Linux-Advocacy Digest #563, Volume #32 Wed, 28 Feb 01 18:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: The Windows guy. (Steve Mading)
Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7) (Casper H.S. Dik - Network
Security Engineer)
can't get login screen.. ("Rajendra Jadhav")
Re: MS websites: a tale of total and humiliating failure! (Steve Mading)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Steve Mading)
Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs? (Peter Hayes)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Matthew Levine)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Christian Brandt)
KDE or DOJ ? (Frnk N. Puppenstein)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Mark McIntyre)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Bob Tennent)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (.)
Re: URGENT MESSAGE TO CHAD'S EMPLOYER Was: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (.)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (The Ghost In
The Machine)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (The Ghost In
The Machine)
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Gary Hallock")
Re: State of linux distros (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: [OT] .sig (Brent R)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Lawrence Kirby)
Re: The Windows guy. (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: 28 Feb 2001 21:04:17 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:97h62h$gso$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:> : news:97frbg$alg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> :> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> :> : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:> :> : news:976bmc$drc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> :> :> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> :> :>
:> :> :>
:> :> :> : The definition says it's a queue of bytes between two processes.
: A
:> : file
:> :> : is
:> :> :> : most definately a queue of bytes. And it bridges two programs via
:> : their
:> :> :> : stdin and stdout.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Programs != Processes.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> The DOS style is actually a temporary storage between one process
: and
:> :> :> ITSELF, because there is only one process in DOS. At different
: times
:> : it
:> :> :> is populated by different program images, but it is only one
: process.
:> :>
:> :> : I see you didn't comment on my arguments about other OS's that also
:> : don't
:> :> : have processes, but do have multitasking such as AmigaOS and MacOS <=
:> : 9.x
:> :>
:> :> The definition of a pipe as an interprocess tool is very old and
:> :> predates the use of threads, so it doesn't mention them. But when
:> :> it comes down to it, a thread is half of what makes a process.
:> :> A process is an execution thread plus a walled-off memory space.
:> :> The only difference between a thread and a process is that memory
:> :> space.
:>
:> : Hmm.. was I blind when you asserted:
:>
:> :> :> Programs != Processes.
:>
:> : ???
:>
:> : Now, here you are claiming that Programs == Processes.
:>
:> Bullshit. Where the fsck did you get that from? Do you actually
:> know what program, thread, and process actually mean? I admitted
:> that threads share some properties with processes. How you twisted
:> that into "programs == processes" I have no freakin' clue.
: An Amiga task is a program, much like running code in DOS is a program
: (TSR's are seperate programs that run as well). Multiple threads are
: multiple programs to the Amiga.
NO. Running code is NOT a program. Running code is a process.
The word "program" refers to the image in its static form, either
as an executable file (and the associated execution library files),
or as a loaded bunch of code in RAM. It doesn't become a "process"
until it is running. Here's an analogy: Program is to screenplay
as process is to movie.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Casper H.S. Dik - Network Security Engineer)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7)
Date: 28 Feb 2001 21:06:20 GMT
[[ PLEASE DON'T SEND ME EMAIL COPIES OF POSTINGS ]]
"Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Yup, I just finished downloading the three "CDs" last night (thank GOD for
>> Cable!).
>I thought that you still needed to fork over $75 for the "media-kit", or is
>that just the "media-kit" is the Solaris distrubution itself on CD, with
>documentation, and the binaries are completely free to download and burn on
>your own?
No. You can order the $0 right to download instead.
$75 gets you physical stuff.
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
------------------------------
From: "Rajendra Jadhav" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: can't get login screen..
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:26:16 -0600
Hi,
I am having a problem with Linux, today when I rebooted the system, I could
not get the login screen which normally appears after starting the gnome
session. I have not made any changes in the system. Can I get some help in
restoring the things.
Thanks,
Rajendra.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS websites: a tale of total and humiliating failure!
Date: 28 Feb 2001 21:14:48 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Amphetamine Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: 1. Link Exchange. MS bought Link Exchange and tried to move it from
: Oracle over to SQL. They threw a ton of their best employees into the
: problem. After 2 months they gave up and put it on Oracle/Solaris
: where it remains. :)
Oracle already is an implementation of SQL, so you can't move "from
Oracle over to SQL". I realize you are probably referring to the
product "Microsoft SQL Server", but it still annoys me to see
one of MS's sneaky marketting tactics affecting even those who don't
like them. They seem to have a habit of using generic names for
their products, to muddy the waters making it hard to talk about the
type of application genericly. "Let's say we want to install an
SQL server..." USED to be a phrase that would bring to mind "Oh, the
speaker is talking about installing one of the plethora of databases
that support SQL." Now, whenever someone says "SQL Server", the
clever meme that this means MS's product only takes over.
I make a careful habit to never refer to the MS products by their
generic shorthand names so that I don't become a part of this
problem. I used to not even like saying "Windows", since that
was once a generic word that referred to any sort of frame on
a GUI screen. But I've already lost that battle and catch myself
using 'Windows' to mean MS-Windows all the time now. Damn.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 28 Feb 2001 21:20:53 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Richard Heathfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Dan Pop wrote:
:>
:> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Richard Heathfield
:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:>
:> >Michael Rubenstein wrote:
:> >>
:> >> Actually, you are not required to include <stdio.h> to use
:> >> printf; you may also just code a prototype for the function
:> >> yourself.
:> >
:> >Yes, my apologies. I had forgotten that possibility. Of course, it must
:> >match the stdio.h prototype byte-for-byte.
:>
:> It doesn't! The following prototype is OK, although it doesn't match
:> the <stdio.h> one byte-for-byte:
:>
:> int printf(const char format[], ...);
:>
:> Furthermore, I believe even this prototype is OK:
:>
:> int printf(char *format, ...);
If you never used any % formatters, you might even be able
to get away with:
int printf( char *str ); /*with no '...'*/
Of course, ALL functions could have parameters prototyped as follows:
int foo( ... );
: I just looked at the subject line of the thread again. Very ironic. :-)
: Of course, you are correct.
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:36:10 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:10:25 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just noticed I have 1000 times more ram than my first PC/XT, it is a dual
> processor 600 MHZ system which is a an aggregate 250 times faster. My first
> hard disk was 20Meg, I have an aggregate 2300 times more disk space.
>
> It has been an amazing 16 years of computing.
Another look into the future?
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010118.html
Peter
------------------------------
From: Matthew Levine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:35:02 -0800
A word of warning.
The compatibility is not *perfect* (some tables may not format
correctly) but all in all, Star makes a great M$ reader and as long as
your file isn't too decked out with formatting features like tables,
bulleted lists, etc, your documents should more or less look like they
did when you authored them under M$ Office.
- Matthew
"Bryant Charleston, MCSE" wrote:
>
> If you compose a text document in Star Office 5.2, will it be readable on a
> Windows platform (as a text or Word doc) ? I can't seem to find any FAQs
> that address this issue. Thanks for any help!
>
> --
>
> ...................................................
> Bryant C Charleston
> A+ Network + MCP MCSE (NT4)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:50:28 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Dave
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:59:02 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 08:40:54 -0800, "Keldon Warlord 2000"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:01:49 GMT, "gary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Get a crip Erik, these components have reached rock bottom prices.
>>Software
>>> >has not.
>>>
>>> It has for linux users. <g>
>>
>>...depending on which idiot is stupid enough to give it away for free.
>
>Wonder who's stupider - the idiots who give all that great stuff away
>for free, or the idiots who pay for windows crap when they could get
>linux and linux apps for free?
>
Uh....is this a trick question? :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 23d:14h:22m actually running Linux.
This space for rent.
------------------------------
From: Christian Brandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:52:28 +0100
Peter Hayes wrote:
> > and if
> > the armed forces have declared war on the citizens, that someone would
> > likely be sympathetic to your cause. In my country at least, there
> > are almost 300 million people, and only a few million in the armed
> > services. Considering that so much of our infrastructure is supported
> > by civilians, and the country is so huge, I can speak intelligently as
> > an officer in the United States military and tell you that if we were
> > to try such foolishness, we would be righteously fucked...
>
> Hungary 1956 (I think), Czechoslovakia 1968.
> The citizenry hadn't a chance against the Soviets, guns or no guns.
At least it took a larger coordinated effort of the Warshaw Pact, the largest
military organisation with the biggest landmass of any political union of all
times, to keep countries quiet which are only a dot at a globe.
But it is not as easy as you might think. A authorative regime might shot at
demonstrants and will make opposition key personalities dissapear, but it
would surelly chicken out at a wholescale revolution as long as the regime
sees itself as a protector and not as a suppressor of lesser beeings. A
ultratotalitary regime would just use conventional, chemical, biological and
nuclear weapons until the situation cleares up, no matter the costs.
> If your scenario came to pass there'd be lots of blood spilt, 99.99999% of
> it would be civilian blood.
Agreed, while I think militia can actually beat military in certain
situations, the cost in lifes would be very high.
Another example: Yugoslavia. The seperatist movement had small and medium
sized guns and a fully organized militia with some thousand members, later
they also aquired tanks and some aircrafts. Still they were beat to mincemeat
of the regular yugoslavian army and had to be saved by nato, which actually
was very uncomfortable with a splitted Yugoslavia but was losing its
plausibility as a political, moral and technological leader of the world. And
also here a powerfull organized army (nato) laid destruction over a comparably
small, comparably "militia-like" nation (serbs).
Did it help the croats against the serbs that they had alot of firearms way
before the conflict (as I spend quite some time in croatia in the 1980th I am
very sure of that)? No.
Did it help the serbs against nato that they had firearms, artillery, armored
vehicles and some airplanes? No. At least they were smarter than the croats
and stowed away before serbia was bombed to dust (actually they surrendered
the same day the first area-bombardment with dump-bombs and a incredible
deathtoll took place).
--
Christian Brandt
------------------------------
From: Frnk N. Puppenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: KDE or DOJ ?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:52:33 -0800
Which will beat down M$ the most ? KDE-2.1 looks pretty damn good. And
the price is right.
------------------------------
From: Mark McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:00:00 +0000
On 28 Feb 2001 21:20:53 GMT, Steve Mading
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Richard Heathfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Dan Pop wrote:
>:>
>:> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Richard Heathfield
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>:>
>:> Furthermore, I believe even this prototype is OK:
>:>
>:> int printf(char *format, ...);
>
>If you never used any % formatters, you might even be able
>to get away with:
>
> int printf( char *str ); /*with no '...'*/
possibly.
>Of course, ALL functions could have parameters prototyped as follows:
> int foo( ... );
Variadic functions must have at least one parameter, I believe.
--
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Tennent)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: 28 Feb 2001 22:07:02 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:35:02 -0800, Matthew Levine wrote:
>
>The compatibility is not *perfect* (some tables may not format
>correctly) but all in all, Star makes a great M$ reader and as long as
>your file isn't too decked out with formatting features like tables,
>bulleted lists, etc, your documents should more or less look like they
>did when you authored them under M$ Office.
>
>"Bryant Charleston, MCSE" wrote:
>>
>> If you compose a text document in Star Office 5.2, will it be readable on a
>> Windows platform (as a text or Word doc) ? I can't seem to find any FAQs
>> that address this issue. Thanks for any help!
Better read the original post again. He was asking whether SO *exports* good
doc files.
Bob T.
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:13:33 +1300
> > >Give me some numbers, show me the proof. What bus are you talking about?
> > >The CPU bus? ISA bus for the network card? Were there any PPro
> > >motherboards supporting PCI?
>
> Gee, let's see:
[schnipp]
> OK, now who doesn't think this old Compaq 6500 supports PCI?
Didn't mean to imply that PPro's didn't have PCI, it's just that I never
worked with one to be honest. I haven't owned one, and I've never built
one. The closest I've been to one is our HP netserver box, but I've
never had any occasion to look in the box.
It was my best guess that they supported PCI, considering the normal
Pentium did, but it's safer not to make assumptions, so I asked first.
The reason for asking is because the PCI bus can EASILY provide enough
bandwidth to support a 100Mb card, and the CPU bus is easily the equal of
the PCI bus. So the point was really to find the justification for this
ridiculous comment:
> > >> Dude... he's running a pentium pro 200 - it CANNOT generate that much data.
> > >> Hell, the bus he's on can't generate that much bandwidth.
But thanks for the verification =)
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: URGENT MESSAGE TO CHAD'S EMPLOYER Was: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:14:33 +1300
> > I thank God every day that I don't have to use that box as my desktop
> > because the state of Unix and Linux is so poor, I would have to shoot
> > myself if I did.
>
> Please, whoever employs Chad, remove his windows machine this instant and
> make him use Solaris/CDE.
For the good of mankind, please! Put him out of our misery.
Wont somebody PLEASE think of the children?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:15:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Edward Rosten
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:08:09 +0000
<97hc1j$d4g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "The Ghost
>In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Shane Phelps
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:18:22 +1100
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>
>>>
>>>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>>>
>>>[ snip ]
>>>
>>>Come on gents, let's stop bothering the nice people on css now that this
>>>thread has strayed way off-topic.
>>>
>>>They were nice enough to give Chad a Black Knight job, so let's not
>>>bother them any more.
>>
>> Uh...dumb question, but what the heck is a "Black Knight" job? :-)
>>
>
>
>Comes from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, in a scene when Arthur
>encounters the Black Knight...
Ah, OK. :-) That's a funny one; the Black Knight always triumphs...
erm, I mean, bleeds from where his arms and legs were cut off.... :-)
[script reprise snipped for brevity]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- and then there's Brave Sir Robin...
EAC code #191 23d:15h:45m actually running Linux.
No electrons were harmed during this message.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:18:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 27 Feb 2001 22:34:17 GMT
<JXVm6.70819$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Shane Phelps
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:18:22 +1100
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >
>> >
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >>
>> >[ snip ]
>> >
>> >Come on gents, let's stop bothering the nice people on css now that this
>> >thread has strayed way off-topic.
>> >
>> >They were nice enough to give Chad a Black Knight job, so let's not
>> >bother them any more.
>>
>> Uh...dumb question, but what the heck is a "Black Knight" job? :-)
>
>Well, I don't know what the "technical" definition is, but the
>practical application of it was to ignore all facts, insult anyone
>who raises concerns about their precious and "flawed" security joke,
>and then continue to flame them whenever they raise these concerns
>again.
Well, it would be nice if you had substantive backup for your claim
that SSH1 has security flaws. Do you have a CERT advisory handy?
Or even a webpage detailing the interview with the developer of
the SSH1 code where he calls it insecure?
(And then there's the little issue as to how NT's implementation
of security [*] -- I don't know if they use SSL, TLS, or what -- is
provably hack-proof. ["It hasn't been hacked yet" does NOT count.])
>
>-Chad
>
>
[*] This may be up to individual applications.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 23d:16h:48m actually running Linux.
Hi. I'm a signature virus.
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:16:25 +0500
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <Oy7n6.707$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We were talking about IBM using or not using Win2K internally and were
> ignoring the OEM for the moment, but since you decided to change the
> subject...
>
I did not change the subject. You just did. I was talking about IBM
using or not using W2K internally - I work for IBM. We are in the
process now of replacing the base W2K install for Thinkpads used
internally with Linux. Part of my job involves doing just that.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: State of linux distros
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:26:06 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Reefer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:23:27 GMT
<3yXm6.1792$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>> Translation: Linux has accomplished more crossed more computational
>> hurdles in 7 years than Mafia$oft has in 25.
>
>
>Sorry Hulk...u got it wrong again...try one more time...
>
>Microsoft stands for; Innovation and technical progress, *nix stands for;
>backwards mentality, used only by those
>who are re-living the 70:s....got it?
Dumb question perhaps, but what technological innovations are
Microsoft noted for? (And which ones did they actually invent first,
as opposed to stealing ideas from Unix, Apple, Xerox PARC, or such?)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 23d:16h:56m actually running Linux.
This is the best part of the message.
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:27:54 GMT
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> Brent R wrote:
> >
> > Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> > >
> > > Brent R wrote:
> > > >
> > > > chrisv wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >I'm an American too, and sadly I'd have to disagree. America breeds more
> > > > > >immature, online, shit-talkers than any other country online.
> > > > >
> > > > > Idiot. That's only because there's more of us online. That, and we
> > > > > DO have the freedoms that many countires don't.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah we have so many more rights than Britain, Canada, France etc. etc.
> > > >
> > > > Dude, in America you can't even get a beer if you're under 21, but you
> > > > can be drafted into the military. You can ever buy a gun! Now that is
> > > > ridiculous!
> > > >
> > > > But, yes, I understand what you're saying, but still we have too many
> > > > parents that don't know what to do with their money so they give it to
> > > > their kids. This country is breeding spoiled little brats like flies.
> > > >
> > > > My mom is a teacher. She sees evidence of parents coddling their kids
> > > > everyday. She's runs into parental hostility every time she even
> > > > criticizes a kid. Do you think it's easy being a parent when most
> > > > parent's attitudes are "my little Jimmy would NEVER do that"?
> > > >
> > > > Well, most of these kids end up on AOL or whatever talking shit about
> > > > how America is the best country on earth because it can nuke every other
> > > > country on earth. I've seen it, and I'm embarrassed by it. And you
> > > > should be too.
> > >
> > > The difference between them and me is
> > >
> > > 1) I've worked for ALL of my money since the age of 10 years old.
> > > 2) I'm a combat veteran.
> >
> > I'm really having trouble trying to remember how you being a veteran had
> > anything to do with this.
> >
>
> I've earned my way in this world.
The fact that you feel that being a veteran earns you the right to act
like a jackass on the internet has earned you a spot in my plonkfile.
You have some admirable traits, but overall you're more trouble than
you're worth. Sorry. I'm enacting it as we speak so don't bother
replying.
*plonk*
--
Happy Trails!
-Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lawrence Kirby)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:48:11 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <97ja1k$667$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Dan Pop" writes:
...
>It doesn't! The following prototype is OK, although it doesn't match
>the <stdio.h> one byte-for-byte:
>
> int printf(const char format[], ...);
>
>Furthermore, I believe even this prototype is OK:
>
> int printf(char *format, ...);
The type of this 2nd form is incompatible with printf()'s standard type
so calling printf() with this declaration in scope results in undefined
behaviour.
--
=========================================
Lawrence Kirby | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wilts, England | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=========================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:41:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Edward Rosten
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:37:03 +0000
<97j2fc$j4g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> The simplest, broadest definition of pipes is that they are an
>> inter-process, FIFO communications channel from one processes to
>> another, which allows the 2nd process to start producing output before
>> the first process terminates.
>>
>> A single-tasking OS is fundamentally incapable of fulfilling this
>> definition properly.
>
>
> A simpler definition is:
>
> a mechanism which allows the output of one process to be put in to the
> input of another process in the order that it (the data) was outputted.
>
> DOS pipes still do not satisfy this definition.
Pedant point: Yes, they do. While the data is long stale by the time
the second component of the "pipeline" starts execution, it's in
the correct order, AFAIK -- if everything goes right. (Obvious
points of failure: disk fills up, TSR accessory decides to delete
temp file, first program crashes the system. Not sure what happens
if the first program terminates (INT 20) with a non-zero error code.)
Note also that Unix pipes -- to be specific, the result of the
pipe() system call -- have their own file ID's; the shell has to
close standard input of one process and standard output of another,
then use dup() or dup2() to set up the shell '|' pipelines most people
use when talking to the Unix shell.
Or were you discussing some sort of stdout/stderr buffering issue?
Such as:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
int i;
for(i=0;i<1000;i++)
{
fprintf(stdout,"Hi world!\n");
fprintf(stderr,"Hello world!\n");
}
return 0;
}
which will display (on a Unix) box different things depending on
whether one uses:
./buffer
or
./buffer > out 2>&1
solely because of buffering?
I don't know what DOS will do, but I doubt it'll be horribly intelligent. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 23d:16h:01m actually running Linux.
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
