Sometimes GUIs are great for visualization of complex structures.  Its one reason i like fossil,  it has both ways of doing business

Thu Feb 18 2021 05:43:29 EST from DutchessMike

It worked, and yes, it was all we had.  I remember being enthusiastic about subversion, simply because it was marginally better then VSS.  As I've gotten older and wiser, my love of command-line utilities has returned, and now I (almost exclusively) use GIT because most folks know how to use it and with a little work you can keep your work out of the hands of MS by running your own repository.

 

Tue Feb 09 2021 13:22:36 EST from Nurb432

In the old days VSS is all we had.

I agree - there is a big use case for visualization.  Given the ecosystem of Git plugins and utilities, you can visualize the tree without trading away the granular command-line tools.  I have no objections or complaints with Fossil - in fact, I prefer that it uses SQLite - if I were starting over again, there are a number of instances where Fossil works better: I could finally figure out how to (effectively) use the bug-tracking and the web interface, chat, etc.

Sat Feb 20 2021 09:18:07 EST from Nurb432

Sometimes GUIs are great for visualization of complex structures.  Its one reason i like fossil,  it has both ways of doing business

Thu Feb 18 2021 05:43:29 EST from DutchessMike

It worked, and yes, it was all we had.  I remember being enthusiastic about subversion, simply because it was marginally better then VSS.  As I've gotten older and wiser, my love of command-line utilities has returned, and now I (almost exclusively) use GIT because most folks know how to use it and with a little work you can keep your work out of the hands of MS by running your own repository.

 

Tue Feb 09 2021 13:22:36 EST from Nurb432

In the old days VSS is all we had.

 

Its all about the libraries i think. Without those, there would be little interest.

Batteries included, is a powerful feature.

Redhat/apple/etc.  never like anything they cant control.  So no surprise there.

Fri Mar 12 2021 17:05:24 EST from LoanShark

Python is increasingly a favorite of AI researchers, so I hear. It's quite strange to see redIBMhat and apple pushing it out to pasture. I don't think it's a niche or unpopular language, at all, but it probably never really caught on for web-backend use, and that matters.


I used to use python a fair bit for system level scripting.

Just meaning why python was popular, not why perl was not..

Sat Mar 13 2021 17:07:01 EST from darknetuser

2021-03-13 08:44 from Nurb432
Its all about the libraries i think. Without those, there would be

little interest.

Batteries included, is a powerful feature.

 

If it was for the availability of modules, Perl would be better situated in the charts. It has a very powerful ecosystem.

And I think it is the go-to solution for glue-logic and plain-text processing. It is very powerful for such.

But yeah, Perl has been on decline for quite a while. They had a permanent section for it in Linux Magazine, and when they absorved Linux Voice they replaced it with a generic coding section. Nowadays they touch a lot of Go. Last Perl content I remember was an article about writing IRC bots in Perl published about a year ago.

Python is increasingly a favorite of AI researchers, so I hear. It's quite strange to see redIBMhat and apple pushing it out to pasture. 

Blue Hat is trying to destroy itself as quickly as possible, from what I can tell.  Apple seems like they want developers to use an Apple Language ... maybe to discourage cross-platform development?  Objective-C was an easy move because it was the native language of NeXTstep.  Swift is ... not so swift.

Anyway, we can (and will) debate the merits of various languages all day long ... what I was pointing out is that, in my observation, Perl's decline is continuing and accelerating.  There are those who love it, and it's a fine enough language, I just never took a liking to it.

Throughout the ages, I have remained faithful to C, which turns out to have been a good move.  It never goes out of style because it's never been *in* style ... it just stands the test of time as others come and go.  Kind of like Lisp, except you can actually do something useful with C.  :)

Since BlueHat is now IBM, i think they are being led to destruction of them being a business unit as part of the assimilation.   

Ya, modern Apple loves lock-in. in all levels of their stack.   Moving to their own chips just increases that even more.   So much has changed since when Woz was around.

Standing the test of time, but never been in style dont forget about FORTH..    ( tho commonly used by many for decades not even knowing it..  'openboot' . sort of like minix being everywhere, but no one noticed  for a long time ) 

Mon Mar 15 2021 09:22:36 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar

Python is increasingly a favorite of AI researchers, so I hear. It's quite strange to see redIBMhat and apple pushing it out to pasture. 

Blue Hat is trying to destroy itself as quickly as possible, from what I can tell.  Apple seems like they want developers to use an Apple Language ... maybe to discourage cross-platform development?  Objective-C was an easy move because it was the native language of NeXTstep.  Swift is ... not so swift.

Anyway, we can (and will) debate the merits of various languages all day long ... what I was pointing out is that, in my observation, Perl's decline is continuing and accelerating.  There are those who love it, and it's a fine enough language, I just never took a liking to it.

Throughout the ages, I have remained faithful to C, which turns out to have been a good move.  It never goes out of style because it's never been *in* style ... it just stands the test of time as others come and go.  Kind of like Lisp, except you can actually do something useful with C.  :)

I might have mentioned this before.  Right after the acquisition we met with our Red Hat reps and they told us that they expected Red Hat to change the IBM culture, not the other way around.

We managed to be restrained enough not to laugh them out of the room.  But I'll bet it's already clear to them that it isn't going to go that way.

Lol

Tue Mar 16 2021 14:56:00 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar

I might have mentioned this before.  Right after the acquisition we met with our Red Hat reps and they told us that they expected Red Hat to change the IBM culture, not the other way around.

We managed to be restrained enough not to laugh them out of the room.  But I'll bet it's already clear to them that it isn't going to go that way.

This doesn't seem uncommon in the FOSS community - a certain degree of naïve optimism. 

Tue Mar 16 2021 14:56:00 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar

I might have mentioned this before.  Right after the acquisition we met with our Red Hat reps and they told us that they expected Red Hat to change the IBM culture, not the other way around.

We managed to be restrained enough not to laugh them out of the room.  But I'll bet it's already clear to them that it isn't going to go that way.

They sell other products than their core OS. and if you are using them, you are sort of stuck in their ecosystem as you would then have to re-engineer your infrastructure/product/whatever.  Not 100% sure if all the products have a OSS 'version' to use and not need a license, but even if so, if you want support ( which most enterprise people need ) you are still paying them.

Besides, remember that in the 'real world' the cost of doing business is just passed down to the end customer. Sure there is a limit where you cant compete anymore and have no choice, but there is a lot of wiggle room before you toss up your hands and spend the money to move on.  Moving is not free either. Aside from hard costs, there is risk too.

Thu Mar 18 2021 16:00:17 EDT from LoanShark

redhat is less and less relevant by the day.

Why would anyone run their distribution, or even a derived one, now that CentOS is a dev-branch-only, evergreen type of product, and RHEL is pricing itself out of the market when there are tons of enterprise-ready, cloud-native competitors?

Ubuntu is quite an acceptable base. So is Amazon Linux 2, which is, ahem, an rpm-based distribution that will look quite familiar to RH users.

Oh, and if you have a commercial app that is only certified for RH.  They often wont support you when you run into issues.

Fri Mar 19 2021 09:04:00 EDT from Nurb432

They sell other products than their core OS. and if you are using them, you are sort of stuck in their ecosystem as you would then have to re-engineer your infrastructure/product/whatever.  Not 100% sure if all the products have a OSS 'version' to use and not need a license, but even if so, if you want support ( which most enterprise people need ) you are still paying them.

Besides, remember that in the 'real world' the cost of doing business is just passed down to the end customer. Sure there is a limit where you cant compete anymore and have no choice, but there is a lot of wiggle room before you toss up your hands and spend the money to move on.  Moving is not free either. Aside from hard costs, there is risk too.

 

Thu Mar 18 2021 16:00:17 EDT from LoanShark

redhat is less and less relevant by the day.

Why would anyone run their distribution, or even a derived one, now that CentOS is a dev-branch-only, evergreen type of product, and RHEL is pricing itself out of the market when there are tons of enterprise-ready, cloud-native competitors?

Ubuntu is quite an acceptable base. So is Amazon Linux 2, which is, ahem, an rpm-based distribution that will look quite familiar to RH users.