (and hybrids of those) not just *nix sources.
>
> You seem to be referring to the cygwin toolchain, which is only
> part of cygwin. See https://cygwin.com/ for more.

But it is a difference between Cygwin and WSL.

Cygwin GCC accepts both Windows and *nix source. WSL GCC accept only
*nix source.

>>> Toolchains are only tangentially
>>> relevant.
>>
>> Toolschains are really the only thing that matters.
>
> Nope.
>
>> WSL exist to allow developers to run Linux toolchains.
>
> No, WSL exists to allow Windows users to run a "Linux
> environment", full-stop, running unmodified Linux-branded
> ELF binaries. Users can, of course, run a toolchain if they
> wish, but they are not limited to that; believing so is a
> failure of imagination.

Microsoft has clearly stated that it is intended for
developers to build for Linux.

I assume that Microsoft knows why they have created WSL.

Arne

On 1/4/2024 8:27 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 20:13:49 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>> On 1/4/2024 5:25 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 15:58:10 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>
>> Inserted back:
>>
>> #But what I heard from most WP users back then was that they
>> #actually liked the UI.
>>
>>>> What made many of them drop WP was the lack of apps.
>>>
>>> No it wasn’t.
>>
>> Are you telling me that you know better than me what I heard back then?
>
> Yes. I watched it unfold, in my efforts to learn Android development
> myself. I saw the comments about apps and lack of apps.

Did you read what I wrote?

>>> When Android started, it didn’t have the apps either: for
>>> years afterwards, developers still prioritized Apple’s platform, and
>>> only grudgingly did apps for Android.
>>>
>>> But that didn’t stop Android becoming ridiculously popular and
>>> dominating the mobile world. Android was popular because it offered
>>> users such a huge choice of device form factors and capabilities, out
>>> of the box.
>>
>> Companies did create Android apps. I have no idea whether happy or
>> grudgingly. But they did.
>
> Yes, eventually, like I said. Even some years later, you could say that
> Apple’s platform still had the app advantage. Yet that didn’t stop Android
> from outselling it by 3:1. (Not sure what the ratio is now.)
>
>> It took Google 1 year to reach 100000 apps and 4 years to reach 1
>> million. Apple took 1 year and 5 years for the same, so practically the
>> same velocity and same level reached in 2013.
>
> Not sure about sheer quantity, but there was a definite feeling that the
> important apps came first to Apple’s platform for many years.

There may have been such a feeling.

But the numbers show that it took very little time for Android to get
get apps.

Arne

In article <un7mh8$3ro6t$1@dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>On 1/4/2024 7:34 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <un75ou$3pjg7$2@dont-email.me>,
>> Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>> On 1/3/2024 8:31 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>> "cygwin executes Windows executables that are built
>>>> from Unix-y sources using compatibility libraries,
>>>
>>> Cygwin does not execute executables. Cygwin produces regular
>>> Windows executables that are executed by Windows line any other
>>> Windows executable.
>>
>> Nope. Cygwin is an _environment_ that exists under Windows,
>> along with a user interface, that supports executing Unix-style
>> programs. Yes, there's a toolchain, but Cygwin itself is not
>> only a toolchain. The more important thing, in many ways, is
>> the Cygwin DLL that supports cygwin execution.
>>
>> You may quibble with the terminology here; it is true that
>> technically _windows_ loads and starts those executables running
>> and the hardware actually does the execution, but it is saying
>> that "cygwin produced regular Windows executables" is so vague
>> as to be outright incorrect.
>
>It is precisely correct.
>
>Building with Cygwin toolchain produce an executable that
>can run on any Windows system as long as the DLL's it use
>are present.

Go back and reread what I wrote.

>It does not need any Cygwin environment.

https://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/overview.html#what-is-it

|What is it?
| |Cygwin is a Linux-like environment for Windows. It consists of
|a DLL (cygwin1.dll), which acts as an emulation layer providing
|substantial POSIX (Portable Operating System Interface) system
|call functionality, and a collection of tools, which provide a
|Linux look and feel. The Cygwin DLL works with all AMD64
|versions of Windows NT since Windows Vista/Server 2008. The API
|follows the Single Unix Specification as much as possible, and
|then Linux practice. The major differences between Cygwin and
|Linux is the C library (newlib instead of glibc).
| |With Cygwin installed, users have access to many standard UNIX
|utilities. They can be used from one of the provided shells
|such as bash or from the Windows Command Prompt. Additionally,
|programmers may write Win32 console or GUI applications that
|make use of the standard Microsoft Win32 API and/or the Cygwin
|API. As a result, it is possible to easily port many
|significant UNIX programs without the need for extensive
|changes to the source code. This includes configuring and
|building most of the available GNU software (including the
|development tools included with the Cygwin distribution).

In their own words, "Cygwin is a Linux-like environment for
Windows."

>>> And as I described above then Cygwin can build both *nix source and
>>> Windows source (and hybrids of those) not just *nix sources.
>>
>> You seem to be referring to the cygwin toolchain, which is only
>> part of cygwin. See https://cygwin.com/ for more.
>
>But it is a difference between Cygwin and WSL.
>
>Cygwin GCC accepts both Windows and *nix source. WSL GCC accept only
>*nix source.

So what?

>>>> Toolchains are only tangentially
>>>> relevant.
>>>
>>> Toolschains are really the only thing that matters.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>> WSL exist to allow developers to run Linux toolchains.
>>
>> No, WSL exists to allow Windows users to run a "Linux
>> environment", full-stop, running unmodified Linux-branded
>> ELF binaries. Users can, of course, run a toolchain if they
>> wish, but they are not limited to that; believing so is a
>> failure of imagination.
>
>Microsoft has clearly stated that it is intended for
>developers to build for Linux.
>
>I assume that Microsoft knows why they have created WSL.

From, https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/about:

|Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) is a feature of Windows that
|allows you to run a Linux environment on your Windows machine,
|without the need for a separate virtual machine or dual
|booting.

It is not a toolchain. Is that environment intended for
developers? Yes. Can you do more than run a toolchain?
Yes.

Do you even know what developers working on Linux do? Have you
ever used Unix or Linux professionally?

- Dan C.

On 1/4/2024 8:28 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 19:55:18 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 1/4/2024 5:22 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 16:02:01 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> ... will GTK2 and GTK3 stay supported?
>>>
>>> GTK2 has long since been abandoned by the GNU project, yet that hasn’t
>>> stopped other groups from taking it up and continuing to build on it.
>>> If necessary, if it turns out that the GTK3→4 transition is also
>>> disruptive (and seen to be unnecessarily so by at least some people),
>>> then the same thing will happen with GTK3.
>>>
>>> This is all open source, remember. As long as somebody cares enough to
>>> do the work, a project will continue to live.
>>
>> And for some usage that may be OK, but other may be a bit reluctant
>> about projects being EOL'ed by original team and existing because some
>> users do not like the newer version.
>
> They are free to do the same sort of thing: take over development on a
> copy of the source, and take it in whatever direction they like. Nobody’s
> stopping them.

Absolutely true.

But that is not an attractive solution for the vast majority
of potential users.

Arne

In article <un7lua$3rjrl$1@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 20:13:49 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>> On 1/4/2024 5:25 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 15:58:10 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>
>> Inserted back:
>>
>> #But what I heard from most WP users back then was that they #actually
>> liked the UI.
>>
>>>> What made many of them drop WP was the lack of apps.
>>>
>>> No it wasn’t.
>>
>> Are you telling me that you know better than me what I heard back then?
>
>Yes. I watched it unfold, in my efforts to learn Android development
>myself. I saw the comments about apps and lack of apps.

You don't seem to realize it, but you are responding to a
comment where Arne is talking about people he knows or knew
who talked about why they (that is, those people, specifically)
abandoned the Windows Phone. Whether Arne's set of
aquantances and their personal preferences has any particular
meaning is debatable (it is anecdotal at best), but, as I feel
it same to assume you don't know the people he's specifically
referring to, you are arguing something that is clearly false.

- Dan C.

On 1/4/2024 8:46 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <un7mh8$3ro6t$1@dont-email.me>,
> Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> On 1/4/2024 7:34 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> In article <un75ou$3pjg7$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>> On 1/3/2024 8:31 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>> "cygwin executes Windows executables that are built
>>>>> from Unix-y sources using compatibility libraries,
>>>>
>>>> Cygwin does not execute executables. Cygwin produces regular
>>>> Windows executables that are executed by Windows line any other
>>>> Windows executable.
>>>
>>> Nope. Cygwin is an _environment_ that exists under Windows,
>>> along with a user interface, that supports executing Unix-style
>>> programs. Yes, there's a toolchain, but Cygwin itself is not
>>> only a toolchain. The more important thing, in many ways, is
>>> the Cygwin DLL that supports cygwin execution.
>>>
>>> You may quibble with the terminology here; it is true that
>>> technically _windows_ loads and starts those executables running
>>> and the hardware actually does the execution, but it is saying
>>> that "cygwin produced regular Windows executables" is so vague
>>> as to be outright incorrect.
>>
>> It is precisely correct.
>>
>> Building with Cygwin toolchain produce an executable that
>> can run on any Windows system as long as the DLL's it use
>> are present.
>
> Go back and reread what I wrote.
>
>> It does not need any Cygwin environment.
>
> https://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/overview.html#what-is-it
>
> |What is it?
> |
> |Cygwin is a Linux-like environment for Windows. It consists of
> |a DLL (cygwin1.dll), which acts as an emulation layer providing
> |substantial POSIX (Portable Operating System Interface) system
> |call functionality, and a collection of tools, which provide a
> |Linux look and feel. The Cygwin DLL works with all AMD64
> |versions of Windows NT since Windows Vista/Server 2008. The API
> |follows the Single Unix Specification as much as possible, and
> |then Linux practice. The major differences between Cygwin and
> |Linux is the C library (newlib instead of glibc).
> |
> |With Cygwin installed, users have access to many standard UNIX
> |utilities. They can be used from one of the provided shells
> |such as bash or from the Windows Command Prompt. Additionally,
> |programmers may write Win32 console or GUI applications that
> |make use of the standard Microsoft Win32 API and/or the Cygwin
> |API. As a result, it is possible to easily port many
> |significant UNIX programs without the need for extensive
> |changes to the source code. This includes configuring and
> |building most of the available GNU software (including the
> |development tools included with the Cygwin distribution).
>
> In their own words, "Cygwin is a Linux-like environment for
> Windows."

Yes.

But when used for development it still produces standard
Windows executables, that does not require Cygwin to run.

WSL is used to create standard Linux executables that
require WSL or another Linux to run.

>>>> And as I described above then Cygwin can build both *nix source and
>>>> Windows source (and hybrids of those) not just *nix sources.
>>>
>>> You seem to be referring to the cygwin toolchain, which is only
>>> part of cygwin. See https://cygwin.com/ for more.
>>
>> But it is a difference between Cygwin and WSL.
>>
>> Cygwin GCC accepts both Windows and *nix source. WSL GCC accept only
>> *nix source.
>
> So what?

It is a difference.

My list of differences had it.

Your list of differences did not have it.

>>>>> Toolchains are only tangentially
>>>>> relevant.
>>>>
>>>> Toolschains are really the only thing that matters.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>> WSL exist to allow developers to run Linux toolchains.
>>>
>>> No, WSL exists to allow Windows users to run a "Linux
>>> environment", full-stop, running unmodified Linux-branded
>>> ELF binaries. Users can, of course, run a toolchain if they
>>> wish, but they are not limited to that; believing so is a
>>> failure of imagination.
>>
>> Microsoft has clearly stated that it is intended for
>> developers to build for Linux.
>>
>> I assume that Microsoft knows why they have created WSL.
>
> From, https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/about:
>
> |Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) is a feature of Windows that
> |allows you to run a Linux environment on your Windows machine,
> |without the need for a separate virtual machine or dual
> |booting.

And it continues:

# WSL is designed to provide a seamless and productive experience for
# developers who want to use both Windows and Linux at the same time.

> It is not a toolchain. Is that environment intended for
> developers? Yes. Can you do more than run a toolchain?
> Yes.

It is intended for developers to run a standard Linux
build toolchain to enable Linux builds on Windows. MS
want to keep developers on Windows.

It could be used to browse the web, read email and use
word processors and spreadsheets. But MS has no interest
in WSL being used for that. And I don't think any WSL users
use it for that.

Arne

In article <un7np4$3rs6u$1@dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>On 1/4/2024 8:46 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <un7mh8$3ro6t$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>> On 1/4/2024 7:34 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>> In article <un75ou$3pjg7$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/3/2024 8:31 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>> "cygwin executes Windows executables that are built
>>>>>> from Unix-y sources using compatibility libraries,
>>>>>
>>>>> Cygwin does not execute executables. Cygwin produces regular
>>>>> Windows executables that are executed by Windows line any other
>>>>> Windows executable.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Cygwin is an _environment_ that exists under Windows,
>>>> along with a user interface, that supports executing Unix-style
>>>> programs. Yes, there's a toolchain, but Cygwin itself is not
>>>> only a toolchain. The more important thing, in many ways, is
>>>> the Cygwin DLL that supports cygwin execution.
>>>>
>>>> You may quibble with the terminology here; it is true that
>>>> technically _windows_ loads and starts those executables running
>>>> and the hardware actually does the execution, but it is saying
>>>> that "cygwin produced regular Windows executables" is so vague
>>>> as to be outright incorrect.
>>>
>>> It is precisely correct.
>>>
>>> Building with Cygwin toolchain produce an executable that
>>> can run on any Windows system as long as the DLL's it use
>>> are present.
>>
>> Go back and reread what I wrote.
>>
>>> It does not need any Cygwin environment.
>>
>> https://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/overview.html#what-is-it
>>
>> |What is it?
>> |
>> |Cygwin is a Linux-like environment for Windows. It consists of
>> |a DLL (cygwin1.dll), which acts as an emulation layer providing
>> |substantial POSIX (Portable Operating System Interface) system
>> |call functionality, and a collection of tools, which provide a
>> |Linux look and feel. The Cygwin DLL works with all AMD64
>> |versions of Windows NT since Windows Vista/Server 2008. The API
>> |follows the Single Unix Specification as much as possible, and
>> |then Linux practice. The major differences between Cygwin and
>> |Linux is the C library (newlib instead of glibc).
>> |
>> |With Cygwin installed, users have access to many standard UNIX
>> |utilities. They can be used from one of the provided shells
>> |such as bash or from the Windows Command Prompt. Additionally,
>> |programmers may write Win32 console or GUI applications that
>> |make use of the standard Microsoft Win32 API and/or the Cygwin
>> |API. As a result, it is possible to easily port many
>> |significant UNIX programs without the need for extensive
>> |changes to the source code. This includes configuring and
>> |building most of the available GNU software (including the
>> |development tools included with the Cygwin distribution).
>>
>> In their own words, "Cygwin is a Linux-like environment for
>> Windows."
>
>Yes.
>
>But when used for development it still produces standard
>Windows executables, that does not require Cygwin to run.

It requires the Cygwin DLL; a part of Cygwin.

>WSL is used to create standard Linux executables that
>require WSL or another Linux to run.

No, WSL is used to _run_ standard Linux executables. How you
create them is independent of that. Of course, you _can_ create
them using WSL, of you can create them by some other means; WSL
doesn't care.

This is the distinction you seem stubbornly unable to grasp.

>>>>> And as I described above then Cygwin can build both *nix source and
>>>>> Windows source (and hybrids of those) not just *nix sources.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be referring to the cygwin toolchain, which is only
>>>> part of cygwin. See https://cygwin.com/ for more.
>>>
>>> But it is a difference between Cygwin and WSL.
>>>
>>> Cygwin GCC accepts both Windows and *nix source. WSL GCC accept only
>>> *nix source.
>>
>> So what?
>
>It is a difference.

So?

>My list of differences had it.
>
>Your list of differences did not have it.

Because it's not relevant.

>>>>>> Toolchains are only tangentially
>>>>>> relevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Toolschains are really the only thing that matters.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>>> WSL exist to allow developers to run Linux toolchains.
>>>>
>>>> No, WSL exists to allow Windows users to run a "Linux
>>>> environment", full-stop, running unmodified Linux-branded
>>>> ELF binaries. Users can, of course, run a toolchain if they
>>>> wish, but they are not limited to that; believing so is a
>>>> failure of imagination.
>>>
>>> Microsoft has clearly stated that it is intended for
>>> developers to build for Linux.
>>>
>>> I assume that Microsoft knows why they have created WSL.
>>
>> From, https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/about:
>>
>> |Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) is a feature of Windows that
>> |allows you to run a Linux environment on your Windows machine,
>> |without the need for a separate virtual machine or dual
>> |booting.
>
>And it continues:
>
># WSL is designed to provide a seamless and productive experience for
># developers who want to use both Windows and Linux at the same time.

Yes. That's what I meant when I said, "Is that environment
intended for developers? Yes." Note that I said that in the
next bit of text that you quoted, immediately below this.

>> It is not a toolchain. Is that environment intended for
>> developers? Yes. Can you do more than run a toolchain?
>> Yes.
>
>It is intended for developers to run a standard Linux
>build toolchain to enable Linux builds on Windows. MS
>want to keep developers on Windows.

No. It is intended for developers to run Linux-branded ELF
binaries under Windows. Again, full-stop. Is the primary
objective of that to be able to perform development tasks? Yes,
but that is independent of being able to, "run a standard Linux
build toolchain to enable Linux builds on Windows." Do you even
know what that means?

>It could be used to browse the web, read email and use
>word processors and spreadsheets.

Correct.

>But MS has no interest in WSL being used for that.

That may well be true; they're clearly interested in development
tasks, but that includes a lot more than just "running a
toolchain." For example, using revision control, running CI/CD
runs, running automated integration test suites, deployment
pipelines, running scripts that pre- or post-process output of
some kind or another, using familiar text editors, etc. They
may not even be using a compiled language at all.

Again, do you have any idea what developers who use Linux as a
development platform regularly actually do with it? There's a
lot more to it than typing "make" and letting GCC do its thing.

Do you actually have any professional experience using Linux?

>And I don't think any WSL users use it for that.

I think you probably don't know any WSL users, or what they do.

- Dan C.

On 1/4/2024 8:50 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <un7lua$3rjrl$1@dont-email.me>,
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 20:13:49 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/4/2024 5:25 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 15:58:10 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>
>>> Inserted back:
>>>
>>> #But what I heard from most WP users back then was that they #actually
>>> liked the UI.
>>>
>>>>> What made many of them drop WP was the lack of apps.
>>>>
>>>> No it wasn’t.
>>>
>>> Are you telling me that you know better than me what I heard back then?
>>
>> Yes. I watched it unfold, in my efforts to learn Android development
>> myself. I saw the comments about apps and lack of apps.
>
> You don't seem to realize it, but you are responding to a
> comment where Arne is talking about people he knows or knew
> who talked about why they (that is, those people, specifically)
> abandoned the Windows Phone. Whether Arne's set of
> aquantances and their personal preferences has any particular
> meaning is debatable (it is anecdotal at best), but, as I feel
> it same to assume you don't know the people he's specifically
> referring to, you are arguing something that is clearly false.

Definitely anecdotal.

More anecdotes:

https://www.windowscentral.com/phones/windows-phone/carrier-disinterest-led-to-windows-phone-downfall-says-former-lead-developer

Brandon Watson, former head of the Windows Phone Developer Experience

<quote>
"We had a lot of the major apps, but if you're missing that one core app
that a salesperson used in the top 50, that ripple effect from that one
salesperson was a really rough go. The combinatorial math got out of
control when you consider the number of salespeople and the likelihood
of one of their required top 50 apps not being on the Windows Phone
platform."
</quote>

https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-nokia-frustrated-lack-of-apps-windows-phone-20130729-story.html

Bryan Biniak, Nokia VP

<quote>
“We are releasing new devices frequently and for every new device, if
there is an app that somebody cares about that’s not there, that’s a
missed opportunity of a sale,”
....
“It’s not just about the hardware, it’s about the tools that are on the
hardware,” he said. “You can’t sell a phone without the apps, you just
can’t.”
</quote>

https://www.zdnet.com/article/here-are-the-real-reasons-windows-phone-failed-reveals-ex-nokia-engineer/

Former Nokia engineer

<quote>
"Even if WP got apps and whatever else it lacked, there just wasn't a
compelling reason to switch. Even now I sense the number swapping
between iOS and Android is pretty low."
</quote>

There were undoubtedly more than one reason behind WP failure,
but the above should show that people that were close to WP
did consider lack of app at least "a" reason for WP failure.

(they also list various other problems)

Arne

On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 21:51:26 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> https://www.zdnet.com/article/here-are-the-real-reasons-windows-phone-failed-reveals-ex-nokia-engineer/
>
> Former Nokia engineer
>
> <quote>
> "Even if WP got apps and whatever else it lacked, there just wasn't a
> compelling reason to switch. Even now I sense the number swapping
> between iOS and Android is pretty low."
> </quote>

Note this part:

Finally, by 2014, mobile users had already aligned themselves with
either iOS or Android.

So we’re not talking about the beginnings of Windows Phone, but after
it had already been on the market for some years, and failed to pick
up a customer base by then. Android was able to start from an equal
market position (or lack of it), and grow to success because of its
attractiveness to customers right out of the starting gate, where
Microsoft was not.

On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 20:46:42 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> But that is not an attractive solution for the vast majority
> of potential users.

It is a perfectly good solution for those who care about GTK2. It’s not
anybody else’s business, is it?

On 1/4/2024 10:06 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 20:46:42 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> But that is not an attractive solution for the vast majority
>> of potential users.
>
> It is a perfectly good solution for those who care about GTK2. It’s not
> anybody else’s business, is it?

????

The vast majority of companies and home users have neither
skills or desire to do software development.

So no - it is not a perfectly good solution.

Arne

On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 22:11:07 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 1/4/2024 10:06 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 20:46:42 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> But that is not an attractive solution for the vast majority of
>>> potential users.
>>
>> It is a perfectly good solution for those who care about GTK2. It’s not
>> anybody else’s business, is it?
>
> The vast majority of companies and home users have neither skills or
> desire to do software development.

They don’t need to--they can benefit from the work of those who are
willing and able to do it. That’s how Open Source works.

On 2024-01-04, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 13:35:14 -0000 (UTC), Simon Clubley wrote:
>
>> On 2024-01-03, John Dallman <jgd@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Me, I regarded Windows 2000 as the peak of their GUI design, and it's
>>> been getting worse, on average, ever since.
>>>
>> Unfortunately, that seems to be the case with modern GUI designs in
>> general.
>>
>> For example, compare the disaster that is GTK4 with the much cleaner
>> GTK2 ...
>
> Notice what you are comparing here: on the one hand, two different OS
> versions, on the other hand, two different versions of a GUI toolkit that
> lives entirely in userland.
>

No, I am comparing the same: two different GUI designs that have got
worse over time. The fact that one is integrated into the OS and the other
is an add-on user-level module to another OS does not negate the common
factors of how they have evolved for the worse.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 2024-01-04, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>
> That problem still exist for anyone trying to get into the
> phone market without being hooked into Apple App Store or
> Google Play.
>

Sailfish OS seems to have established a niche for itself:

https://sailfishos.org/

It also comes with an optional Android compatibility module if you want it.

Last I heard however, there were restrictions on which countries it is
available in.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 2024-01-04, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> On 1/3/2024 4:52 PM, John Dallman wrote:
>> Me, I regarded Windows 2000 as the peak of their GUI design, and it's
>> been getting worse, on average, ever since.
>
> Many have that feeling.
>
> Not quite so many if they actually go back.
>
> I had to recently do some work on XP. I was not impressed.
>

I looked at some articles with pictures of the Windows 2000 UI recently
and nothing has changed my impression that it is still one hell of a lot
more usable that the default Windows 10 UI.

For example, which arrogant cretin thought it was OK to _force_ 1px
borders on users in Windows 10 ? Those are not borders, those are piss-takes.

Also, looking at those Windows 2000 UI pictures reminded me of how much
more easier it was to navigate instead of those horrible flat low-contrast
UI elements in Windows 10 where it's sometimes hard to even tell _what_
is clickable.

John is absolutely right about Windows 2000.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.