Will Theo de Raadt and other OpenBSD developer answer this topic (https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc=157234932505571=2)?
Will Theo de Raadt and other OpenBSD developer answer this topic ( https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc=157234932505571=2)?
Will future programmers probably warn people not to use high-level programming languages just as most programmers today warn people not to use assembler?
Hi! Just as most programmers today warn people not to use assembler, probably future programmers will warn people not to use high-level programming languages. It is written in book Java How to Program ninth edition that instead of using the strings of numbers that computers could directly understand, programmers began using English-like abbreviations to represent elementary operations: 1.5 Machine Languages, Assembly Languages and High-Level Languages Programmers write instructions in various programming languages, some directly understandable by computers and others requiring intermediate translation steps. Hundreds of such languages are in use today. These may be divided into three general types: Machine languages Assembly languages High-level languages Any computer can directly understand only its own machine language, defined by its hardware design. Machine languages generally consist of strings of numbers (ultimately reduced to 1s and 0s) that instruct computers to perform their most elementary operations one at a time. Machine languages are machine dependent (a particular machine language can be used on only one type of computer). Such languages are cumbersome for humans. For example, here’s a section of an early machine-language program that adds overtime pay to base pay and stores the result in gross pay: +1300042774 +1400593419 +1200274027 Programming in machine language was simply too slow and tedious for most programmers. Instead of using the strings of numbers that computers could directly understand, programmers began using English-like abbreviations to represent elementary operations. These abbreviations formed the basis of assembly languages. Translator programs called assemblers were developed to convert early assembly-language programs to machine language at computer speeds. The following section of an assembly-language program also adds overtime pay to base pay and stores the result in gross pay: load basepay add overpay store grosspay Although such code is clearer to humans, it’s incomprehensible to computers until translated to machine language. Computer usage increased rapidly with the advent of assembly languages, but programmers still had to use many instructions to accomplish even the simplest tasks. To speed the programming process, high-level languages were developed in which single statements could be written to accomplish substantial tasks. Translator programs called compilers convert high-level language programs into machine language. High-level languages allow you to write instructions that look almost like everyday English and contain commonly used mathematical notations. A payroll program written in a high-level language might contain a single statement such as grossPay = basePay + overTimePay Will future programmers probably warn people not to use high-level programming languages just as most programmers today warn people not to use assembler?
Do OpenBSD developers approve Isotop?
Do OpenBSD developers approve Isotop? If not, why OpenBSD developers don't approve Isotop? Reference Isotop: https://3hg.fr/Isos/isotop/
Re: When will be created a great desktop experience for OpenBSD?
I received the following private messages about a user-friendly and easy-to-use variant of OpenBSD: Clark, great e-mail! As you have noticed, the OpenBSD devs and even advocates tend to be quite hostile towards ideas and viewpoints that don't fit their world. I have had similar thoughts and related plans for a long, long time. Would you be interested in co-operation? I think we need to fork... Yours sincerely, ** Clark, I've been trying talking sense to the devs and the advocates on the list so many times, I really don't feel it's worth the effort. The only effect it's ever had is that it just creates more bashing. =D OpenBSD is superb in so many ways, and I've been sick and tired of the fact that the attitude of the devs is killing 99% of the potential the OS has. The guys on the list (and I assume most of all Theo himself) just don't want to care about things like user experience. It's a crazy situation and I've been thinking about forking *so* many times -- but then again, that would mean having to support a whole new fork, following upstream development and maintaining compatibility. To be honest, I really don't know what to do about it. If I was a millionaire... ;) Yours, *** What is OpenBSD developers's opinion about the private messages that I quoted above?
Re: When will be created a great desktop experience for OpenBSD?
Was developed the Isotop: https://www.reddit.com/r/BSD/comments/8of042/isotop_french_desktoporiented_openbsd_distro/ https://3hg.fr/Isos/isotop/ The Isotop is really a user-friendly and easy-to-use variant of OpenBSD or is foolish?
Re: When will be created a great desktop experience for OpenBSD?
Great desktop experience for OpenBSD is a user-friendly and easy-to-use variant of OpenBSD!
When will be created a great desktop experience for OpenBSD?
In 2019 still there is not a great desktop experience for NetBSD. However, the new "OS108" is seeking to improve this with a NetBSD operating system paired with the MATE desktop environment. So, OS108, a derivative of NetBSD, has just been released: https://os108.org/?ez_cid=CLIENT_ID(AMP_ECID_EZOIC) When will be created a great desktop experience for OpenBSD?
