2023-12-21 07:41:34 <KipIngram   > My objections to Windows aren't rimarily technical (though I do have some technical objections and I hate the resgistry with a passion).  I am just fundamentally anti-Microsoft.
2023-12-21 07:42:47 <KipIngram   > "primarily"
2023-12-21 07:43:57 <KipIngram   > I just don't want to contribute to a domination I regard as unhealthy for the world and a compnay I regard as unethical.
2023-12-21 07:45:13 <KipIngram   > Besides, why on Earth would I pay for an operating system when I can get Linux for free?
2023-12-21 07:45:33 <KipIngram   > Why do profit-oriented companies do that?
2023-12-21 07:46:27 <KipIngram   > At the same time that they'll do practically anything to grub a $0.01 cost reductin into their product?
2023-12-21 07:49:20 <user51      > I'm not versed in business at all, but is it the company or the people managing it?  With a large enough sample the $0.01 saving might turn into millions, and then someone says that they worked at some company and saved millions of dollars.
2023-12-21 07:52:57 <KipIngram   > I have no objection to trying to lower cost - I just think it gets pushed to the point of lowering quality, and that I object to.
2023-12-21 07:53:47 <KipIngram   > The keyboard tech of HP calculators back in the late 1980s-early 1990s is an example.
2023-12-21 07:54:00 <KipIngram   > And so is the evolution of the Palm Pilot line or organizers.
2023-12-21 07:55:42 <KipIngram   > But my real comment wasn't about that - it was about the irrationality of having that attitude toward your company's product but then holding with an operating system that isn't free when perfectly fine free alternatives are available.
2023-12-21 07:57:42 <KipIngram   > IBM even OWNS Red Hat, but still uses Windows on a massive scale.
2023-12-21 07:57:52 <KipIngram   > It just makes no sense to me.
2023-12-21 07:58:09 <user51      > Sunk costs, perhaps?
2023-12-21 07:58:33 <KipIngram   > Well, I don't think it would be feasible to just say "On day X we stop using Windows."
2023-12-21 07:58:54 <KipIngram   > But they could launch a ten-year transition plan toward the elimination of Windows in favor of Red Hat.
2023-12-21 07:59:26 <KipIngram   > Ten years from now they won't be letting us use current versions of Windows anyway - they'll long since have been declared "security risks."
2023-12-21 08:06:27 <KipIngram   > Over the years Microsoft has been found guilty of unethical business practices plenty of times.  But all that ever happens to them is some fine that seems large to me as an individual but is nothing more than a slap on the wrist for a company like Microsoft.  Why should they change their behavior when they profit more from the wrong practices than they ever have to pay in fines?
2023-12-21 08:06:34 <KipIngram   > The fines just become a cost of doing business.
2023-12-21 08:07:18 <KipIngram   > I think penalties should be much worse - enough to make the risk of being caught too severe to even consider.
2023-12-21 08:07:38 <KipIngram   > Companyies should be shut down when they behave badly.  CEOs should go to jail for significant periods.
2023-12-21 08:07:52 <KipIngram   > and not country club jails.
2023-12-21 08:08:30 <KipIngram   > The legal system just doesn't operate in a way that is designed to effectively STOP malicious practices.
2023-12-21 08:11:52 <KipIngram   > So my opinion is that Microsoft should long since been dissolved for their behavior.
2023-12-21 08:13:15 <KipIngram   > "have" been
2023-12-21 13:28:41 <user51      > Lately I've been using &name to indicate a word that takes a variable and loads it, then executes "name".  So for example, &+, &max, &execute and the rather silly &@.  Has anyone thought of something similar?
2023-12-21 13:34:17 <zelgomer    > so if i understand correct...  variable x  2 x !  3 x &+  ( 5 is on the stack? )
2023-12-21 13:54:53 <user51      > zelgomer: Exactly!
2023-12-21 13:59:58 <user51      > http://0x0.st/HgSa.forth
2023-12-21 14:00:20 <user51      > zelgomer: I was wrong :|
2023-12-21 14:16:11 <KipIngram   > user51: "takes a variable" - is that by name following the word or by address alread on the stack?
2023-12-21 14:16:38 <zelgomer    > user51: i see, you defined &+ to take two variables, not a value and a variable
2023-12-21 14:16:57 <KipIngram   > If it's the latter I'd be more likely to call it @name since it's more or less equivalent to @ name (if I interpret you right).
2023-12-21 14:17:01 <zelgomer    > user51: why not @+ or @negate, though?
2023-12-21 14:17:07 <zelgomer    > yeah
2023-12-21 14:17:13 <KipIngram   > ^ yes - me too.
2023-12-21 14:17:51 <user51      > Just what came up first.
2023-12-21 14:17:57 <KipIngram   > & is actually the opposite of @.  @ takes an address (a variable) and fetches its content; & takes what would normally give you the content and gives you its address instead.
2023-12-21 14:19:08 <zelgomer    > if we're talking about c &, yes - @ is more like the dereference * or ->
2023-12-21 14:19:09 <KipIngram   > And in Forth there's no way to do that second one starting with something on the stack.  You might have a VALUE word foo, though, and have & foo give you its address.
2023-12-21 14:19:50 <KipIngram   > But you'd have to jump some hoops to make that work interpreted or compiled.
2023-12-21 14:23:19 <user51      > Maybe the @ prefix will be more natural with time.  I used & to imply that the arguments should be variables.
2023-12-21 14:48:42 <KipIngram   > Sure - I think if you're coming from C then it would be an easy thing to think.  It would really be only after you get nice and at home with Forth that @ and ! will start to take on their "normal meanings" for you.
2023-12-21 14:53:23 <crc         > I use @ and ! sigils much of the time when using variables. e.g., your example could be written as this in my forth: http://forth.works/share/4tGMdRuan2.txt
2023-12-21 15:00:29 <user51      > crc: The tick prefix returns a string?
2023-12-21 15:13:59 <crc         > user51: yes, with any _ characters replaced by spaces