Can't we REALLY expect Linux to

Yeah, sure. Good point, user.

Attached: 080.png (3840x1080, 5.13M)

As fun as it is to frame a potentially interesting technical discussion as a series of unproductive complaints, insults, and holy war rhetoric, I'm actually interested to know if such a feature could be implemented, and if not, what prevents that from being possible.

I'm not too familiar with the inner workings of D-Bus, but that would be my first guess for where to look. Surely D-Bus must know when one of the processes connected to it terminates. Does D-Bus have access to the standard output of connected processes?

...

The way GUIs for linux are made, it's clear that nobody put any serious thought into them. This follows because linux is primarily for servers, so desktop linux will always take a back seat. Still, the number of different distributions for workstation linux would make you think it was mature, when in facts it's a hacked together PoS.

The way this would be solved on any other OS is quite simple: each application developer would be interested in making his program pass a bare minimum level of usability, so he would implement the dialogue himself using a standard interface meant for the purpose. You could create yet another hack that would sort of work half the time. But it would leave you even more confused the 10% of the time the hack didn't work.

I'm damn lucky I like server software, so I can manage fine with linux. But I feel very sorry for all the people who do graphical work, and have to suffer through their choice of hell.

linux errors are better than modern windows errors. linux gives useful information windows just some stupid something happened tier message that wont help at all.

So what? You are stooping pretty low if you have to compare yourself to Windows to say you have better error messages.

This is not a problem with Linux but a problem with specific projects that don't provide a graphical dialog box for errors.
You should probably stop using that program and instead look for a more graphical alternative.

This deflection of responsibility and criticism is so common I can't tell if you truly believe this or if you're merely pretending to.

So, the system doesn't provide decent abstractions for much of anything, but that's everything else's fault? The Linux kernel doesn't even implement something such as fsync() in a way that database programmers expect, leading to issues. When every program needs to have loops to use system calls correctly, specialized code to sanitize filenames correctly, or its own abstractions just to report errors graphically, what's the point of the underlying "operating system"?

?

yeah this is like programming a game engine all over again

Attached: Terry Davis Command Line-pvjSNoGL1-g.webm (640x360, 1.25M)

Please tell me where you get those wallpapers.

Attached: 1a098bbe69da49109016f1c3e9e4066ad2096843f683422af486a202626bf5f8.png (1240x1686, 411.08K)

This must be why the top Starcraft players use the mouse for everything instead of using hotkeys, or why people who are quick on photoshop click around instead of use hotkeys. A stopwatch would definitely prove that pressing right click, then pressing copy is faster than using ctrl+c.

Attached: twi.jpg (171x250, 7.74K)

Maybe I am too much of an autist but I hope this is sarcasm.

yeah let's blame the users for shit design
by the way I've seen more command line this month than you've in your whole life

There's no point in talking to keyboard zealots user. They are genuinely disabled.

NO!
there's enough niggers and women using computers already

the point is the same you can put more information in the command line unless you want a window with a book worth of error text.

it's not that hard, but I refuse

void SHOW_ERROR_FOR_NIGGER( char* NIGGER_TEXT ){ GtkWidget *nigger_dialog=gtk_message_dialog_new( GTK_WINDOW(parent_window), flags, GTK_MESSAGE_ERROR, GTK_BUTTONS_CLOSE, "%s", NIGGER_TEXT ); gtk_dialog_run(GTK_DIALOG(nigger_dialog)); gtk_widget_destroy(nigger_dialog);}SHOW_ERROR_FOR_NIGGER ( "YOU WILL NEVER BE WHITE" );

...

At least a missing library error could be enforced system-wide.

It took a decade of complaints for gnome to implement a graphical kill dialogue so users didn't have to open a virtual terminal and use ps -ax when a graphical application hangs.
The logic then follows, what would a retard who can't use a terminal want that output for anyway?
The concept of a 'desktop environment' where everything exists as a GUI purely exists for niggers, retards and women who have zero interest in fixing things and just want to call in the "nerd" (white man.)

...

Debug is literally down to implementation

This is the job of the package manager, which is a part of distributions, not the kernel.

...

lets get here fagots

discord.gg/QQpNCUp

Yes, it sucks
debian.org/women/

you're a nigger

Attached: whatmakescomputerwentwrong.webm (1280x720, 1.39M)

Not necessarily. Just normie users.

But at least it's not Linux's fault, dog bless.

Opinion dropped

I expected a retarded response but I didn't expect it to be that retarded.

kill yourself
you are the problem

...

I have an idea!
Let's merge GTK into SystemD and then merge SystemD into the kernel!
Year of the linux desktop inevitable!

The operating system should, retard. That "Linux" is a kernel together with a bunch of ducttaped components lacking any design whatsoever is the problem, not an excuse. In that sense alone, systemd actually has the right idea, but of course it's done by Rathead and Poettering, so it's an abomination.
Maybe stop building shit out of cardboard then.

I'd just like to interject for moment. What you're refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

Consider understanding what you read, rather than just matching patterns blindly.

...

...

Who are you quoting?

consider the ramifactions of your suggestions instead of just spewing complaints blindly

the logical conclusion to your worthless blabbering is that linux should include the entire GNU operating system under one umbrella

I see no rational objections have been raised, just freetard sperging...

Oh no, the operating system would have an actual design instead of providing ten million crevices for vermin and ten million easily accessible opportunities to fix some minor fault. What will Zig Forums circlejerk about now?

But not in the KERNEL you illiterate mongoloid.

fortunately it can't, because the majority of GNU is now under the GPLv3, and linux cannot include it unless it switches to the GPLv3, which would displease linus's cianigger and jew overlords.

...

...

Admittedly I'm not too deep into license bullshit, but I doubt that. Wouldn't BSD (not ideal but much closer to a designed system than Linux is) have run into the same problem with GCC? They seem to be doing fine.

The fact that all of these components are separate is a core principal. A thing should do one thing and do it well, else it will become a bloated monstrosity and do nothing well, and then you get windows 10, where disgruntled microsoft employees say the source code is such a garbage fire nobody knows what's going on anymore.

GCC is under a separate license specific to GCC
gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc /manual/license.html

luckily GNU has a convenient table to answer these questions
gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility

The kernel is GPLv2, not LGPL
It can be mixed with only with GPLv2 and LGPLv2, not GPLv3 or LGPLv3.

consequently the other way around, if GNU wanted to include the kernel in a wider umbrella project, instead of the kernel including GNU

A derivitive work licensed under the GPLv3 cannot include works licensed under the GPLv2 "ONLY" ( this is a thing ).

The kernel is NOT GPLv2 or later, it's GPLv2 ONLY.
kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/license-rules.html

which means it cannot be included in any GPLv3 derivative work.

They can be separate entities and still follow the same design. As a very small example that already shows how deep the mismatches run, look at how every goddamn program STILL handles command line arguments differently, even the common ones for stuff like version display and help messages. A more useful example would be a set of common data formats that ALL programs of the OS can understand and exchange, though that might already get first conflicts with the Unix nature of it all because muh files.

Ah right, I forgot about that. It still seems kinda strange though; how can Linux distros exist if userland and kernel cannot be combined? Clearly there is some way though to be honest I'm not keen on GNU and Linux consolidating nowadays, the damage is done already.

there's no restrictions on them being distributed together, distribution is different from a program actually "using" a library, which is why these distros can combine all this shit together.

it's an interesting point though, is an install script "using" a library? how can an install script install and configure both GPLv2 "only" code and GPLv3 code?
It's obviously not because all distributions do exactly this. Probably because the script isn't actually using any of the software directly, it's only installing it, it never actually runs it, the user does.

that's what the glib bloat is trying to do at the code level.

i don't know what your talking about every program I run has the same format of positional and optional command line arguments

./program positional_1 positional_2 --optional_1 --optional_2 --optional_3 optional_3_value --optional_4

...

What does -v do for all of these? Print the version? Verbose mode? Nothing? Something completely different?
How do you print the help message? --help? -h? -help? What happens when you use the wrong one?
How many of your programs support --? Can they deal with files that start with dashes?
And these are just two extremely common cases.
I know memorization makes you feel smart, it's what's so appealing about systems like these. But what you are memorizing is how to work with other people's design mistakes, not anything sensible.

they do whatever the fuck the developer wanted them to do?
what are you some kind of argument fascist?

they are all standardized

html version
port70.net/~nsz/c/c89/c89-draft.html

GNU libc
gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Program-Arguments.html

(You)

the internet

Absolute brainlet

If the fact that Linux is merely a kernel and not a comprehensive system really bothers you that much then just use one of the BSDs (this is one of their own arguments for why you should use their OS). You have all the same software, just look at FreshPorts or pkgsrc.

If having to decide whether to use -h or --help (vast majority programs allow you to use both btw) is your biggest problem, then you should use an operating system that comes configured with a nice Fisher Price user interface so it's easier for that peanut you call a brain to handle. -h and --help exist so you know whether or not -v is for version or verbose; additionally, there are these things call man pages that would give you that answer immediately without any trial and error.

Very helpful. Thank you for your contribution.

Did you just have to vent at someone or why are you telling me things I brought up myself?

How many times have you seen a normalfag using a computer hover their mouse pointer around a button and then move it very slowly onto that button before clicking it?

Maybe macOS is more your speed, if you care so much about muh unified user experience.

I swear to god analphabetism runs rampant on Zig Forums.

Forget normalfags I've seen keyboard memers who don't know about search in graphical file explorers.

You know what I mean.

I legitimately don't.

If you're looking for an environment where a central committee decides that there should be one accepted way for the operating system to function with a level of control to the point that they dictate a GUI system and all software developers for that environment must comply to that design, you have two choices:

It could be an option you turn on or off. Stop the excuses.

There is an option, make it yourself. If you can't I'm sure one of the thousands of distros out there have implemented exactly what you want.

That is pathetic. This is not even a Linux or UNIX issue, it's a matter of designing according to different models of liberty. OS intervention in some issues diminishes programs potential flexibility, and many people when designing their program will prefer to have to work an extra mile to implement some things, should their program need it, than be limited so that something that is not relevant for them can be applied universally. Other people won't, and that is why we have different OSes out there, and some of them are open source so you can adjust them to your needs if you want.
Your point is simply like saying, why should a citizen be able to do X and Y, of the government can do it for them?
And, well, we have a bunch of people who freak out if the government intervenes too strongly on their lives, while others think a lax, liberal society is flawed, undisciplined and decadent. That is why we have different ideologies and different countries on earth where you can move to so they will fit your necessities better.
So the point is quite simply, if you want to work amd get stuff done, you have many tools around you, choose what works best for you. If you prefer to just spend eternity in a loop of trying to prove your preferences are objectively better than everyone else's because it helps you kill time, or feeds your vanity, then, sure, you can do that as well.

...

That is not an UNIX issue, as I stated. Those are simply design choices, and there is no objective beter or worse, sonce good arguments can be made for both choices, freedom or top-down control are both valuable, depensing on use-case. Just make your choice and stop winning.

Judging from the responses in this thread Linux fanboys actually do seem to like their OS being a mess.

Cry moar winfag. How about you run you try and run your software from the terminal and monitor errors that way?

OP here. I do use Linux and haven't Windows for 12 years except on other people's computers. Doesn't mean I can't notice the flaws because I'm not a damn fanboy / freetard. Sure I can run everything from the terminal - doesn't mean that it's optimal!

You probably don't want to dump standard error (not standard output like every unix illiterate keeps saying) to dialog boxes - they are verbose debugging messages, and would essentially be graphical spam if you had to okay each one.

You probably want a concise single description of why the software failed - the vast majority of the time, that falls on the developer of the software to do and there are different ways to do it. Textmode software shouldn't be linked with GUI libraries and should give textmode errors. GUI software could give dialog boxes , and sometimes does, or could write some kind of log. Right now, many applications, across EVERY SINGLE PLATFORM, don't have good error handling. A huge portion of my job in IT is figuring out why windows apps crash without leaving any kind of user visible error. Unfortunately, Windows Applications generally don't have verbose standard error like linux apps, and there error messages are far more cryptic - often only undocumented numbers for most proprietary software.

When it isn't the applications fault, (IE. wrong binary format, missing libraries , ...) you could have graphical launcher your using provide error messages.

If these are features you want, you can implement them, or request them. Go file bug reports or review and add the code yourself.

Error handling sucks everywhere unfortunately, but I use linux for the freedom, not error handling superiority - which I'd still say it has anyway.

Yeah, dumping the whole terminal inside a dialog box obviously isn't smart. But SOMETHING has to be fucking done.

Final solution to Downdowsers and NPClosers who literally believe the quality of GUI programs is any better than laughably bad.

If you think there is a problem, write an application monitor for your launcher - for bash its as simple as returning keeping the exit code of the program in the prompt. For a graphical environment you could write a complex loader that uses waitpid(), and monitors stderror, and dmesg. Or, use software that doesn't suck. If the error handling on your program is unacceptable fix it , or file a bug report with the project. Unlike quickbooks, you have a voice in the development of open source software.

From my perspective, it hasn't been worth it. I am normally not intrested in debug output of my graphical programs, and if I am, I will run in terminal. 99.9.. % of the time they just work. The one time they don't I will open terminal and observe the problem. If its worth it to you , things can be done.

As a heads up , some linux distributions like Fedora do have mechanisms to detect and report segfaults graphically (were an application would be unable to do its own error handling) - I emphatically do not want this "SEND | DONT SEND" functionality on my computer.

top fedora

this.
OP is a lazy and a faggot at that.

but aren't most *BSD people fans of LLVM/Clang because of the license?

Also, let me mention that terminal output often isn't very useful. In fact sometimes it can misdirect you. So dialog boxes with actual information would be great.

If I tried to do that for all the software I use I'd have no time to take a shit. Devs should take care of their own turf.

They still used (or still use?) GCC for a long time.

Well fuck the world i guess man. Your not willing to file a bug report or fix yourself, your not willing to use better software. Everyone sucks as a dev, but your better, you just don't want to do anything about it. You'd rather complain about it on 8ch. Got it.

Hey, it's a discussion thread. I do file bug reports sometimes but I'm not the world police. And I don't dev so I get that it's hard work. But they can be criticized! Especially if Linux aspires to be a Windows replacement.

OP, Linux will never be good because it's based on the Unix philosophy, a retarded way to think of modern end-user computing.

Focus your energy on Haiku, ReactOS or any other alternative OS. At least those have the potential of becoming good some day.

Set up a terminal in the corner of your screen and pipe STDERR there. Problem solved, faggot.