Linux-Advocacy Digest #945, Volume #30 Sun, 17 Dec 00 16:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: "Is the end looming for the Microsoft monopoly?" (Mig)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Gary Hallock)
Re: i LOVE this- the auther is a genius ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: i LOVE this- the auther is a genius ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Conclusion (sfcybear)
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: i LOVE this- the auther is a genius (Peter Hayes)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why use malloc? (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Is the end looming for the Microsoft monopoly?"
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 21:38:22 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/15526.html
>
> One can but hope.
Build your own opinions Pete. Journalists are mostly full of crap no matter
what side they take.
--
Cheers
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 15:40:36 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
"B. P. Uecker" wrote:
> Ha ha ha! Good one! Ever tried to support Linux on the desktop? I
> thought not.
>
I have on both desktops and laptops. I would never even consider taken on
the hassle of supporting Windows on the desktop. I value my time.
> Typical extremist statement from a religious zealot. Go ahead and
> deploy Linux on the desktop...the company you work for may not go
> belly up, but you will soon be scanning the want ads.
>
I have and so far the company I would for is doing ok and I still have a
job.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: i LOVE this- the auther is a genius
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:43:08 GMT
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > based on my typing skills for the subject im not the 'auther' of the
> > > article, lol
> > >
> > > glitch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.msnbc.com/news/503816.asp
> >
> > <sigh> Gates doesn't have a conscience, huh?
> >
> > Never mind the billions he's given away in the name
> > fo world heath standards and lessening the suffering
> > of millions around the world.
> >
> > Let's also not mention that he has contributed hundreds
> > of millions to local childrens and children-benefit organizations
> > around the country to support inner-city and underprivileged children.
> >
> > These authors are a bunch of windbags who are nothing more
> > than jealous.
>
> It is very easy to be charitable with ill gotten gains.
>
> Think about all the companies he has ruined with dirty tricks. Think
> about the workers and investors that have lost billions because of his
> anti-competitive behavior. Think about all the lost productivity from
> his crappy software.
Name one incident where the respondent didn't leave the table rich.
>
> The amount of money he has "given" to charity is inconsequential in
> comparison to what he takes by means of illegal monopolistic practices.
> The foundation is nothing more than a P.R. thing to make the robber
> baron feel better about his image.
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: i LOVE this- the auther is a genius
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:44:43 GMT
"Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:91j8c4$c51$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > <sigh> Gates doesn't have a conscience, huh?
> >
> > Never mind the billions he's given away in the name
> > fo world heath standards and lessening the suffering
> > of millions around the world.
>
> One's gotta love your logic... wouldnt it be much better that he had paid
> those dollars in taxes so that they could be used where needed ?
>
> > Let's also not mention that he has contributed hundreds
> > of millions to local childrens and children-benefit organizations
> > around the country to support inner-city and underprivileged children.
>
> Same logic as above.. you think its better that people beg for money and
> that the rich give them pocket money when they fill like it. Youre
> disgusting.
>
Actually Chad was mistaken on the amount by an order of magnitude. In 1999
alone Mr Gates donated over $20 Billion (with a B) to various education
charities, that ain't exactly pocket changes.
> > These authors are a bunch of windbags who are nothing more
> > than jealous.
>
> Probably
>
> > -Chad
>
> --
> Cheers from Mig
> Paying 50%+ tax and happy with it
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:46:28 GMT
"Pan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>
> > So all the work Star Division did was just thrown in the trash?
>
> Who said anything is being thrown away? See Star Portal for details.
>
> > There isn't any progress or there would be a new certified release.
>
> No, if there weren't any new progress, they would quit doing new
> builds. They have now done 3 builds. 605, 609, and 613. Your argument
> is tantamount to saying that there is no progress during the 9 months
> gestation period during pregnancy just because the child hasn't been
> born yet. It's a stupid argument. You should know better.
Wrong. There isn't a new release in two years, beta == vapour.
>
> > This is just like Mozilla being on the verge of beta release for more
than two
> > years now. To coin a phrase "Where's the beef?"
>
> For open office, it's a 6.13 alpha build. For the linux kernel, it is a
> 2.4x snapshot beta that has been released with some linux distris
> including mandrake. I'm not sure what build mozilla is on.
>
Alpha, Beta and pre Alpha all equal vapourware.
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:48:11 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ChK_5.8143$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:HLE_5.27584$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> > >
> > > > "
> > > >
> > > > Trends follow trends. Mozilla, Star Office, Kernel 2.4....... See
the
> > > > pattern.
> > >
> > > Nope, sorry, I see no trend, pattern, or connection. What in the
world
> > does
> > > Sun releasing the source code for Star Office have to do with the 2.4
> > kernel?
> > > You seem to be quite confused.
> > >
> >
> > Au contraire, Gary, it is you who is confused. No movement for two
years on
> > Mozilla, the same for the 2.4 Kernel, the same for released versions of
Star
> > Office.
>
> No! No! No! Chad, remember Linus himself said to expect 2.4 by the end of
the
> year, remember! It's coming, I know it is! He promised! Linus never lies!
>
> <grin>
BUT Chad, didn't he say the very same thing last year. I guess he's just
confused about when the millenium really begins.
<grin>
>
> What is it with large Open Source projects that just seem to stagnate? It
> seems the OSS model doesn't scale well.
>
People get bored with hobbies I guess.
> -Chad
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: 17 Dec 2000 20:48:31 GMT
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 10:13:52 -0800, spam wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 16:56:51 GMT, "Chad Myers"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A couple of Bush's budies in the Texas petrochemical industry set up a
>Virginia based lobby group called "Republican's For Clean Air" and
>started running ads against McCain for not voting for a certain bill
>(that wasn't support by the majority of republicans in congress).
Ah, yes. That sounds right. I think this would be the same ad that I
saw on TV. I remember that Bush was portrayed as having
the backing of some environmental group, to lend him credibility. How
surprising that the group in question was actually a front for the Bush
campaign!
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:41:11 GMT
In article <91j657$bib$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:91irk1$381$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > In theory, there should be no more than 497 days uptime reported
for
> those
> > > systems. Nonetheless it does not stop Netcraft to post numbers
> otherwise.
> >
> > Show me a HP-UX, Linux, or Solaris site on there that shows more
than 497
> > days uptime. There are some FreeBSD sites, but my guess is that
they are
> > the older releases. There is a Solaris box that shows 492 days
uptime,
> but
> > that's less than 497. Be honest, you just assumed that they posted
> uptimes
> > over 497 days, didn't you. You didn't really check.
>
> I can show you NT sites that has > 49.7 days cycle.
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?display=&site=www.starbucks.com
You might want to READ what you post! Starbucks is a W2K site AND the
Starbucks netcraft page has a VERY clear statement about NT:
"NT4 samples have not been plotted, see the FAQ for more information."
Right from the page you posted!
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:50:41 GMT
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>
> >
> > Au contraire, Gary, it is you who is confused. No movement for two
years on
> > Mozilla, the same for the 2.4 Kernel, the same for released versions of
Star
> > Office.
> >
> >
>
> No development in Star Office in two years???? Had you bothered reading
about
> the release of Star Office as Open Source, you would realize that Sun
made a
> conscious decision to NOT release the 5.x version, but go straight to the
6.x
> version that was currently in development. That was 2 months ago, not
two
> years.
>
Nearly two years ago I downloaded the same version that is STILL the only
version available at Sun. That is two years of inactivity in my book. BTW
that version sucks.
> http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-10-13-002-21-NW-DT-SW
>
> As for the 2.4 kernel, there has been lots of movement. The test12
version
> just became available a few days ago:
>
It was promised last year wasn't it?
> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/linux-2.4.0-test12.tar.bz2
>
> The 2.4 kernel hasn't even been in development for 2 years.
>
> And there has been a lot of movement in Mozilla as well. As usual, Chad,
you
> have no idea what you are talking about.
>
When is the scheduled release date?
Wait, to release you actually have to get through beta testing don't you,
doesn't that requires an alpha test release first. Well, when is Mozilla
the Vapourous going Alpha?
> Gary
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:52:41 GMT
"Pan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> >
> > Au contraire, Gary, it is you who is confused. No movement for two
years on
> > Mozilla,
>
> I guess that beta version that I recently installed on my computer with
> Komodo is an illusion?
>
What stage was that? Alpha? Beta? Release?
> > the same for the 2.4 Kernel,
>
> ...2.401 snapshot is installed on one of my pc's along with Mandrake 7.2
> and running just fine, thanks.
>
What stage was that? Alpha? Beta? Release?
Gee only a year after it was promised.
> > the same for released versions of Star
> > Office.
>
> Still refusing to admit you were wrong about that?
>
Still waiting to hear why all the marbles for OSS are a year or more behind
schedule. Can't run a business that way, maybe that's why RH is failing.
> I keep waiting for the factual level of your posts to go up Chad. Am I
> simply wainting in vain? Can your need to FUD linux be so strong that
> you would feel a need to continually and repeatedlay lie about the state
> of these projects, or are you just hopelessly out of touch with reality?
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:53:07 GMT
"Santa Warlord" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Swangoremovemee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > At the rate you are plonking you'll be talking to yourself pretty
> > soon, if you don't already that is.
> >
> > Swango
> >
>
> really. I mean, it be a hell of alot easier if he just stoppped reading
> alt.linux.sux altogether.....but then again, Linux losers always like to
> make things unnessesarily difficult on themselves....
>
ROTFL
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:18:41 -0500, "Dennis Popov" <dp004i@mail>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >How about 21 Rodeo Drive
> > >Beverly Hills, CA 90210
> > >
> > >and here's a big !!PL0NK!! you damn troll (Uhm... Hi Claire!)
> > >
> > >Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:gIDZ5.6074$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >>
> > >> "Matthew Soltysiak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Open source is dying. It is being hijacked by the Corporate big
> wigs.
> > >> Sun,
> > >> > > Corel, Redhat and IBM are doing everyone a favor by destroying
the
> > >> anarchy
> > >> > > that is open source software.
> > >> >
> > >> > Ok???? That's the first time i've heard of that. Open source
> that's
> > >> > anarchy. Hmm.
> > >> >
> > >> > > I just started a download of StarOffice 5.2.
> > >> > > (no new development since its appropriation by Sun over a year
ago)
> > >and
> > >> had
> > >> > > to submit a lengthy registration document and license agreement
> with
> > >> Sun.
> > >> > > Free software indeed. Now I have an additional, largely useless,
> > >office
> > >> > > application, but I'll be bombarded by advertising from Sun. I'd
> > >rather
> > >> pay
> > >> > > and not have these intrusions into my life.
> > >> >
> > >> > You don't have to provide your personal information to them. Just
> fill
> > >in
> > >> > their fields with garbage information. Geez.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Wrong Answer. It ran a check on the street address and zipcode.
> > >>
> > >> > --
> > >> > Matthew Soltysiak
> > >> > Comp Sci/Soft Eng
> > >> > ICQ: 3063118
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> > "It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:53:30 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Swangoremovemee
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:43:01 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:02:08 -0500, Gary Hallock
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>No, Linux does not run under OS/390. It can run on the bare metal, in
a
> >>logical partition (not under OS/390), or under VM/ESA. Logical
partitions
> >>are part of the S/390 hardware and have nothing to do with OS/390.
> >
> >
> >This is true. A major Financial house is replacing many RISC boxes
> >with a CMOS running Linux in various LPAR's (test, development etc).
> >
> >This is a good use for Linux, but IBM is in it to sell hardware and
> >they are gonna sell a LOT of it when this use of Linux catches on.
> >
> >Swango
> >"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
>
> So why hasn't anyone ported NT to the S/390? :-)
>
Not a big enough market.
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
> up 84 days, 4:02, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:56:10 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:cjK_5.8145$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:pNC_5.27283$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > >> A printer driver can crash a Windows box?
> > >
> > > > Actually No.
> > >
> > > And conclusive proof of that resides...where? Only in your vivid and
> > > deranged imagination? Thought so.
> > >
> >
> > Printer drivers run in user space therefore cannot crash a system, that
and
> > 7 years experience with the operating system an never getting a blue
screen
> > from the system caused by a printer driver.
>
> Printer drivers are, however, display devices of sorts and therefore make
> calls to the GDI and such and could possibly mangle an API or two and
wreak
> havoc.
>
Never seen that happen, at least since the only time I tried Apple print
services on 3.51.
> -Chad
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:57:07 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91fe4e$4mo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:GNE_5.27585$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 05:09:56 GMT,
> > > Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >> The default install doesn't protect anything Chad.
> > > >> And I appreciate you comming clean with everybody
> > > >> and clarifying that to us all.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >This is true and I've never said otherwise.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think people can read back a few posts and find
> > > the truth. You did say the default install was
> > > fool proof.
> > >
> >
> > Not I, I think it was Allende and I corrected him in the next post. I
> have
> > never claimed the default installs of any OS are worth a shit.
>
> That is Ayende.
Apologies on the spelling
> And I didn't said that the default install is fool proof, I said that a
user
> can't corrupt system directories on a default install.
>
>
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: i LOVE this- the auther is a genius
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 21:00:10 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:43:08 GMT, "Chad C. Mulligan"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > "glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > based on my typing skills for the subject im not the 'auther' of the
> > > > article, lol
> > > >
> > > > glitch wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.msnbc.com/news/503816.asp
> > >
> > > <sigh> Gates doesn't have a conscience, huh?
> > >
> > > Never mind the billions he's given away in the name
> > > fo world heath standards and lessening the suffering
> > > of millions around the world.
> > >
> > > Let's also not mention that he has contributed hundreds
> > > of millions to local childrens and children-benefit organizations
> > > around the country to support inner-city and underprivileged children.
> > >
> > > These authors are a bunch of windbags who are nothing more
> > > than jealous.
> >
> > It is very easy to be charitable with ill gotten gains.
> >
> > Think about all the companies he has ruined with dirty tricks. Think
> > about the workers and investors that have lost billions because of his
> > anti-competitive behavior. Think about all the lost productivity from
> > his crappy software.
>
> Name one incident where the respondent didn't leave the table rich.
Spyglass
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: 17 Dec 2000 21:07:54 GMT
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 16:56:51 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 20:47:06 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> >> The Bush campaign ran an add that made false claims about McCains
>> >> environmental record, and the ad was pulled shortly after it was aired.
>> >
>> >Proof?
>>
>> I'm not going to waste my time trying to change your mind, sorry. There
>> were articles about it in the New York Times if you're genuinely interested
>> in investigating it.
>
>Oh yeah, the NYT has never posted anything false about the Republicans
>before.
>
>It should be called the Clinton Times.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Your ears seem shut to any
possible wrongdoing of the republicans.
I've seen them write articles favouring both sides at different times,
but I don't see a consistent bias one way or another.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Why use malloc?
Date: 17 Dec 2000 21:09:26 GMT
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 08:09:30 GMT, Bob Nelson wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 15 Dec 2000 14:58:05 -0700, Aaron Ginn wrote:
>
>>>So what other options exist in C for allocating memory dynamically?
>
>> I think the point is don't use dynamic allocation unless you have to.
>> Which should be obvious.
>
>There's also variable-length arrays, a longtime extension offered in GNU C
>and now blessed by ISO C99.
I didn't realise it was in ISO C99. DO you know of a good reference and/or
website where one can find a readable (which rules out the standard itself!)
summary of the new features added in C99 ?
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
