Reasons to be miserable give my brain a pain

[venta]

A secon technical appeal. Apologies to those who don't give a toss about these things.

(I've tried a very brief google on this, but to no avail. I'm just asking in case anyone knows off-hand, otherwise I'll go back to ransacking the dustier corners of the web.)

Yetersday, I tried to open a non-existent file in emacs. This isn't usually a problem, it creates the file, and away you go (so long as the directory it's in exists).

However, I got an error message telling me that the directory ("My Documents") was read-only. Strange, I thought. My Documents, Properties, well so it was. Uncheck the box, apply, save, try again.

Nope, still read-only. My Documents, Properties, yup, it's read-only again.

How can I ask Windows XP to actually believe me that yes, I'd really like to create documents in that folder from time to time ? (I can create documents by clicking in the directory, and saying New -> Text document.) I'm fairly sure Windows XP let me create documents by opening them in emacs pre-Service Pack 2. Win 2K doesn't seem to have a problem with me doing it, either.

Comments

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

2K is just as horrible and controllish, unfortunately. (I use Win98, Win2K and WinXP most days and can confirm all three are bad, evil and wrong !)

Anyway, if you think XP was bad when it came out, SP-2 takes me to new heights of pain. For example, yesterday it popped up a security warning when I tried to browse my homepage (a file on my local drive which I wrote myself in plain HTML 4.0 !). It warns me about the presence of an "ActiveX plug-in or script". I click on the little bar to tell me more and it gives me the following options:

* Preach at me about security.
* Let the 'bad' content run itself.
* Continue viewing the page with the 'bad' content blocked and the irritating warning bar.

Both of the options I wanted were nowhere to be seen:

* Tell me what the alleged 'bad' thing is, preferably by highlighting the page source, but any diagnostic info would be a start.
* Let me leave the 'bad' content blocked but reclaim the screen real estate sucked up by the warning bar.

</rant>

[wimble.livejournal.com]

To help protect your computer, Windows Firewall has blocked some features of this program.

Your computer administrator can unblock this program for you.

Name: blah, blah, blah.
Publisher: blah, blah, blah

So, which features? I presume they're network sockets, but it doesn't actually say that. And which network sockets? Oooh, couldn't tell you that, sir. Well, can I open some of them and not others? Ooh, more than my jobsworth, sir!


venta: you didn't need this thread did you?

[venta.livejournal.com]

you didn't need this thread did you?

Don't mind, so long as you play nicely.

And, since I rarely do anything advanced with Windows, I was genuinely curious as to whether there was really much difference between XP and 2K.

I'm just happy because XP has finally got round to doing tab completion in the DOS box Command Prompt, without the need for a registry hack.

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

Command Prompt: that thing I used to have to use before I installed Cygwin. Mmm, shelly goodness.

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

Last time I used CygWin it was an utter bunch of @rse. Have they sorted it out now ?

[wimble.livejournal.com]

The install system is still "wha?" (especially if you come back to it, to install something extra, after you've forgotten how you did the original install).

But if you want to run your well know shell command tools on your Windows box, or have a free X server, it certainly does the job.

I may not have tried whatever you were trying though. So I may not have tested your @arse.

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

Depends what kind of arse.

As a command line, the main thing wrong with it is that the shell doesn't recognise "c:" as the root of the c drive (presumably because they'd have had to shoehorn a bunch of extra code on top of the Red Hat distros they use). So if you want tab completion, you have to use /cygdrive/c/, by which time you often almost might as well have typed the whole thing.

The default terminal doesn't have sensible clipboard controls, which sucks quite a lot, but presumably you can get graphical terminal windows that behave better. I know that you're exceedingly sensitive to this kind of thing, though, so to that extent it is still arse unless you can find a better terminal.

I've also not tried installing anything from source, so I don't know how that goes. GNU provide Windows binaries for most of their command line tools, so there's generally no need in my experience.

network sockets

[ewx.livejournal.com]

Ports, rather...

Re: network sockets

[wimble.livejournal.com]

true. Too much watching netstat on my linux boxes ;-)