seebs/schildt
the...@nospam.net
private jet.
seebs: poor. has never touched a woman.
Richard Harter
It's a matter of priorities. Which would you prefer, being rich,
famous, and having hot sex with lots of beautiful women or being
right. The choice is obvious.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
It's not much to ask of the universe that it be fair;
it's not much to ask but it just doesn't happen.
Seebs
> It's a matter of priorities. Which would you prefer, being rich,
> famous, and having hot sex with lots of beautiful women or being
> right. The choice is obvious.
I was gonna say that I was surprised that Nilges had escalated to the
next level so quickly, but it occurs to me that Nilges seems to have
decided that I'm gay, and would thus be unlikely to use "has never
touched a woman" as an insult.
Kenny, maybe? It's so hard to tell.
It's funny, anyway. Whoever it is clearly ran out of ammo.
-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
Richard Harter
wrote:
>On 2010-04-10, Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
>> It's a matter of priorities. Which would you prefer, being rich,
>> famous, and having hot sex with lots of beautiful women or being
>> right. The choice is obvious.
>
>I was gonna say that I was surprised that Nilges had escalated to the
>next level so quickly, but it occurs to me that Nilges seems to have
>decided that I'm gay, and would thus be unlikely to use "has never
>touched a woman" as an insult.
>
>Kenny, maybe? It's so hard to tell.
>
>It's funny, anyway. Whoever it is clearly ran out of ammo.
I opine it's not any of the usual suspects. It may be a case of
having a good line stashed away and finally having had an
occasion for using it. Some people's entire life revolves around
the possibility of having the perfect occasion for delivering a
bon mot.
Seebs
> I opine it's not any of the usual suspects. It may be a case of
> having a good line stashed away and finally having had an
> occasion for using it. Some people's entire life revolves around
> the possibility of having the perfect occasion for delivering a
> bon mot.
Wow. Shame to have wasted it, then.
blm...@myrealbox.com
Seebs <usenet...@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2010-04-10, Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
> > It's a matter of priorities. Which would you prefer, being rich,
> > famous, and having hot sex with lots of beautiful women or being
> > right. The choice is obvious.
Indeed. (And what an entertainly ambiguous comment that is.)
> I was gonna say that I was surprised that Nilges had escalated to the
> next level so quickly, but it occurs to me that Nilges seems to have
> decided that I'm gay, and would thus be unlikely to use "has never
> touched a woman" as an insult.
>
> Kenny, maybe? It's so hard to tell.
>
> It's funny, anyway. Whoever it is clearly ran out of ammo.
Or something.
One more question, though, as you attempt to extricate yourself and
maybe the rest of us from this endless off-topic, um, "stuff"? :
Over and over Nilges talks about your "backstabbing". Do you have
any idea what he means by that? It must be a reference to something
you said at some point, but I can't remember anything that would
fit, and I'm starting to be more than a little curious. Answer
not required, of course.
--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
Richard Harter
<blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>In article <slrnhrvtg3.1io...@guild.seebs.net>,
>Seebs <usenet...@seebs.net> wrote:
>> On 2010-04-10, Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
>> > It's a matter of priorities. Which would you prefer, being rich,
>> > famous, and having hot sex with lots of beautiful women or being
>> > right. The choice is obvious.
>
>Indeed. (And what an entertainly ambiguous comment that is.)
If you appreciate ambiguity you may enjoy this: Suppose you are
at a party that is a dead bore. As you leave your hostess looks
at you expectently as she gushes at you. Clearly politeness
requires that you tell you had a wonderful time. Equally
clearly, honesty forbids you saying any such thing. Consider the
merits of saying, "I must say I had a wonderful time."
Seebs
> Over and over Nilges talks about your "backstabbing". Do you have
> any idea what he means by that? It must be a reference to something
> you said at some point, but I can't remember anything that would
> fit, and I'm starting to be more than a little curious. Answer
> not required, of course.
I think he has some sense that there is an implicit brotherhood of all
people who know even a little C, such that it is a horrible crime against
humanity for one of them to suggest that another isn't doing the most
perfect of all possible jobs.
... If it's not that, I got nothing.
Seebs
> If you appreciate ambiguity you may enjoy this: Suppose you are
> at a party that is a dead bore. As you leave your hostess looks
> at you expectently as she gushes at you. Clearly politeness
> requires that you tell you had a wonderful time. Equally
> clearly, honesty forbids you saying any such thing. Consider the
> merits of saying, "I must say I had a wonderful time."
And note how much more insulting it gets if you emphasize "must" instead
of "wonderful". :)
Uno
> It's a matter of priorities. Which would you prefer, being rich,
> famous, and having hot sex with lots of beautiful women or being
> right. The choice is obvious.
Not really. You're never faced with 2 doors that say "be correct" and
"get wealthy and successful." I'm reasonably certain that I would
choose the latter.
Indeed I think I've learned a little in life that there's more doors,
including ones that say "I'm sorry," or "it doesn't matter," and "I love
you anyways."
> It's not much to ask of the universe that it be fair;
> it's not much to ask but it just doesn't happen.
I'm evicting a renter who thinks that I'm wronging him all the time.
Since he doesn't have friends, family, girlfriend, boyfriend, I'm the
only person he blame his pathetic life on. I told him I won't rent to
him unless he seeks counseling.
--
Uno
spinoza1111
> On 2010-04-10, Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
>
> > It's a matter of priorities. Which would you prefer, being rich,
> > famous, and having hot sex with lots of beautiful women or being
> > right. The choice is obvious.
>
> I was gonna say that I was surprised that Nilges had escalated to the
> next level so quickly, but it occurs to me that Nilges seems to have
> decided that I'm gay, and would thus be unlikely to use "has never
> touched a woman" as an insult.
Hey, asshole, I asked this poster to knock his shit off on your
behalf. It's not on topic and it's trolling. You don't have the
courage, so I did.
>
> Kenny, maybe? It's so hard to tell.
He's far more amusing.
>
> It's funny, anyway. Whoever it is clearly ran out of ammo.
>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
spinoza1111
> In article <slrnhrvtg3.1io.usenet-nos...@guild.seebs.net>,
>
> Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> > On 2010-04-10, Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
> > > It's a matter of priorities. Which would you prefer, being rich,
> > > famous, and having hot sex with lots of beautiful women or being
> > > right. The choice is obvious.
>
> Indeed. (And what an entertainly ambiguous comment that is.)
>
> > I was gonna say that I was surprised that Nilges had escalated to the
> > next level so quickly, but it occurs to me that Nilges seems to have
> > decided that I'm gay, and would thus be unlikely to use "has never
> > touched a woman" as an insult.
>
> > Kenny, maybe? It's so hard to tell.
>
> > It's funny, anyway. Whoever it is clearly ran out of ammo.
>
> Or something.
>
> One more question, though, as you attempt to extricate yourself and
> maybe the rest of us from this endless off-topic, um, "stuff"? :
>
> Over and over Nilges talks about your "backstabbing". Do you have
> any idea what he means by that? It must be a reference to something
> you said at some point, but I can't remember anything that would
> fit, and I'm starting to be more than a little curious. Answer
> not required, of course.
I infer that he's an office backstabber from his treatment of people
like Navia and myself here, and his treatment of Schildt.
spinoza1111
> On 2010-04-10, blmblm myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> > Over and over Nilges talks about your "backstabbing". Do you have
> > any idea what he means by that? It must be a reference to something
> > you said at some point, but I can't remember anything that would
> > fit, and I'm starting to be more than a little curious. Answer
> > not required, of course.
>
> I think he has some sense that there is an implicit brotherhood of all
> people who know even a little C, such that it is a horrible crime against
> humanity for one of them to suggest that another isn't doing the most
> perfect of all possible jobs.
No, I just think that a little common decency for its own sake would
go along way, CREEP.
>
> ... If it's not that, I got nothing.
>
> -s
> --
spinoza1111
I wouldn't brag about that online, and if the renter is identifiable,
you're defaming him.
> --
> Uno
blm...@myrealbox.com
spinoza1111 <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 9:51 pm, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > In article <slrnhrvtg3.1io.usenet-nos...@guild.seebs.net>,
> >
> > Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
[ snip ]
> > One more question, though, as you attempt to extricate yourself and
> > maybe the rest of us from this endless off-topic, um, "stuff"? :
> >
> > Over and over Nilges talks about your "backstabbing". Do you have
> > any idea what he means by that? It must be a reference to something
> > you said at some point, but I can't remember anything that would
> > fit, and I'm starting to be more than a little curious. Answer
> > not required, of course.
>
> I infer that he's an office backstabber from his treatment of people
> like Navia and myself here, and his treatment of Schildt.
Good heavens. You *infer* this, and use that as the basis for
repeated slurs?
Well, whatever. At least the mystery is resolved.
spinoza1111
> In article <5f736221-673d-4fdf-92eb-dfec3b4e9...@z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
>
> spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 9:51 pm, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > > In article <slrnhrvtg3.1io.usenet-nos...@guild.seebs.net>,
>
> > > Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>
> [ snip ]
>
> > > One more question, though, as you attempt to extricate yourself and
> > > maybe the rest of us from this endless off-topic, um, "stuff"? :
>
> > > Over and over Nilges talks about your "backstabbing". Do you have
> > > any idea what he means by that? It must be a reference to something
> > > you said at some point, but I can't remember anything that would
> > > fit, and I'm starting to be more than a little curious. Answer
> > > not required, of course.
>
> > I infer that he's an office backstabber from his treatment of people
> > like Navia and myself here, and his treatment of Schildt.
>
> Good heavens. You *infer* this, and use that as the basis for
> repeated slurs?
Well, yes. Part of the problem in your enabling is your failure to see
destructive conduct in people who in the corporate world use all the
right words, but without a computer science education or a
compensatory talent in programming, start a rumor about Schildt to
advance their careers.
And how dare you, Miss, refer to "slurs"? Seebach has been fucking
with me and attempting, in precisely the same way he did with Schildt,
to make me a by word and catchphrase as opposed to arguing man to man,
because he's a homunculus.
Seebs
> Good heavens. You *infer* this, and use that as the basis for
> repeated slurs?
Heh.
The funny thing being, in no small part, that I'm one of Navia's defenders;
I think he's doing good work and I like to try to help out. He's a bit
abrasive sometimes and rubs me the wrong way, but I don't think things
will be improved by being a jerk to him about it.
Malcolm McLean
> Richard Harter wrote:
> > It's a matter of priorities. Which would you prefer, being rich,
> > famous, and having hot sex with lots of beautiful women or being
> > right. The choice is obvious.
>
> Not really. You're never faced with 2 doors that say "be correct" and
> "get wealthy and successful." I'm reasonably certain that I would
> choose the latter.
>
what you believe to be right and personal advantage. Those who point
out that a war is unwinnable, for example, can make themselves very
unpopular, even if their advice, if taken, would save the State from
disaster.
spinoza1111
> On 2010-04-15, blmblm myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> > Good heavens. You *infer* this, and use that as the basis for
> > repeated slurs?
>
> Heh.
>
> The funny thing being, in no small part, that I'm one of Navia's defenders;
> I think he's doing good work and I like to try to help out. He's a bit
> abrasive sometimes and rubs me the wrong way, but I don't think things
In the corporate programming world, that word "abrasive" meant in my
experience "fair game for criticism behind his back since he knows his
job and we don't".
For example, knowing how Or is evaluated and usefully reminding a
programmer in a structured walkthrough is often found to be "abrasive"
and "showing off".
Whereas criticising another on a corporate matter, or sufficiently
trivial technical point, isn't usually being abrasive; the most to the
point example would be that it's not, somehow, "abrasive" to call
someone "abrasive".
Because people are so systematically degraded and erased in favor of
idiotic software, machines and the legal personhood of the
corporation, it's not being "abrasive" to demand an absurd amount of
cash for a simple tech review, to refuse to read emails, and to stab
Schildt in the back. He's just a person as I am.
Furthermore, you get even more traction (and become a "senior systems
programmer" with no academic preparation and without even being able
to code worth dick far as I can tell) through codependent and enabling
behavior in what's essentially a small group phenomenon. That is, you
probably called Navia "abrasive" instead of properly understanding his
points through your lack of computer science preparation, and this
quantum of hostility was used by more extreme posters to create the
usual curve of binding energy.
.
> will be improved by being a jerk to him about it.
>
> -s
> --
spinoza1111
wrote:
> On 11 Apr, 00:37, Uno <merrilljen...@q.com> wrote:> Richard Harter wrote:
> > > It's a matter of priorities. Which would you prefer, being rich,
> > > famous, and having hot sex with lots of beautiful women or being
> > > right. The choice is obvious.
>
> > Not really. You're never faced with 2 doors that say "be correct" and
> > "get wealthy and successful." I'm reasonably certain that I would
> > choose the latter.
(To Uno): well, if I want to waste money paying the big bucks for
wrong answers, I know where to go.
>
> You not infrequently have to face the choice between standing up for
> what you believe to be right and personal advantage. Those who point
> out that a war is unwinnable, for example, can make themselves very
> unpopular, even if their advice, if taken, would save the State from
> disaster.
In the abstract, most of the "nice" people (that is, the codependents)
here support this notion, but in their day to day behavior they tend
to code people, such as Navia, who don't go with the herd as at best
"abrasive", which enables others to focus on personalities and
initiates chain reaction campaigns of personal destruction.
In their stupid long hair and T shirts, they imagine themselves to be
enlightened who stand on the shoulders of giants misunderstood in
their time, but do not in fact allow any intelligence to rise above
their "group consensus and running code".
[Yeah, I did an image search on Seebach. I'm better looking for what
it's worth. That's usually held against one by your average technical
slob, for essentially the same reason he or she finds grammatical
English "verbose" and hates literate comments and pronounceable
variable names. And her praxis appears in the large, in the form of
data systems which are ever more perniciously and socially toxic-in-
the-large, from the horrors perpetrated on military veterans by the
VA, to the financial panic of 2008 as caused by "rocket scientists"
who don't know dick, to Linux.]
The result is they're still stuck in a stolen clone of the world of
1970s unix, a FAR more retardo world than Windows. And the fact that
Windows is pretty goddamn retarded only goes to show you.
BruceS
<snip>
> In the corporate programming world, that word "abrasive" meant in my
> experience "fair game for criticism behind his back since he knows his
> job and we don't".
>
> For example, knowing how Or is evaluated and usefully reminding a
> programmer in a structured walkthrough is often found to be "abrasive"
> and "showing off".
IME, the term has very little to do with *what* the person says, and
everything to do with *how* he says it. I've worked with programmers
that were well respected but considered abrasive, others that were
mixed that same abrasiveness with incompetence, and many who've
avoided abrasive behavior entirely. I've been in a code review in
which one reviewer bluntly pointed out that OO had a concept of
"inheritance" (the org tends to very flat class models) without being
abrasive. He seemed to be addressing defects in the code rather than
in the coder. This is not an easy skill, nor a common one.
Malcolm McLean
>
> The result is they're still stuck in a stolen clone of the world of
> 1970s unix, a FAR more retardo world than Windows. And the fact that
> Windows is pretty goddamn retarded only goes to show you.
>
Ignoring device drivers, it would only take a few weeks to write
something on a bare PC capable of putting up windows, running programs
in them, closing them down. It's getting the details right that is the
killer.
J de Boyne Pollard
> > world of 1970s unix, a FAR more retardo world than Windows.
> > And the fact that Windows is pretty goddamn retarded only
> > goes to show you.
>
> It's far harder to write operating systems than it looks.
> Ignoring device drivers, it would only take a few weeks to
> write something on a bare PC capable of putting up windows,
> running programs in them, closing them down. It's getting
> the details right that is the killer.
Actually, it's the design that's the killer. Copying an
existing design is comparatively easy. Witness ReactOS,
FreeDOS, and -- yes -- Linux. Whereas coming up with a
new design is comparatively harder. Witness OSFree and
Hurd.
spinoza1111
I agree that this person's conduct is not abrasive. However, in my
experience, it is sometimes called "abrasive" by people whose lack of
knowledge has been exposed. In your example, the designers of the
overly flat software are apt in corporate environments to say that the
critic is "academic" (because he's using knowledge) and "abrasive"
because he's criticized them). But to CALL a person "abrasive" in a
technical discussion out of the blue is to be "abrasive".
spinoza1111
wrote:
Which is why Andrew Tanenbaum (from whom Torvalds stole Minix) was
right about Linux.
Mark
The idea that Torvalds stole Minix was largely hyped up by a few people
during the early years of the SCO-Novell court case. Even early
versions shared little with Minix (mainly the filesystem code to get
that side up and running until a new filesystem was put in place - which
it was). This has largely been described as "scaffolding" and, like
structural scaffolding in the "physical world", it's not part of the
final product.
Even if you really believed Torvalds was in the habit of stealing code,
think about it for a minute: Minix and Linux are fundamentally different
designs, and the core difference (the whole microkernel vs. monolithic
kernel debate) is so significant, it simply isn't possible to take one,
"steal it" and turn it into the other. Sure, you could take concepts or
small parts of code and refactor them to work with the different
architecture, but most of the time you'd be creating even more work.
Don't believe me? Forget a short, intemperate debate in 1992 and read
this piece from the man himself (Professor Andrew S. Tanenbaum) from May
2004:
http://linux.sys-con.com/node/44969
Amongst other things, he says:
"He thought I would back up his crazy claim that Linus stole Linux
from me. Brown was wrong on two counts. First, I bear no 'grudge'
against Linus at all. He wrote Linux himself and deserves the
credit. Second, I am really not a mean person. Even if I were still
angry with him after all these years, I wouldn't choose some sleazy
author with a hidden agenda as my vehicle. My home page gets 2500
hits a week. If I had something to say, I could put it there."
"To the extent that Linus can be counted as my student, I'm proud of
him, too. Professors like it when their students go on to greater
glory."
"Linus seems to be doing excellent work and I wish him much success
in the future. "
So, even Andrew S. Tanenbaum clearly states that Torvalds didn't steal
from Minix.
Are you going to keep repeating this or concede that you are wrong?
An apology to Mr. Torvalds might be in order too, but I'll leave that
to your conscience.
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 10:29 pm, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On 16 Apr, 14:52,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > The result is they're still stuck in a stolen clone of the world of
> >> > 1970s unix, a FAR more retardo world than Windows. And the fact that
> >> > Windows is pretty goddamn retarded only goes to show you.
>
> >> It's far harder to write operating systems than it looks.
> >> Ignoring device drivers, it would only take a few weeks to write
> >> something on a bare PC capable of putting up windows, running programs
> >> in them, closing them down. It's getting the details right that is the
> >> killer.
>
> > Which is why Andrew Tanenbaum (from whom Torvalds stole Minix) was
> > right about Linux.
>
> The idea that Torvalds stole Minix was largely hyped up by a few people
> during the early years of the SCO-Novell court case. Even early
> versions shared little with Minix (mainly the filesystem code to get
> that side up and running until a new filesystem was put in place - which
> it was). This has largely been described as "scaffolding" and, like
> structural scaffolding in the "physical world", it's not part of the
> final product.
Even if Torvalds wrote the code, he did no real creative design.
Tanenbaum and the developers of unix need to be credited with that.
>
> Even if you really believed Torvalds was in the habit of stealing code,
I think that in general hackers and (with the exception of Stallman)
open source coders are in the habit of stealing intellectual
production (which doesn't only include "code" but also includes
ideas), and they've been in this habit ever since they stole Basic
from Gates and his team in the 1970s. I think they add insult to
injury by marshaling attacks on the victim as is seen here with
respect to Navia. They also work as slaves.
Their theft creates resources for big companies. Their slave mentality
destroys jobs. Their mob rule has destroyed the very idea of
reputation.
> think about it for a minute: Minix and Linux are fundamentally different
Not in essentials. They are based on a command line interface and a
monolithic design with too many dependencies between levels that
should be separated.
> designs, and the core difference (the whole microkernel vs. monolithic
> kernel debate) is so significant, it simply isn't possible to take one,
> "steal it" and turn it into the other. Sure, you could take concepts or
> small parts of code and refactor them to work with the different
> architecture, but most of the time you'd be creating even more work.
Code is not ideas. The development of Linux was marked in fact by a
stunning lack of originality. It "is", from a standpoint of design,
unix. Cf. Jaron Lanier ("You Are Not a Gadget", 2010).
>
> Don't believe me? Forget a short, intemperate debate in 1992 and read
> this piece from the man himself (Professor Andrew S. Tanenbaum) from May
> 2004:
>
> http://linux.sys-con.com/node/44969
>
> Amongst other things, he says:
>
> "He thought I would back up his crazy claim that Linus stole Linux
> from me. Brown was wrong on two counts. First, I bear no 'grudge'
> against Linus at all. He wrote Linux himself and deserves the
> credit. Second, I am really not a mean person. Even if I were still
> angry with him after all these years, I wouldn't choose some sleazy
> author with a hidden agenda as my vehicle. My home page gets 2500
> hits a week. If I had something to say, I could put it there."
>
> "To the extent that Linus can be counted as my student, I'm proud of
> him, too. Professors like it when their students go on to greater
> glory."
>
> "Linus seems to be doing excellent work and I wish him much success
> in the future. "
>
> So, even Andrew S. Tanenbaum clearly states that Torvalds didn't steal
> from Minix.
What's interesting is that Professor Tanenbaum had to eat shit, and
there was no corresponding apology for the flame war from Torvalds,
the victor who went on to be a millionaire while Tanenbaum remains a
professor, unrecognized for minix and unrecognized for pointing out
the facts, which include the fact that Linux stopped OS development in
its tracks. As far as I know, Linux doesn't even solve the 2038 date
overflow problem (I hope I am wrong).
>
> Are you going to keep repeating this or concede that you are wrong?
> An apology to Mr. Torvalds might be in order too, but I'll leave that
> to your conscience.
I don't think he cares. He's made his pile. That's all that counts in
this business.
Mark
Some, not all. There is a lot of innovation in that community. That
there is also a lot of copying doesn't change that.
If you apply the same thing to all of industry, you could make precisely
the same observation.
As for Gates, he has borrowed most of his ideas too; BASIC was no more
original than most other code at the time, he simply (and perfectly
sensibly) decided to control it as property.
(I can't help pointing out, however, that "theft" has a specific legal
meaning which doesn't apply to software where you are not depriving the
person of their personal possessions).
>> think about it for a minute: Minix and Linux are fundamentally different
>
> Not in essentials. They are based on a command line interface and a
> monolithic design with too many dependencies between levels that
> should be separated.
If you think the command line is the essence of Unix, you have missed
almost the entire point. The command line is a common feature, but the
more important features in a modern unix-like system was to do with its
abstractions (whether VFS, security model, memory model, network layer,
whatever).
Whilst you could argue that your criticisms about dependencies apply to
Linux (though there are counter-arguments), how do you claim this for
Minix? Minix is designed to be a Microkernel, and the subsystems are
separated and communicate through the (traditional microkernel) message
passing. This is why I say you're wrong that Linux and Minix are
closely related.
Why do you believe you're right?
>> designs, and the core difference (the whole microkernel vs. monolithic
>> kernel debate) is so significant, it simply isn't possible to take one,
>> "steal it" and turn it into the other. Sure, you could take concepts or
>> small parts of code and refactor them to work with the different
>> architecture, but most of the time you'd be creating even more work.
>
> Code is not ideas. The development of Linux was marked in fact by a
> stunning lack of originality. It "is", from a standpoint of design,
> unix. Cf. Jaron Lanier ("You Are Not a Gadget", 2010).
Code can be the *expression* of ideas, particularly when well-executed.
Linux was deliberately designed to be useful in the real world. It was
designed against standards (things like the POSIX standards, the SuS,
SVRX and other similar documents) so that real software would be trivial
to port. This is what has guided a lot of its *interface* decisions.
On either side of the interfaces*, however, there has been plenty of
innovation, with all sorts of interesting work coming out of it.
Does that mean that closed-source is bad? I don't think so.
Does the stilted copycat projects that exist in open-source mean
open-source is devoid of invention? I don't think that either.
* And even some of the interfaces have developed. This has not been
without controversy.
>> Don't believe me? Forget a short, intemperate debate in 1992 and read
>> this piece from the man himself (Professor Andrew S. Tanenbaum) from May
>> 2004:
>>
>> http://linux.sys-con.com/node/44969
>>
>> Amongst other things, he says:
>>
>> "He thought I would back up his crazy claim that Linus stole Linux
>> from me. Brown was wrong on two counts. First, I bear no 'grudge'
>> against Linus at all. He wrote Linux himself and deserves the
>> credit. Second, I am really not a mean person. Even if I were still
>> angry with him after all these years, I wouldn't choose some sleazy
>> author with a hidden agenda as my vehicle. My home page gets 2500
>> hits a week. If I had something to say, I could put it there."
>>
>> "To the extent that Linus can be counted as my student, I'm proud of
>> him, too. Professors like it when their students go on to greater
>> glory."
>>
>> "Linus seems to be doing excellent work and I wish him much success
>> in the future. "
>>
>> So, even Andrew S. Tanenbaum clearly states that Torvalds didn't steal
>> from Minix.
>
> What's interesting is that Professor Tanenbaum had to eat shit, and
> there was no corresponding apology for the flame war from Torvalds,
Again, you are wrong. Torvalds apologised to him at the time and has
repeated that apology since. As far as I can see, there are no hard
feelings on either side.
> the victor who went on to be a millionaire while Tanenbaum remains a
> professor, unrecognized for minix and unrecognized for pointing out
> the facts, which include the fact that Linux stopped OS development in
> its tracks. As far as I know, Linux doesn't even solve the 2038 date
> overflow problem (I hope I am wrong).
As Tanenbaum has stated clearly (in fact, in the same article I
referenced) he was (and is) more interested in his academic career than
having a successful career focused on Minix. I don't know how Torvalds
has done or if he *is* a millionaire, but I don't understand why you
wish to turn him into a bad guy.
There *is* no "fact" that Linux stopped OS development in its tracks.
That's just something you want to assert. OS development has certainly
slowed but (I'd *assert*) this is more to do with the fact that kernels
became "good enough" and the CS community has been more interested in
other challenges in middleware and elsewhere. Finding ways to
distribute code across cores and systems (locally or globally) are the
route to Ph.D.s now. Is that Linux's (or Torvald's) fault? No more
than it's Microsoft's, Sun's or Apple's fault.
You are also wrong that Tanenbaum is unrecognised for Minix. Sure, he's
not known outside of CS while Torvalds is (to a greater extent), but he
never *was* known outside of the CS community. How has Torvalds fame
cost him? If anything, it drew attention to Minix and has written him
another page in history. I must say, however, Minix is not his most
important work in my opinion.
Finally, the 2038 problem is as solved as it can be. The standard
time_t for 64 bit systems (which any serious system these days will be)
is 64 bits. That gives us more time than I'm going to worry about
(many, many millennia). There are some minor issues in 64 bit Unix like
library support for dates in the far-future:
- HPUX only recognise up to Dec 31 9999, 23:59:59 UTC
in their 64 bit systems for functions like "ctime"
- glibc on Fedora 12, x86_64 only seems to handle up to
Dec 31 2147483647, 23:59:59 UTC. I can live with this.
The biggest problems can't be solved by the OS designers, however, and
that's where people have written code with the assumptions in the code,
particularly where people aren't using time_t and/or are abusing the
type in the way they perform arithmetic. This would be the case no
matter which language or OS you were dealing with.
As with Y2K, it will depend on code review. People running shoddy code
have work to do, particularly if the code is heading to overruns earlier
(the classic example being banks calculating mortgage repayments over
25/30 year terms).
> > Are you going to keep repeating this or concede that you are wrong?
> > An apology to Mr. Torvalds might be in order too, but I'll leave that
> > to your conscience.
>
> I don't think he cares. He's made his pile. That's all that counts in
> this business.
If that were the case, it would make your pursuit of Seebs on behalf of
Schildt even harder to explain.
You have accused Torvalds of being a thief (amongst other things).
Whether or not you retract and apologise is entirely up to you.
As for Torvalds, you are almost certainly right he doesn't care. He's
big enough and smart enough to defend himself even if he does, so I
won't patronise him by pretending otherwise. I'm certain that's the
position someone like Herb Schildt would take too.
This doesn't make your wild assertions correct, though. Are you big
enough to concede the points I've made here?
It's entirely up to you.
Seebs
> If you think the command line is the essence of Unix, you have missed
> almost the entire point.
Well, yeah.
> This doesn't make your wild assertions correct, though. Are you big
> enough to concede the points I've made here?
A couple of observations:
1. Nilges rarely concedes points, regardless of evidence.
2. Even when he does, he's still just as likely to continue asserting
the things he previously conceded were wrong a few days later, once he's
had time to rationalize the concession away.
3. He's stated in the past that his goal is to destroy this newsgroup.
(Or at least, so I'm told, and it seems consistent with his behavior.)
It does not seem likely that anything productive can be accomplished
by trying to "engage" him.
I know it's maddening watching him post stuff that is fractally
wrong*, but really, there's nothing we can do about it; he's just gonna
do that.
Correcting him on points of fact has no discernable effect. He just
sticks with them.
-s
[*] http://www.fractallywrong.com/ has a definition.
--
spinoza1111
> On 2010-04-17 10:08:20 -0500, Mark said:
>
> > If you think the command line is the essence of Unix, you have missed
> > almost the entire point.
>
> Well, yeah.
A software feature doesn't have to be part of the essence to be a bug
and to make the software unusable.
>
> > This doesn't make your wild assertions correct, though. Are you big
> > enough to concede the points I've made here?
>
> A couple of observations:
> 1. Nilges rarely concedes points, regardless of evidence.
> 2. Even when he does, he's still just as likely to continue asserting
> the things he previously conceded were wrong a few days later, once he's
> had time to rationalize the concession away.
> 3. He's stated in the past that his goal is to destroy this newsgroup.
I don't no where you got that.
> (Or at least, so I'm told, and it seems consistent with his behavior.)
So it is hearsay. Fits your pattern. Second hand rumor mongering and a
baldfaced lie.
> It does not seem likely that anything productive can be accomplished
> by trying to "engage" him.
On the contrary. I and others FINALLY got you to at least CHANGE
CTCN-3 which for several years was thought to apply to CTCR-4, the
CTCR that has been in print since 2000.
>
> I know it's maddening watching him post stuff that is fractally
> wrong*, but really, there's nothing we can do about it; he's just gonna
> do that.
>
> Correcting him on points of fact has no discernable effect. He just
> sticks with them.
I think you confuse "facts" with "opinions of my friends". We've in
fact learned that one of your major "facts" (a C program must have a
main() with an int, or alternatively and weaker, if it has a main this
main must be declared as returning int, for that program to be
"standard") is wrong and you have conceded this elsethread after I
quoted the standard.
>
> -s
> [*]http://www.fractallywrong.com/has a definition.
> --
Kenny McCormack
Malcolm McLean <malcolm...@btinternet.com> wrote:
...
>> Not really. You're never faced with 2 doors that say "be correct" and
>> "get wealthy and successful." I'm reasonably certain that I would
>> choose the latter.
I'm not sure why this poster said "You're never faced with ..."
I think in order for the thread to make sense, he has to have meant
something like "Every so often in life, you are faced with ..."
And, in that vein, yeah, it is cool for us geeky CLC types to want to
maintain that, yeah, we'd choose the money/fame/power over "being
right", and we claim that precisely because we know it isn't true.
Basically, the reason we're a bunch of CLC losers is precisely because
at key points in our lives, we've chosen to be right and to be true to
ourselves, instead of becoming marketing tools. We should be honest
about that. And, I can prove this very simply: Given our innnate
knowledge/skill/smarts, if we wanted to, we could easily have been
famous/rich/powerful/etc. That we're not (and trust me, I've never
heard of any of the CLC gang outside of CLC) these things, speaks all.
I've always said (of myself) that if I had had any ambition at all, I'd
be a billionaire now.
>You not infrequently have to face the choice between standing up for
>what you believe to be right and personal advantage. Those who point
>out that a war is unwinnable, for example, can make themselves very
>unpopular, even if their advice, if taken, would save the State from
>disaster.
Very good point, and well said.
And again, I'd say that most CLCers would not be afraid to "speak truth
to power" - at whatever personal peril that entailed.
--
(This discussion group is about C, ...)
Wrong. It is only OCCASIONALLY a discussion group
about C; mostly, like most "discussion" groups, it is
off-topic Rorsharch revelations of the childhood
traumas of the participants...
spinoza1111
>
> > If you think the command line is the essence of Unix, you have missed
> > almost the entire point.
>
> Well, yeah.
>
> > This doesn't make your wild assertions correct, though. Are you big
> > enough to concede the points I've made here?
>
> A couple of observations:
> 1. Nilges rarely concedes points, regardless of evidence.
Your evidence as we have seen in the case of "freestanding" v "hosted"
garbage, because in that case and others you conceal material facts. I
had to post the wording of the standard to demonstrate that coding int
main() is not in fact a requirement of the standard. You were forced
to concede.
> 2. Even when he does, he's still just as likely to continue asserting
> the things he previously conceded were wrong a few days later, once he's
> had time to rationalize the concession away.
Giving adequate reasons is not "rationalization".
> 3. He's stated in the past that his goal is to destroy this newsgroup.
> (Or at least, so I'm told, and it seems consistent with his behavior.)
Spreading a rumor by your own admission. The fact is that I think the
regs should leave based on their conduct. This is like saying the
truth as regards the government of Israel (it's a criminal gang
running a rogue state) and having this be changed to "kill the Jews"
by deliberate mistranslation by Israeli owned translation firms.
> It does not seem likely that anything productive can be accomplished
> by trying to "engage" him.
1. By your own admission you were forced to at least stop the
deliberate confusion you had created by neglecting to update "C: the
Complete Nonsense" after Schildt's fourth edition of "C: the Complete
Reference" appeared by popular demand: I quote you here: "A number of
people contributed to the current revision of this page. For
inspiration, I must of course credit Edward Nilges, whose tireless
crusade against the deficiencies of the previous version made it clear
that a more complete treatment was needed.". While your second Snarky
Tirade is also garbage, the misunderstanding YOU created about
editions was fixed, and this was productive.
2. If you'd "engaged" me on the buggy and one-line attempt you made
last February to write a strlen() function by email, you would have
been spared a great deal of embarassment, since I was the first to
notice the bug.
3. If you'd "engaged" me on your queue.c Coding Horror, I would have
been able to educate you on how to use structured programming in
coding a switch().
4. In fact, most of the threads I have been started have been on-topic
and have contained a great deal of useful C code conformant to the
charter of this newsgroup. The constant very offensive assaults on my
credibility aside, these have been useful to many people and you have
conceded this.
5. I posted the exact wording of the C standard as regards hosted and
freestanding environments. It demonstrates that to be standard C,
implementations do not have to provide a conformant main() or a
complete library to be standard (which implies that code written that
compiles with neither errors nor warnings but which has a
nonconformant main() is standard C). This in fact destroys much of
your case against Schildt and has cleared up something which has been
debated continuously here by people for several years owing to your
cover-up.
spinoza1111
wrote:
> In article <f116171a-96ee-43bf-bbd7-f9fc18ccc...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> >> Not really. You're never faced with 2 doors that say "be correct" and
> >> "get wealthy and successful." I'm reasonably certain that I would
> >> choose the latter.
>
> I'm not sure why this poster said "You're never faced with ..."
> I think in order for the thread to make sense, he has to have meant
> something like "Every so often in life, you are faced with ..."
>
> And, in that vein, yeah, it is cool for us geeky CLC types to want to
> maintain that, yeah, we'd choose the money/fame/power over "being
> right", and we claim that precisely because we know it isn't true.
>
> Basically, the reason we're a bunch of CLC losers is precisely because
> at key points in our lives, we've chosen to be right and to be true to
> ourselves, instead of becoming marketing tools. We should be honest
> about that. And, I can prove this very simply: Given our innnate
> knowledge/skill/smarts, if we wanted to, we could easily have been
> famous/rich/powerful/etc. That we're not (and trust me, I've never
> heard of any of the CLC gang outside of CLC) these things, speaks all.
Minor point: Seebach and Heathfield are known as authors outside of
CLC as I am. The most externally distinguished person here is Navia.
>
> I've always said (of myself) that if I had had any ambition at all, I'd
> be a billionaire now.
There are as I'm sure you are aware of becoming distinguished, other
ways than to be a shitbag "god of the cloud" like Torvalds or Jimmy
Wales. Dijkstra was relative to his contribution not very famous.
Tanenbaum is a better man than Torvalds.
"Let us now praise famous men, and our fathers that begat us...And
some there be, which have no memorial; who are perished, as though
they had never been; and are become as though they had never been
born; and their children after them. But these were merciful men,
whose righteousness hath not been forgotten."
Ecclesiasticus, Chapter 44
>
> >You not infrequently have to face the choice between standing up for
> >what you believe to be right and personal advantage. Those who point
> >out that a war is unwinnable, for example, can make themselves very
> >unpopular, even if their advice, if taken, would save the State from
> >disaster.
>
> Very good point, and well said.
>
> And again, I'd say that most CLCers would not be afraid to "speak truth
> to power" - at whatever personal peril that entailed.
I must disagree.
>
> --
> (This discussion group is about C, ...)
>
> Wrong. It is only OCCASIONALLY a discussion group
> about C; mostly, like most "discussion" groups, it is
> off-topic Rorsharch revelations of the childhood
> traumas of the participants...
Perhaps in a fucked up society, the childhood trauma of bullying can
never be resolved if bullying is a vector of power. It's too useful.
And perhaps realizing and applying this can exclude the bullying of
the regs and this can be a better resource.
"Those however who always defiantly stirred up trouble against the
teacher and, as one called it, disturbed the lesson, the day – indeed,
the hour – they graduated from high school, they sat down with the
same teachers at the same table with the same beer, as a confederation
of men, who were born followers, rebels, whose impatient blows of the
fist on the table already drummed the worship of the masters. They
need only stay put, to catch up with those who were promoted to the
next class, and revenge themselves on them. Since they, officials and
candidates for death sentences, have stepped visibly out of my dreams
and have expropriated my past life and my language, I don’t need to
dream of them any longer. In Fascism, the nightmare of childhood has
realized itself."
Richard Heathfield
> On Apr 17, 11:31 pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
<nonsense snipped>
>> Correcting him on points of fact has no discernable effect. He just
>> sticks with them.
>
> I think you confuse "facts" with "opinions of my friends". We've in
> fact learned that one of your major "facts" (a C program must have a
> main() with an int,
That's not what he said. He said that the C Standard mandates
implementation support with defined semantics for a program with a
return type of int for the main() function, for hosted implementations.
That is true. Your inability to understand a truth does not invalidate
that truth.
<snip>
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111wrote:
> > On Apr 17, 11:31 pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>
> <nonsense snipped>
>
> >> Correcting him on points of fact has no discernable effect. He just
> >> sticks with them.
>
> > I think you confuse "facts" with "opinions of my friends". We've in
> > fact learned that one of your major "facts" (a C program must have a
> > main() with an int,
>
> That's not what he said. He said that the C Standard mandates
> implementation support with defined semantics for a program with a
> return type of int for the main() function, for hosted implementations.
> That is true. Your inability to understand a truth does not invalidate
> that truth.
(Sigh) (Eyeroll) (Crotch grab)
We understand. However, this "truth" only applies to hosted
implementations, not to freestanding implementations, and freestanding
implementations are just as standard. You've been covering this up.
Mark
> On Apr 19, 8:22 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> That's not what he said. He said that the C Standard mandates
>> implementation support with defined semantics for a program with a
>> return type of int for the main() function, for hosted implementations.
>> That is true. Your inability to understand a truth does not invalidate
>> that truth.
>
> (Sigh) (Eyeroll) (Crotch grab)
>
> We understand. However, this "truth" only applies to hosted
> implementations, not to freestanding implementations, and freestanding
> implementations are just as standard. You've been covering this up.
From the version of the standard I have to hand (ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E)),
section 4 (Conformance) confirms that the two forms of conforming
implementation are "hosted" and "freestanding".
Later on, section 5.1.2.1 defines a freestanding environment as part of
its definition of a freestanding environment:
In a freestanding environment (in which C program execution may
take place without any benefit of an operating system), the name
and type of the function called at program startup are
implementation-defined.
I can't see an interpretation of that which involves an OS such as
Windows, MacOS, Unix, Linux or similar which would fulfill that
definition. They are specifically designed to *prevent* execution of
programs outside of the OS.
The hosted environment definition (section 5.1.2.2) says:
A hosted environment need not be provided, but shall conform to the
following specifications if present.
And then goes on (section 5.1.2.2.1) to define program startup:
The function called at program startup is named main. The
implementation declares no prototype for this function. It shall be
defined with a return type of int and with no parameters:
int main(void) { /* ... */ }
or with two parameters (referred to here as argc and argv, though
any names may be used, as they are local to the function in which
they are declared):
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { /* ... */ }
or equivalent[9]) or in some other implementation-defined manner.
9) Thus, int can be replaced by a typedef name defined as int, or
the type of argv can be written as char ** argv, and so on.
which gives no room for confusion.
Thus, if I write a program to run outside an OS, I can define any
function I like (any name, any parameters and with any return type which
C allows) and remain conformant. If, on the other hand, I write a C
program to be compiled and run within an OS, it shall return an int or
it doesn't conform to the standard.
It really is that simple.
Richard Heathfield
> On Apr 19, 8:22 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>> spinoza1111wrote:
>>> On Apr 17, 11:31 pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>> <nonsense snipped>
>>
>>>> Correcting him on points of fact has no discernable effect. He just
>>>> sticks with them.
>>> I think you confuse "facts" with "opinions of my friends". We've in
>>> fact learned that one of your major "facts" (a C program must have a
>>> main() with an int,
>> That's not what he said. He said that the C Standard mandates
>> implementation support with defined semantics for a program with a
>> return type of int for the main() function, for hosted implementations.
>> That is true. Your inability to understand a truth does not invalidate
>> that truth.
>
> (Sigh) (Eyeroll) (Crotch grab)
When you're ready to act a bit like a grown-up, let me know.
> We understand. However, this "truth" only applies to hosted
> implementations, not to freestanding implementations, and freestanding
> implementations are just as standard. You've been covering this up.
If you had actually read my articles on the subject, and had understood
them, the only reason for your making such a claim would be malice.
Knowing that you're not actually interested enough to do the necessary
research, however, I accept that it is mostly your incompetence and
ignorance that is behind your incorrect claim that I've been "covering
up" the licence that freestanding implementations have with regard to
supporting main(). There's probably some malice mixed in there too,
since you seem unable to hold discussions with anyone for any length of
time without behaving maliciously towards them, but I don't think you're
actually lying on this occasion - just plain wrong.
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 19, 8:22 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> That's not what he said. He said that the C Standard mandates
> >> implementation support with defined semantics for a program with a
> >> return type of int for the main() function, for hosted implementations.
> >> That is true. Your inability to understand a truth does not invalidate
> >> that truth.
>
> > (Sigh) (Eyeroll) (Crotch grab)
>
> > We understand. However, this "truth" only applies to hosted
> > implementations, not to freestanding implementations, and freestanding
> > implementations are just as standard. You've been covering this up.
>
> From the version of the standard I have to hand (ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E)),
> section 4 (Conformance) confirms that the two forms of conforming
> implementation are "hosted" and "freestanding".
>
> Later on, section 5.1.2.1 defines a freestanding environment as part of
> its definition of a freestanding environment:
>
> In a freestanding environment (in which C program execution may
> take place without any benefit of an operating system), the name
> and type of the function called at program startup are
> implementation-defined.
>
> I can't see an interpretation of that which involves an OS such as
> Windows, MacOS, Unix, Linux or similar which would fulfill that
> definition. They are specifically designed to *prevent* execution of
> programs outside of the OS.
Reread the passage: "in which C program execution MAY take place
without any benefit of an operating system".
It doesn't say "must".
"Freestanding" doesn't mean that the OS isn't present. It means that
the OS is unknown and that there is for this reason no constraint on
main(). main() doesn't have to be present, or it may have a
"nonstandard" form (such as void main).
For example, a Windows DLL without a main() procedure is freestanding.
As I have said, the Standard is not intended to be read by
programmers, and the fact that it's been so misread by you shows this.
It was meant for compiler developers and people with formal education
in computer science who haven't been moronized by corporate life.
>
> The hosted environment definition (section 5.1.2.2) says:
>
> A hosted environment need not be provided, but shall conform to the
> following specifications if present.
>
> And then goes on (section 5.1.2.2.1) to define program startup:
>
> The function called at program startup is named main. The
> implementation declares no prototype for this function. It shall be
> defined with a return type of int and with no parameters:
>
> int main(void) { /* ... */ }
>
> or with two parameters (referred to here as argc and argv, though
> any names may be used, as they are local to the function in which
> they are declared):
>
> int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { /* ... */ }
>
> or equivalent[9]) or in some other implementation-defined manner.
>
> 9) Thus, int can be replaced by a typedef name defined as int, or
> the type of argv can be written as char ** argv, and so on.
>
> which gives no room for confusion.
>
> Thus, if I write a program to run outside an OS, I can define any
> function I like (any name, any parameters and with any return type which
> C allows) and remain conformant. If, on the other hand, I write a C
> program to be compiled and run within an OS, it shall return an int or
> it doesn't conform to the standard.
Not correct. The freestanding environment's OS is UNDEFINED. It can be
present or absent.
Therefore, if I write C to be compiled and run within an OS, and I do
not intend this program to be run from a command line, the C is
standard C if it doesn't have a main(), or even if it does. Many
compilers will issue a warning in the latter case, but the code is
still a standard freestanding program.
>
> It really is that simple.
No, it isn't, and the confusion shows why programmers MUST take
computer science. Heathfield and Seebach seem unfamiliar with the sort
of "academic" language which uses modal logic in the sense that it's
less concerned with the "must be" of the "here and now", but with
possibility.
They seem incapable of understanding how a freestanding program is
agnostic about its OS and imagine the OS to be "not there" when it is
"unknown to be there".
This is connected to the superstition that C can be "just as portable
as Java". It is argued that C is "portable like Java" by pointing to
the possibility of a bug in the Java runtime. Other coders here brag
about how they "ported" C by making changes to code that depended on
endianness and IBM timer differences.
Mark
> On Apr 19, 4:12 pm, Mark <s...@not.welcome.here.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Later on, section 5.1.2.1 defines a freestanding environment as part of
>> its definition of a freestanding environment:
>>
>> In a freestanding environment (in which C program execution may
>> take place without any benefit of an operating system), the name
>> and type of the function called at program startup are
>> implementation-defined.
>>
>> I can't see an interpretation of that which involves an OS such as
>> Windows, MacOS, Unix, Linux or similar which would fulfill that
>> definition. They are specifically designed to *prevent* execution of
>> programs outside of the OS.
>
> Reread the passage: "in which C program execution MAY take place
> without any benefit of an operating system".
>
> It doesn't say "must".
Agreed, but if the definition of "freestanding environment" is that,
you'd expect environments which are freestanding to allow (if not
enforce) that.
Which OSs are you thinking of which do allow C program execution
*without* any benefit of an operating system?
> "Freestanding" doesn't mean that the OS isn't present. It means that
> the OS is unknown and that there is for this reason no constraint on
> main(). main() doesn't have to be present, or it may have a
> "nonstandard" form (such as void main).
Read it again. It doesn't say that.
> For example, a Windows DLL without a main() procedure is freestanding.
A windows DLL is not a C program executable and, therefore, doesn't have
to fulfill that until and unless it's executed. At that point, the
program linked in with it *combined* with DLLs would be expected to
fulfill these requirements.
> As I have said, the Standard is not intended to be read by
> programmers, and the fact that it's been so misread by you shows this.
> It was meant for compiler developers and people with formal education
> in computer science who haven't been moronized by corporate life.
What have I misread?
>> Thus, if I write a program to run outside an OS, I can define any
>> function I like (any name, any parameters and with any return type which
>> C allows) and remain conformant. If, on the other hand, I write a C
>> program to be compiled and run within an OS, it shall return an int or
>> it doesn't conform to the standard.
>
> Not correct. The freestanding environment's OS is UNDEFINED. It can be
> present or absent.
See above.
> Therefore, if I write C to be compiled and run within an OS, and I do
> not intend this program to be run from a command line, the C is
> standard C if it doesn't have a main(), or even if it does. Many
> compilers will issue a warning in the latter case, but the code is
> still a standard freestanding program.
Where does it mention a command-line?
>> It really is that simple.
>
> No, it isn't, and the confusion shows why programmers MUST take
> computer science. Heathfield and Seebach seem unfamiliar with the sort
> of "academic" language which uses modal logic in the sense that it's
> less concerned with the "must be" of the "here and now", but with
> possibility.
My B.Sc. is in Computer Science. I taught software engineering for
several years in a CS department at a major UK University. I am now
head of IT for an Engineering and Computing faculty at the same
University.
Richard Heathfield
>> I can't see an interpretation of that which involves an OS such as
>> Windows, MacOS, Unix, Linux or similar which would fulfill that
>> definition. They are specifically designed to *prevent* execution of
>> programs outside of the OS.
>
> Reread the passage: "in which C program execution MAY take place
> without any benefit of an operating system".
>
> It doesn't say "must".
>
> "Freestanding" doesn't mean that the OS isn't present.
I am rather surprised to find myself agreeing with you. This very fact
led me to re-read the Standard in case I'd misunderstood, but it does
seem that for once you have made a valid technical point. Well done;
keep it up.
> It means that
> the OS is unknown
Not necessarily. For example, when I write a Windows program, I know
that it will run under Windows, and so does my compiler. When compiling
Windows programs that use WinMain as an entry point, it doesn't conform
to the Standard's description of a hosted implementation, so it is /at
best/ a freestanding implementation.
> and that there is for this reason no constraint on
> main(). main() doesn't have to be present, or it may have a
> "nonstandard" form (such as void main).
No, the absence of a constraint on main() is simply a nod to existing
freestanding implementations that chose a different technique for
setting up the entry point.
> For example, a Windows DLL without a main() procedure is freestanding.
No, a Windows DLL is a compiled version of a C library. Libraries are
neither hosted nor freestanding. They're just libraries.
*Implementations* are freestanding (or hosted).
> As I have said, the Standard is not intended to be read by
> programmers, and the fact that it's been so misread by you shows this.
I disagree. It defines the nature of the interface between the compiler
writer and the programmer.
<nonsense snipped>
>> Thus, if I write a program to run outside an OS, I can define any
>> function I like (any name, any parameters and with any return type which
>> C allows) and remain conformant. If, on the other hand, I write a C
>> program to be compiled and run within an OS, it shall return an int or
>> it doesn't conform to the standard.
>
> Not correct. The freestanding environment's OS is UNDEFINED. It can be
> present or absent.
A better reply would have been: "Not correct. If you write a program for
a freestanding implementation, your choices are constrained by that
implementation's definition of valid entry point syntax."
> Therefore, if I write C to be compiled and run within an OS, and I do
> not intend this program to be run from a command line, the C is
> standard C if it doesn't have a main(), or even if it does. Many
> compilers will issue a warning in the latter case, but the code is
> still a standard freestanding program.
No, programs (except for programs that implement the C language) are
neither hosted nor freestanding.
<nonsense snipped>
Nick Keighley
> On Apr 19, 4:12 pm, Mark <s...@not.welcome.here.ac.uk> wrote:
> > spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 19, 8:22 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> > >> That's not what he said. He said that the C Standard mandates
> > >> implementation support with defined semantics for a program with a
> > >> return type of int for the main() function, for hosted implementations.
> > >> That is true. Your inability to understand a truth does not invalidate
> > >> that truth.
>
> > > (Sigh) (Eyeroll) (Crotch grab)
>
> > > We understand. However, this "truth" only applies to hosted
> > > implementations, not to freestanding implementations, and freestanding
> > > implementations are just as standard. You've been covering this up.
we have to do this as the freestanding implementations are all held in
Area 51 with the UFOs. Sorry just joking! there is no cover up!!
> > From the version of the standard I have to hand (ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E)),
> > section 4 (Conformance) confirms that the two forms of conforming
> > implementation are "hosted" and "freestanding".
>
> > Later on, section 5.1.2.1 defines a freestanding environment as part of
> > its definition of a freestanding environment:
>
> > In a freestanding environment (in which C program execution may
> > take place without any benefit of an operating system), the name
> > and type of the function called at program startup are
> > implementation-defined.
>
> > I can't see an interpretation of that which involves an OS such as
> > Windows, MacOS, Unix, Linux or similar which would fulfill that
> > definition. They are specifically designed to *prevent* execution of
> > programs outside of the OS.
I always assumed that people who described windows C compilers as
"freestanding" were indulging in a teckie joke.
Just as spinoza isn't *really* playing with himself as he posts. One
can hope anyway.
> Reread the passage: "in which C program execution MAY take place
> without any benefit of an operating system".
>
> It doesn't say "must".
>
> "Freestanding" doesn't mean that the OS isn't present. It means that
> the OS is unknown and that there is for this reason no constraint on
> main().
this is an... ingenious reading of the passage
the plain intent is that freestanding is "without an OS". The names
tend to give it away.
> main() doesn't have to be present, or it may have a
> "nonstandard" form (such as void main).
>
> For example, a Windows DLL without a main() procedure is freestanding.
only for a very lawyerly reading of the text. I shouldn't think it was
Microsoft's intent.
> As I have said, the Standard is not intended to be read by
> programmers,
you've said it and I don't agree. The C Standard is quite readable and
very useful for getting the "last word". I used to use the standard as
my first port of call for the library. I now use the web as I can cut
and paste directly into my code. I still use the standard to check
language stuff (though this is pretty rare now).
> and the fact that it's been so misread by you shows this.
> It was meant for compiler developers and people with formal education
> in computer science who haven't been moronized by corporate life.
I score one out of two there
Microsoft then go on to provide 99.9% of what is necessary for a
hosted environment. I think their intent was palinly to provide a
hosted environment and you are just being a silly person.
> > It really is that simple.
>
> No, it isn't, and the confusion shows why programmers MUST take
> computer science.
I've met very many very competant programmers that do not have formal
qualifications in computer science. In some cases no knowledge of it
all. They have different strengths. (for instance Electronic Engineers
have a better appreciation of hardware). After you've been out of
formal education for a decade or so it becomes much less important
what your degree was in. Unless you think education and learning is a
camel thing. Soak up as much as you can at the oasis (university) then
live off your stored education as you trudge across the desert of
life. Some of us have cracked a textbook since leaving university.
Weinberg "Psychology of Computer Programming" argued that ability in
their native language was as good an indication as anything else. At
one time IBM hired English language graduates and trained them to
program on the job.
> Heathfield and Seebach seem unfamiliar with the sort
> of "academic" language which uses modal logic in the sense that it's
> less concerned with the "must be" of the "here and now", but with
> possibility.
>
> They seem incapable of understanding how a freestanding program is
> agnostic about its OS and imagine the OS to be "not there" when it is
> "unknown to be there".
<snip>
Richard Heathfield
>
> I always assumed that people who described windows C compilers as
> "freestanding" were indulging in a teckie joke.
I'm one such person - in fact, I believe (BICBW) that I was the first
one to make the point - but I don't think it's particularly amusing.
It's just reality.
<snip>
> the plain intent is that freestanding is "without an OS". The names
> tend to give it away.
The Standard doesn't say so explicitly, however - and, going by the
wording of the Standard, some OS-based implementations are indeed
freestanding.
>
>
>> main() doesn't have to be present, or it may have a
>> "nonstandard" form (such as void main).
>>
>> For example, a Windows DLL without a main() procedure is freestanding.
>
> only for a very lawyerly reading of the text.
Not even for that. DLLs aren't implementations. (That doesn't mean you
can't put an implementation into a DLL, of course.)
> I shouldn't think it was Microsoft's intent.
I think that's irrelevant.
<snip>
> Microsoft then go on to provide 99.9% of what is necessary for a
> hosted environment. I think their intent was palinly to provide a
> hosted environment and you are just being a silly person.
If it were Microsoft's intent to provide a hosted *implementation*,
there was nothing to stop them providing one.
Mark
>
> The Standard doesn't say so explicitly, however - and, going by the
> wording of the Standard, some OS-based implementations are indeed
> freestanding.
I really do think that would depend on a particular definition of "OS".
One I'd be happy with, but which wouldn't be applicable to current
mainstream OSs...
Seebs
> I always assumed that people who described windows C compilers as
> "freestanding" were indulging in a teckie joke.
Not really. "Without the benefit of an OS" is an *example* of "freestanding",
but in fact, it is also used (by intent, so far as I know) to cover C
implementations running on an OS which isn't enough like the standard
ones to allow for stdio.
>> "Freestanding" doesn't mean that the OS isn't present. It means that
>> the OS is unknown and that there is for this reason no constraint on
>> main().
> this is an... ingenious reading of the passage
> the plain intent is that freestanding is "without an OS". The names
> tend to give it away.
"Without the *benefit of* an operating system".
There may be an OS there, but it isn't helping much. We use freestanding
code today. We target embedded systems. Some of the multicore ones have
a stripped-down library that allows you to build a completely self-contained
executable image, without most OS services, to run on a single core. The
Cell Linux environment did the same thing; it had hooks for running code on
the secondary cores, and that code wasn't *really* hosted C code, it was
just a freestanding implementation that, for convenience, provided a lot
of familiar functionality.
>> For example, a Windows DLL without a main() procedure is freestanding.
> only for a very lawyerly reading of the text. I shouldn't think it was
> Microsoft's intent.
I wouldn't either, but I am told that there was a time, within living memory,
when "sprintf()" wasn't available for the default compilation of Windows
GUI apps, and the rationale was that they were freestanding, and didn't
have stdio at all.
> Microsoft then go on to provide 99.9% of what is necessary for a
> hosted environment. I think their intent was palinly to provide a
> hosted environment and you are just being a silly person.
Their implementation was not driven by the C standard. It turns out that,
to have a functioning OS, you pretty much have to be theoretically able
to provide a hosted environment.
>> They seem incapable of understanding how a freestanding program is
>> agnostic about its OS and imagine the OS to be "not there" when it is
>> "unknown to be there".
><snip>
Which is a hilarious example of how Nilges can snatch defeat from the jaws
of victory -- I'm one of the only people to back him on one tiny claim here,
and his response is to lie about it and claim I didn't.
-s
--
Seebs
Sure it would, because the claim isn't that something isn't running under
an OS, but that it's running without the benefit of the OS. Which, from a
C standpoint, it isn't. If the OS does not provide stdin/stdout/stderr,
then the program has been denied that benefit. :)
The intent of WinMain() was absolutely to sever the program from the
usual C environment and express that this was a Different Kind Of Program.
And that's what makes this entire argument pointless -- Schildt is
unambiguously writing about programs declared using main(), and even in
Windows-land, those were always hosted.
-s
--
Richard Harnden
> On 2010-04-19, Mark<sp...@not.welcome.here.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield<r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>>> The Standard doesn't say so explicitly, however - and, going by the
>>> wording of the Standard, some OS-based implementations are indeed
>>> freestanding.
>
>> I really do think that would depend on a particular definition of "OS".
>> One I'd be happy with, but which wouldn't be applicable to current
>> mainstream OSs...
>
> Sure it would, because the claim isn't that something isn't running under
> an OS, but that it's running without the benefit of the OS. Which, from a
> C standpoint, it isn't. If the OS does not provide stdin/stdout/stderr,
> then the program has been denied that benefit. :)
>
> The intent of WinMain() was absolutely to sever the program from the
> usual C environment and express that this was a Different Kind Of Program.
>
> And that's what makes this entire argument pointless -- Schildt is
> unambiguously writing about programs declared using main(), and even in
> Windows-land, those were always hosted.
Schildt's book was about DOS, not Windows - I dunno if Windows even
existed when it was published.
Does C:TCR (any editon) mention hosted/freestanding?
Seebs
> Schildt's book was about DOS, not Windows - I dunno if Windows even
> existed when it was published.
By the time of the 4th edition, it did -- but it was still written about
the hosted implementation, not the freestanding one.
> Does C:TCR (any editon) mention hosted/freestanding?
Not that I ever noticed.
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 17, 5:10 pm, Mark <s...@not.welcome.here.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > right about Linux.
>
> >> The idea thatTorvaldsstole Minix was largely hyped up by a few people
> >> during the early years of the SCO-Novell court case. Even early
> >> versions shared little with Minix (mainly the filesystem code to get
> >> that side up and running until a new filesystem was put in place - which
> >> it was). This has largely been described as "scaffolding" and, like
> >> structural scaffolding in the "physical world", it's not part of the
> >> final product.
>
> > Tanenbaum and the developers of unix need to be credited with that.
>
> >> from Minix.
>
> > What's interesting is that Professor Tanenbaum had to eat shit, and
> > there was no corresponding apology for the flame war fromTorvalds,
>
> repeated that apology since. As far as I can see, there are no hard
> feelings on either side.
>
> > the victor who went on to be a millionaire while Tanenbaum remains a
> > professor, unrecognized for minix and unrecognized for pointing out
> > the facts, which include the fact that Linux stopped OS development in
> > its tracks. As far as I know, Linux doesn't even solve the 2038 date
> > overflow problem (I hope I am wrong).
>
> As Tanenbaum has stated clearly (in fact, in the same article I
> referenced) he was (and is) more interested in his academic career than
> having a successful career focused on Minix. I don't know howTorvalds
> has done or if he *is* a millionaire, but I don't understand why you
> wish to turn him into a bad guy.
>
> There *is* no "fact" that Linux stopped OS development in its tracks.
> That's just something you want to assert. OS development has certainly
> slowed but (I'd *assert*) this is more to do with the fact that kernels
> became "good enough" and the CS community has been more interested in
> other challenges in middleware and elsewhere. Finding ways to
> distribute code across cores and systems (locally or globally) are the
> route to Ph.D.s now. Is that Linux's (or Torvald's) fault? No more
> than it's Microsoft's, Sun's or Apple's fault.
>
> You are also wrong that Tanenbaum is unrecognised for Minix. Sure, he's
> never *was* known outside of the CS community. How hasTorvaldsfame
> cost him? If anything, it drew attention to Minix and has written him
> another page in history. I must say, however, Minix is not his most
> important work in my opinion.
>
> Finally, the 2038 problem is as solved as it can be. The standard
> time_t for 64 bit systems (which any serious system these days will be)
> is 64 bits. That gives us more time than I'm going to worry about
> (many, many millennia). There are some minor issues in 64 bit Unix like
> library support for dates in the far-future:
>
> - HPUX only recognise up to Dec 31 9999, 23:59:59 UTC
> in their 64 bit systems for functions like "ctime"
> - glibc on Fedora 12, x86_64 only seems to handle up to
> Dec 31 2147483647, 23:59:59 UTC. I can live with this.
>
> The biggest problems can't be solved by the OS designers, however, and
> that's where people have written code with the assumptions in the code,
> particularly where people aren't using time_t and/or are abusing the
> type in the way they perform arithmetic. This would be the case no
> matter which language or OS you were dealing with.
>
> As with Y2K, it will depend on code review. People running shoddy code
> have work to do, particularly if the code is heading to overruns earlier
> (the classic example being banks calculating mortgage repayments over
> 25/30 year terms).
>
> > > Are you going to keep repeating this or concede that you are wrong?
> > > to your conscience.
>
> > I don't think he cares. He's made his pile. That's all that counts in
> > this business.
>
> If that were the case, it would make your pursuit of Seebs on behalf of
> Schildt even harder to explain.
>
> Whether or not you retract and apologise is entirely up to you.
>
> big enough and smart enough to defend himself even if he does, so I
> won't patronise him by pretending otherwise. I'm certain that's the
> position someone like Herb Schildt would take too.
>
> This doesn't make your wild assertions correct, though. Are you big
> enough to concede the points I've made here?
>
> It's entirely up to you.
Let's take a look at Torvalds' reply to Tanenbaum's polite and
reasoned 1992 post, "Linux is obsolete":
http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/appa.html
Torvalds: "You use this as an excuse for the limitations of minix?
Sorry, but you
loose: I've got more excuses than you have, and linux still beats the
pants of minix in almost all areas. Not to mention the fact that most
of the good code for PC minix seems to have been written by Bruce
Evans."
Two half-literate spelling errors and a grandiose claim. Linux "beat
the pants off" minix only in empirical speed for chips of 1992. To say
this was a win was to be ignorant of Moore's Law.
Torvalds: "Re 1: you doing minix as a hobby - look at who makes money
off minix,
and who gives linux out for free. Then talk about hobbies. Make
minix
freely available, and one of my biggest gripes with it will
disappear.
Linux has very much been a hobby (but a serious one: the best type)
for
me: I get no money for it, and it's not even part of any of my studies
in the university. I've done it all on my own time, and on my own
machine."
Torvalds is anticipating millions at this point because he's creating,
unlike Tanenbaum, a resource for IBM that virtual slave labor will
complete, not him; and if any of these coding slaves get uppity they
will be savaged in public as I am. Torvalds did indeed become a
millionaire while claiming to be a benefactor of mankind; Tanenbaum
did not, precisely because Torvalds destroyed any opportunity to make
money by writing OSen. News flash: benefactors of mankind feed the
hungry and clothe the naked. They don't clone OSen, and they DON'T
destroy the middle class by deliberately working for free, especially
while living with Mommie and Daddy.
Torvalds: "Re 2: your job is being a professor and researcher: That's
one hell of a
good excuse for some of the brain-damages of minix. I can only hope
(and
assume) that Amoeba doesn't suck like minix does."
The Maoist and Fascist anti-intellectualism starts right here, because
instead of speaking truth to power, it's always safer and more fun to
gang up on professors. It makes you look like a Big Man, like one of
the Nazi thugs let us now say (for let us not speak falsely now the
hour is much too late) that disrupted classes in the Weimar Republic.
These were the Nazis and Maoists who could not write a sentence
without grammar and spelling errors, nor get past a low upper bound of
complexity without confusion, but found the High German of the German
professors too complex and the Four Olds of the Chinese professors
counter-revoltionary even though they could not read classical Chinese
or traditional characters.
This was Torvalds' first response. It is clear that Torvalds set the
style for attacking professors and authors in the name of creating
software by means of slave labor. He was a bitter, twisted little
graduate student who stole Minix. Tanenbaum was basically just to
decent to kick his fucking ass.
spinoza1111
> On Apr 17, 11:08 pm, Mark <s...@not.welcome.here.ac.uk> wrote:From: feu...@netcom.COM (David Feustel)
Look at this shit!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: LINUX is obsolete
Date: 30 Jan 92 18:57:28 GMT
Organization: DAFCO - An OS/2 Oasis
a...@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) writes:
>I still maintain the point that designing a monolithic kernel in 1991 is
>a fundamental error. Be thankful you are not my student. You would not
>get a high grade for such a design :-)
That's ok. Einstein got lousy grades in math and physics.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
So Torvalds is now Einstein? WTF?
Here's the origin of Seebach's vanity career. People just assume,
today, that if they get a bad grade and have a white skin, that they
are Misunderstood Geniuses Who Everyone Laughs At, while they like
Seebach laugh at a person who actually read John Markoff's fascinating
article on the origin of OO design (Simula) in the need of Danish
management to cooperate decently with Danish labor.
They fail, or do not as Seebach does not dare try. Then some
corporation hires them in order to write kiddie scripts and because
they're white and middle class, pays them 75K to start, and gives them
a fancy title.
Contract programmers fix their errors (% anything replaced when %s was
to be replaced, unstructured switch, failure to initialize db_header,
one line strlen all fucked up), take the money and run...or the code
is shipped for fixing to India, where programmers commute three hours
to work in 40C and know their trade.
Mark
> On Apr 17, 11:08 pm, Mark <s...@not.welcome.here.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> This doesn't make your wild assertions correct, though. Are you big
>> enough to concede the points I've made here?
>>
>> It's entirely up to you.
Okay - don't show any decency, then. I've presented the evidence.
Where's yours?
Where's the apology?
> Let's take a look at Torvalds' reply to Tanenbaum's polite and
> reasoned 1992 post, "Linux is obsolete":
>
> http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/appa.html
>
> Torvalds: "You use this as an excuse for the limitations of minix?
> Sorry, but you
> loose: I've got more excuses than you have, and linux still beats the
> pants of minix in almost all areas. Not to mention the fact that most
> of the good code for PC minix seems to have been written by Bruce
> Evans."
>
> Two half-literate spelling errors and a grandiose claim. Linux "beat
> the pants off" minix only in empirical speed for chips of 1992. To say
> this was a win was to be ignorant of Moore's Law.
He was young, and this is 18 years ago. The folly of youth.
> Torvalds: "Re 1: you doing minix as a hobby - look at who makes money
> off minix,
> and who gives linux out for free. Then talk about hobbies. Make
> minix
> freely available, and one of my biggest gripes with it will
> disappear.
> Linux has very much been a hobby (but a serious one: the best type)
> for
> me: I get no money for it, and it's not even part of any of my studies
> in the university. I've done it all on my own time, and on my own
> machine."
>
> Torvalds is anticipating millions at this point because he's creating,
Anticipating millions? Millions of what? Not money. That quote talks
about his unpaid hobby.
> unlike Tanenbaum, a resource for IBM that virtual slave labor will
> complete, not him; and if any of these coding slaves get uppity they
> will be savaged in public as I am. Torvalds did indeed become a
> millionaire while claiming to be a benefactor of mankind; Tanenbaum
> did not, precisely because Torvalds destroyed any opportunity to make
> money by writing OSen. News flash: benefactors of mankind feed the
Tanenbaum made it clear he wasn't seeking to be an OS salesman. You
can't justify this claim.
> hungry and clothe the naked. They don't clone OSen, and they DON'T
> destroy the middle class by deliberately working for free, especially
> while living with Mommie and Daddy.
No - benefactors of mankind do all sorts of things to benefit mankind.
It's you who are imposing your own definition. It's you who are claiming
he was claiming to *be* a benefactor of mankind.
Show the evidence.
Personally, I think he *did* benefit mankind. I think his project has
helped all sorts of people to understand kernel development. In some
cases, it has demonstrated what not to do (there has been more than one
misstep in Linux's design), in others it has demonstrated some very
interesting concepts. This is a *good* thing.
> Torvalds: "Re 2: your job is being a professor and researcher: That's
> one hell of a good excuse for some of the brain-damages of minix. I
> can only hope (and assume) that Amoeba doesn't suck like minix does."
>
> The Maoist and Fascist anti-intellectualism starts right here, because
> instead of speaking truth to power, it's always safer and more fun to
> gang up on professors. It makes you look like a Big Man, like one of
> the Nazi thugs let us now say (for let us not speak falsely now the
> hour is much too late) that disrupted classes in the Weimar Republic.
I show evidence from the right millennium, and you obsess about the
comments of a kid from almost 20 years ago. Comments he has apologised
for.
> These were the Nazis and Maoists who could not write a sentence
> without grammar and spelling errors, nor get past a low upper bound of
> complexity without confusion, but found the High German of the German
> professors too complex and the Four Olds of the Chinese professors
> counter-revoltionary even though they could not read classical Chinese
> or traditional characters.
No - here's a very bright and (too) precocious kid who needed to learn a
little humility. Lots of people say stupid things when young and many,
like Torvalds, will go on to develop. To compare him to Maoists is
ridiculous.
To compare him to Nazis is Godwin's. ;-)
> This was Torvalds' first response. It is clear that Torvalds set the
> style for attacking professors and authors in the name of creating
"Set the style"? He wasn't the first and will not be the last. To
suggest he was the originator of some sort of anti-intellectual backlash
is ridiculous.
> software by means of slave labor.
These would be willing slaves...or, in other words, 'not slaves'.
> He was a bitter, twisted little
> graduate student who stole Minix.
Repeating the claim that he stole Minix doesn't make it true.
Claiming he was bitter and twisted doesn't help make it true.
> Tanenbaum was basically just to
> decent to kick his fucking ass.
You know Tanenbaum's mind better than he does?
Mark
> On Apr 20, 1:17�pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 17, 11:08�pm, Mark <s...@not.welcome.here.ac.uk> wrote:From:
>> feu...@netcom.COM (David Feustel)
>
> Look at this shit!
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Subject: Re: LINUX is obsolete
> Date: 30 Jan 92 18:57:28 GMT
> Organization: DAFCO - An OS/2 Oasis
>
> a...@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) writes:
>
>>I still maintain the point that designing a monolithic kernel in 1991 is
>>a fundamental error. Be thankful you are not my student. You would not
>>get a high grade for such a design :-)
>
> That's ok. Einstein got lousy grades in math and physics.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So Torvalds is now Einstein? WTF?
>
> Here's the origin of Seebach's vanity career. People just assume,
> today, that if they get a bad grade and have a white skin, that they
> are Misunderstood Geniuses Who Everyone Laughs At, while they like
> Seebach laugh at a person who actually read John Markoff's fascinating
> article on the origin of OO design (Simula) in the need of Danish
> management to cooperate decently with Danish labor.
Wow - someone made a throwaway comment in the middle of an argument
eighteen years ago and it led to all the evil in the world.
Talk about the butterfly effect!
Richard Heathfield
<snip>
> Let's take a look at Torvalds' reply to Tanenbaum's polite and
> reasoned 1992 post, "Linux is obsolete":
>
> http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/appa.html
Well done for citing a reference for a change. Perhaps one day you'll
learn to snip, although I'm beginning to believe that you simply cannot
understand the concept.
> Torvalds: "You use this as an excuse for the limitations of minix?
> Sorry, but you
> loose: I've got more excuses than you have, and linux still beats the
> pants of minix in almost all areas. Not to mention the fact that most
> of the good code for PC minix seems to have been written by Bruce
> Evans."
>
> Two half-literate spelling errors
Anyone who spells "desperate" with two 'a's is in no position to
complain about illiteracy.
Reference:
<c67d9a14-64a2-41cb...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 17, 11:08 pm, Mark <s...@not.welcome.here.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >> This doesn't make your wild assertions correct, though. Are you big
> >> enough to concede the points I've made here?
>
> >> It's entirely up to you.
>
> Okay - don't show any decency, then. I've presented the evidence.
> Where's yours?
>
> Where's the apology?
>
> > Let's take a look at Torvalds' reply to Tanenbaum's polite and
> > reasoned 1992 post, "Linux is obsolete":
>
> >http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/appa.html
>
> > Torvalds: "You use this as an excuse for the limitations of minix?
> > Sorry, but you
> > loose: I've got more excuses than you have, and linux still beats the
> > pants of minix in almost all areas. Not to mention the fact that most
> > of the good code for PC minix seems to have been written by Bruce
> > Evans."
>
> > Two half-literate spelling errors and a grandiose claim. Linux "beat
> > the pants off" minix only in empirical speed for chips of 1992. To say
> > this was a win was to be ignorant of Moore's Law.
>
> He was young, and this is 18 years ago. The folly of youth.
No, he was a graduate student in his twenties.
>
> > Torvalds: "Re 1: you doing minix as a hobby - look at who makes money
> > off minix,
> > and who gives linux out for free. Then talk about hobbies. Make
> > minix
> > freely available, and one of my biggest gripes with it will
> > disappear.
> > Linux has very much been a hobby (but a serious one: the best type)
> > for
> > me: I get no money for it, and it's not even part of any of my studies
> > in the university. I've done it all on my own time, and on my own
> > machine."
>
> > Torvalds is anticipating millions at this point because he's creating,
>
> Anticipating millions? Millions of what? Not money. That quote talks
> about his unpaid hobby.
He has become a millionaire, by way of a silly project (reinventing
the wheel) in which he did not have to do any scientific thinking
whatsoever.
>
> > unlike Tanenbaum, a resource for IBM that virtual slave labor will
> > complete, not him; and if any of these coding slaves get uppity they
> > will be savaged in public as I am. Torvalds did indeed become a
> > millionaire while claiming to be a benefactor of mankind; Tanenbaum
> > did not, precisely because Torvalds destroyed any opportunity to make
> > money by writing OSen. News flash: benefactors of mankind feed the
>
> Tanenbaum made it clear he wasn't seeking to be an OS salesman. You
> can't justify this claim.
Torvalds not only deprived Tanenbaum of compensation. He also (1)
stole credit due Tanenbaum for scientific research in kernel OSen and
(2) stopped progress in OS development at the level of the 1970s.
>
> > hungry and clothe the naked. They don't clone OSen, and they DON'T
> > destroy the middle class by deliberately working for free, especially
> > while living with Mommie and Daddy.
>
> No - benefactors of mankind do all sorts of things to benefit mankind.
> It's you who are imposing your own definition. It's you who are claiming
> he was claiming to *be* a benefactor of mankind.
That is indeed the rhetoric of the open source clowns: that what they
do is eleemosynary. Read Jimbo Wales and his adepts. They're insane.
>
> Show the evidence.
>
> Personally, I think he *did* benefit mankind. I think his project has
> helped all sorts of people to understand kernel development. In some
No, it's filled geeks with the opinion that they know. But the
ignorant claims made at the thread quoted show that they fall prey to
the oldest computing folly: that safety, security, separation of
concerns and reliability are for girls.
> cases, it has demonstrated what not to do (there has been more than one
> misstep in Linux's design), in others it has demonstrated some very
> interesting concepts. This is a *good* thing.
>
> > Torvalds: "Re 2: your job is being a professor and researcher: That's
> > one hell of a good excuse for some of the brain-damages of minix. I
> > can only hope (and assume) that Amoeba doesn't suck like minix does."
>
> > The Maoist and Fascist anti-intellectualism starts right here, because
> > instead of speaking truth to power, it's always safer and more fun to
> > gang up on professors. It makes you look like a Big Man, like one of
> > the Nazi thugs let us now say (for let us not speak falsely now the
> > hour is much too late) that disrupted classes in the Weimar Republic.
>
> I show evidence from the right millennium, and you obsess about the
> comments of a kid from almost 20 years ago. Comments he has apologised
> for.
Pro forma and reluctantly in response to Tanenbaum's far more gracious
(and well-written) apology. No, as I have shown, Torvalds started the
flame war.
>
> > These were the Nazis and Maoists who could not write a sentence
> > without grammar and spelling errors, nor get past a low upper bound of
> > complexity without confusion, but found the High German of the German
> > professors too complex and the Four Olds of the Chinese professors
> > counter-revoltionary even though they could not read classical Chinese
> > or traditional characters.
>
> No - here's a very bright and (too) precocious kid who needed to learn a
> little humility. Lots of people say stupid things when young and many,
> like Torvalds, will go on to develop. To compare him to Maoists is
> ridiculous.
>
> To compare him to Nazis is Godwin's. ;-)
Mike Godwin is wrong. As it happens, each of the half-educated and
lower middle class programmers here have Nazi personality types; the
core support for Hitler was in large measure amongst engineers,
technicians and white collar workers. Comparision to Hitler converges
to unity because of the prevalence of Mama's boys in these newsgroups
who without genuine accomplishment turn as did young Hitler to the
politics of destruction.
>
> > This was Torvalds' first response. It is clear that Torvalds set the
> > style for attacking professors and authors in the name of creating
>
> "Set the style"? He wasn't the first and will not be the last. To
> suggest he was the originator of some sort of anti-intellectual backlash
> is ridiculous.
>
> > software by means of slave labor.
>
> These would be willing slaves...or, in other words, 'not slaves'.
Not so. The most valuable slaves in the old south were in fact
willing, "happy" slaves, not runaways who would after capture be sold
at a discount.
>
> > He was a bitter, twisted little
> > graduate student who stole Minix.
>
> Repeating the claim that he stole Minix doesn't make it true.
> Claiming he was bitter and twisted doesn't help make it true.
Torvalds' hostility emerges in the first paragraph.
>
> > Tanenbaum was basically just to
> > decent to kick his fucking ass.
>
> You know Tanenbaum's mind better than he does?
Perhaps. I do know that most computer science professors are studiedly
unconscious of their dependence on corporate funding. Just as there
can be (cf. Frantz Fanon) happy slaves, there are people who have what
Marx calls a false consciousness.
Edsger Dijkstra was in fact the only computer science professor to
face and articulate the fact: that in software, an interesting new
mathematical phenomenon has been enslaved to corporate needs just as
nuclear power was enslaved to power politics.
Torvalds was nothing more than the guy who in a consulting firm where
I worked gained a reputation as an ace technician because he would
work 16 hours a day and report 8. By making Linux free, Torvalds
created a resource useful primarily only to large corporations. This
resource has allowed IBM to run giant computers on behalf of the
largest corporations and the largest and most evil government agencies
while getting rid of older programmers who specialized in developing
its proprietary operating systems.
Torvalds destroyed opportunities for people who need to get paid, eg.,
the middle class.
Mark
> On Apr 20, 3:06 pm, Mark <s...@not.welcome.here.ac.uk> wrote:
>> spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On Apr 17, 11:08 pm, Mark <s...@not.welcome.here.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> This doesn't make your wild assertions correct, though. Are you big
>> >> enough to concede the points I've made here?
>>
>> >> It's entirely up to you.
>>
>> Okay - don't show any decency, then. I've presented the evidence.
>> Where's yours?
>>
>> Where's the apology?
>>
>> > Let's take a look at Torvalds' reply to Tanenbaum's polite and
>> > reasoned 1992 post, "Linux is obsolete":
>>
>> >http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/appa.html
>>
>> > Torvalds: "You use this as an excuse for the limitations of minix?
>> > Sorry, but you
>> > loose: I've got more excuses than you have, and linux still beats the
>> > pants of minix in almost all areas. Not to mention the fact that most
>> > of the good code for PC minix seems to have been written by Bruce
>> > Evans."
>>
>> > Two half-literate spelling errors and a grandiose claim. Linux "beat
>> > the pants off" minix only in empirical speed for chips of 1992. To say
>> > this was a win was to be ignorant of Moore's Law.
>>
>> He was young, and this is 18 years ago. The folly of youth.
>
> No, he was a graduate student in his twenties.
Yes - which doesn't stop him being young and impetuous.
>> > Torvalds: "Re 1: you doing minix as a hobby - look at who makes money
>> > off minix,
>> > and who gives linux out for free. Then talk about hobbies. Make
>> > minix
>> > freely available, and one of my biggest gripes with it will
>> > disappear.
>> > Linux has very much been a hobby (but a serious one: the best type)
>> > for
>> > me: I get no money for it, and it's not even part of any of my studies
>> > in the university. I've done it all on my own time, and on my own
>> > machine."
>>
>> > Torvalds is anticipating millions at this point because he's creating,
>>
>> Anticipating millions? Millions of what? Not money. That quote talks
>> about his unpaid hobby.
>
> He has become a millionaire, by way of a silly project (reinventing
> the wheel) in which he did not have to do any scientific thinking
> whatsoever.
I'll take your word about the millions he's obtained, but I challenge
you to substantiate the claim he did no scientific thinking.
I have watched the kernel, and his understanding of hardware
architecture (theoretical and practical) is impressive. His ability to
understand the whole breadth of the issues associated with an idea is
quite amazing. When you look at how quickly he developed "git" and the
novel ideas he got working within it (which *weren't* stolen), it's not
a fluke.
There are many people who are keen for his services, and it's not to
co-opt the Linux kernel. The guy is no intellectual slouch.
>> > unlike Tanenbaum, a resource for IBM that virtual slave labor will
>> > complete, not him; and if any of these coding slaves get uppity they
>> > will be savaged in public as I am. Torvalds did indeed become a
>> > millionaire while claiming to be a benefactor of mankind; Tanenbaum
>> > did not, precisely because Torvalds destroyed any opportunity to make
>> > money by writing OSen. News flash: benefactors of mankind feed the
>>
>> Tanenbaum made it clear he wasn't seeking to be an OS salesman. You
>> can't justify this claim.
>
> Torvalds not only deprived Tanenbaum of compensation. He also (1)
> stole credit due Tanenbaum for scientific research in kernel OSen and
> (2) stopped progress in OS development at the level of the 1970s.
Justify those claims. Use evidence.
>> > hungry and clothe the naked. They don't clone OSen, and they DON'T
>> > destroy the middle class by deliberately working for free, especially
>> > while living with Mommie and Daddy.
>>
>> No - benefactors of mankind do all sorts of things to benefit mankind.
>> It's you who are imposing your own definition. It's you who are claiming
>> he was claiming to *be* a benefactor of mankind.
>
> That is indeed the rhetoric of the open source clowns: that what they
> do is eleemosynary. Read Jimbo Wales and his adepts. They're insane.
That's distraction. What has Jimbo Wales got to do with Linus Torvalds?
>> Show the evidence.
>>
>> Personally, I think he *did* benefit mankind. I think his project has
>> helped all sorts of people to understand kernel development. In some
>
> No, it's filled geeks with the opinion that they know. But the
> ignorant claims made at the thread quoted show that they fall prey to
> the oldest computing folly: that safety, security, separation of
> concerns and reliability are for girls.
It doesn't show that at all. Context is everything.
>> cases, it has demonstrated what not to do (there has been more than one
>> misstep in Linux's design), in others it has demonstrated some very
>> interesting concepts. This is a *good* thing.
>>
>> > Torvalds: "Re 2: your job is being a professor and researcher: That's
>> > one hell of a good excuse for some of the brain-damages of minix. I
>> > can only hope (and assume) that Amoeba doesn't suck like minix does."
>>
>> > The Maoist and Fascist anti-intellectualism starts right here, because
>> > instead of speaking truth to power, it's always safer and more fun to
>> > gang up on professors. It makes you look like a Big Man, like one of
>> > the Nazi thugs let us now say (for let us not speak falsely now the
>> > hour is much too late) that disrupted classes in the Weimar Republic.
>>
>> I show evidence from the right millennium, and you obsess about the
>> comments of a kid from almost 20 years ago. Comments he has apologised
>> for.
>
> Pro forma and reluctantly in response to Tanenbaum's far more gracious
> (and well-written) apology. No, as I have shown, Torvalds started the
> flame war.
Torvalds started a flame war 18 years ago, and that's pretty much where
it ended (except amongst various geeks who have re-raised it ad
infinitum).
You are being offended on behalf of Tanenbaum, a man who has repeatedly
stated that he bears no grudge. That's ridiculous.
When you then use it to abuse Torvalds, that's completely unreasonable.
You accuse others of being bullys - truly a case of the pot calling the
kettle black.
>> No - here's a very bright and (too) precocious kid who needed to learn a
>> little humility. Lots of people say stupid things when young and many,
>> like Torvalds, will go on to develop. To compare him to Maoists is
>> ridiculous.
>>
>> To compare him to Nazis is Godwin's. ;-)
>
> Mike Godwin is wrong. As it happens, each of the half-educated and
> lower middle class programmers here have Nazi personality types; the
> core support for Hitler was in large measure amongst engineers,
> technicians and white collar workers. Comparision to Hitler converges
> to unity because of the prevalence of Mama's boys in these newsgroups
> who without genuine accomplishment turn as did young Hitler to the
> politics of destruction.
This is base polemic.
>> > software by means of slave labor.
>>
>> These would be willing slaves...or, in other words, 'not slaves'.
>
> Not so. The most valuable slaves in the old south were in fact
> willing, "happy" slaves, not runaways who would after capture be sold
> at a discount.
These are people who have options. The slaves in the old south were
reliant on their masters for everything.
It is disgraceful to make the comparison.
>> > He was a bitter, twisted little
>> > graduate student who stole Minix.
>>
>> Repeating the claim that he stole Minix doesn't make it true.
>> Claiming he was bitter and twisted doesn't help make it true.
>
> Torvalds' hostility emerges in the first paragraph.
And that was towards someone who had attacked his work. As it happens,
I believe Tanenbaum was right, but Torvalds isn't the first person to
react badly to criticism.
But you're attacking a guy now for something he wrote 18 years ago, and
disproportionately.
And you still haven't justified your claim that he stole anything.
Because he *didn't*.
>> > Tanenbaum was basically just to
>> > decent to kick his fucking ass.
>>
>> You know Tanenbaum's mind better than he does?
>
> Perhaps. I do know that most computer science professors are studiedly
> unconscious of their dependence on corporate funding. Just as there
> can be (cf. Frantz Fanon) happy slaves, there are people who have what
> Marx calls a false consciousness.
Oh - but now you claim Tanenbaum is stupid and/or a puppet of the
corporations. Is there no depth to which you won't stoop to try to
claim your abuse is "truth"?
> Edsger Dijkstra was in fact the only computer science professor to
> face and articulate the fact: that in software, an interesting new
> mathematical phenomenon has been enslaved to corporate needs just as
> nuclear power was enslaved to power politics.
Now the claim to the One True Messiah.
> Torvalds was nothing more than the guy who in a consulting firm where
> I worked gained a reputation as an ace technician because he would
> work 16 hours a day and report 8. By making Linux free, Torvalds
> created a resource useful primarily only to large corporations.
Torvalds wrote it as a graduate student. Not in a consultancy firm.
Do you know *anything* about his background?
> This
> resource has allowed IBM to run giant computers on behalf of the
> largest corporations and the largest and most evil government agencies
> while getting rid of older programmers who specialized in developing
> its proprietary operating systems.
No - that is a side-effect. It's hard to produce a good product which
can't be used by bad people.
> Torvalds destroyed opportunities for people who need to get paid, eg.,
> the middle class.
The exchange makers put the operators out of business.
The carmakers put the cart-makers out of business.
Gutenberg and others put the scribes out of business.
In every case, this creates opportunities for new businesses to
piggyback on top.
Shed no tears for the past, look instead to the future.
blm...@myrealbox.com
spinoza1111 <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 11:08 pm, Mark <s...@not.welcome.here.ac.uk> wrote:
> > spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 17, 5:10 pm, Mark <s...@not.welcome.here.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >>spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> > Which is why Andrew Tanenbaum (from whomTorvaldsstole Minix) was
What happened to the spaces around Torvalds's name? here and
in other quoted text? (I'm guessing some sort of GG weirdness,
but it's a new one .... )
> > >> > right about Linux.
> >
> > >> The idea thatTorvaldsstole Minix was largely hyped up by a few people
> > >> during the early years of the SCO-Novell court case. Even early
> > >> versions shared little with Minix (mainly the filesystem code to get
> > >> that side up and running until a new filesystem was put in place - which
> > >> it was). This has largely been described as "scaffolding" and, like
> > >> structural scaffolding in the "physical world", it's not part of the
> > >> final product.
[ snip ]
> > >> Don't believe me? Forget a short, intemperate debate in 1992 and read
> > >> this piece from the man himself (Professor Andrew S. Tanenbaum) from May
> > >> 2004:
> >
> > >> http://linux.sys-con.com/node/44969
[ snip ]
> Let's take a look at Torvalds' reply to Tanenbaum's polite and
> reasoned 1992 post, "Linux is obsolete":
>
> http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/appa.html
Why? It's interesting history, but the fight appears to be long
since over. Indeed, skimming through the rest of the discussion
included at the URL you cite, there's this, from Mr. Torvalds:
'And reply I did, with complete abandon, and no thought for good
taste and netiquette. Apologies to ast, and thanks to John Nall
for a friendy "that's not how it's done"-letter. I over-reacted,
and am now composing a (much less acerbic) personal letter to
ast. Hope nobody was turned away from linux due to it being (a)
possibly obsolete (I still think that's not the case, although
some of the criticisms are valid) and (b) written by a hothead :-)'
'Linus "my first, and hopefully last flamefest" Torvalds'
Did you stop reading when you found something inflammatory, or do
you not think the apology makes up for the original intemperate
post, or what? (Semi-rhetorical question, really.)
> Torvalds: "You use this as an excuse for the limitations of minix?
> Sorry, but you
> loose: I've got more excuses than you have, and linux still beats the
> pants of minix in almost all areas. Not to mention the fact that most
> of the good code for PC minix seems to have been written by Bruce
> Evans."
>
> Two half-literate spelling errors
Hold that thought. (I'm guessing you mean "loose" for "lose"
and "of" for "off". The former is all too common, and a genuine
mistake, but the latter -- why not assume it's a typo?)
> and a grandiose claim. Linux "beat
> the pants off" minix only in empirical speed for chips of 1992. To say
> this was a win was to be ignorant of Moore's Law.
[ snip ]
> This was Torvalds' first response. It is clear that Torvalds set the
> style for attacking professors and authors in the name of creating
> software by means of slave labor. He was a bitter, twisted little
> graduate student who stole Minix. Tanenbaum was basically just to
> decent to kick his fucking ass.
"To decent"? A typo, no doubt.
Skitt's Law in action!
--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
spinoza1111
wrote:
> In article <4c5b851b-3b4d-4d6a-98ad-6fc4387ad...@k5g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Coherence theory of truth, darling. Torvalds was foaming at the mouth
with rage and is a poor writer. I'm neither.
By their fruits...I point out typos that do not in themselves prove
anything only to reinforce the global wrongness of Torvalds attack on
Tanenberg. I make typos because I don't have much time to waste on
this foolishness. He makes them because he's a half literate buffoon
and code monkey who stole an idea.
My Homeric nods have a different meaning altogether. If I wanted to
waste time on people who disgust me, I'd proofread more. As it is, I
don't. Whereas Torvalds clearly doesn't know how to spell.
Likewise, Seebach's errors mean something different in context. He
couldn't be bothered to code a structured switch() because in fact
he's uneducated in computer science, not because he's pressed for
time.
Torvalds' hostile tone is that of a thief; Seebach's is that of a
stalker. They make mistakes and are ready to try to divert attention
from their mistakes by attacking others. Whereas I'm doing something
almost unexampled in clc, and that's defending another person's
reputation (Schildt) in a group in which infants and Mama's boys get
their rocks off by destroying other people anonymously and/or part of
a mob.
>
> > and a grandiose claim. Linux "beat
> > the pants off" minix only in empirical speed for chips of 1992. To say
> > this was a win was to be ignorant of Moore's Law.
>
> [ snip ]
>
> > This was Torvalds' first response. It is clear that Torvalds set the
> > style for attacking professors and authors in the name of creating
> > software by means of slave labor. He was a bitter, twisted little
> > graduate student who stole Minix. Tanenbaum was basically just to
> > decent to kick his fucking ass.
>
> "To decent"? A typo, no doubt.
Yes, a typo, Ms Enabler. You could find an infinite number of typos
and they wouldn't be a pitcher of warm spit.
You disgust me, and I have no more time to waste. So maybe you'll find
more typos. The fact remains that you lack the cognitive skills above
a low upper bound to understand the issue here, which is that a bunch
of uneducated dime a dozen corporate creeps are misusing this group to
make themselves precisely what they are not.
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111wrote:
>
>
> > Let's take a look at Torvalds' reply to Tanenbaum's polite and
> > reasoned 1992 post, "Linux is obsolete":
>
> >http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/appa.html
>
> Well done for citing a reference for a change. Perhaps one day you'll
> learn to snip, although I'm beginning to believe that you simply cannot
> understand the concept.
>
> > Torvalds: "You use this as an excuse for the limitations of minix?
> > Sorry, but you
> > loose: I've got more excuses than you have, and linux still beats the
> > pants of minix in almost all areas. Not to mention the fact that most
> > of the good code for PC minix seems to have been written by Bruce
> > Evans."
>
> > Two half-literate spelling errors
>
> Anyone who spells "desperate" with two 'a's is in no position to
> complain about illiteracy.
Torvalds' spelling errors are part of a larger picture and reinforce
my conclusion as to the whole man: the main thing is his theft of
intellectual production (not property) from a man who he then
proceeded to assault, setting the pattern for twenty years of "open
source" mob violence and theft. The fact that he was foaming at the
mouth in his very first reply to Tanenbaum, the victim of his theft,
is only accentuated by the spelling errors; they season the brew, and
they mean something quite different from the fact that I'd like to
limit the time I waste on people like you.
We all have online dictionaries, creep. But not all of us are
"verbose" in the narcissistic sense meant here; able to construct
thoughts of any complexity.
>
> Reference:
> <c67d9a14-64a2-41cb-ac39-148fbae42...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 17, 11:08 pm, Mark <s...@not.welcome.here.ac.uk> wrote:From:
>
> > Look at this shit!
>
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Subject: Re: LINUX is obsolete
> > Date: 30 Jan 92 18:57:28 GMT
> > Organization: DAFCO - An OS/2 Oasis
>
> > a...@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) writes:
>
> >>I still maintain the point that designing a monolithic kernel in 1991 is
> >>a fundamental error. Be thankful you are not my student. You would not
> >>get a high grade for such a design :-)
>
> > That's ok. Einstein got lousy grades in math and physics.
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > So Torvalds is now Einstein? WTF?
>
> > Here's the origin of Seebach's vanity career. People just assume,
> > today, that if they get a bad grade and have a white skin, that they
> > are Misunderstood Geniuses Who Everyone Laughs At, while they like
> > Seebach laugh at a person who actually read John Markoff's fascinating
> > article on the origin of OO design (Simula) in the need of Danish
> > management to cooperate decently with Danish labor.
>
> Wow - someone made a throwaway comment in the middle of an argument
> eighteen years ago and it led to all the evil in the world.
>
> Talk about the butterfly effect!
I am not saying that. "Some of the evil in the world" is not "all of
the evil in the world". The problem here is that people like Seebach
literally are incapable of seeing that they do evil.
Mark
> On Apr 21, 12:20�am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com>
> wrote:
>> In article <4c5b851b-3b4d-4d6a-98ad-6fc4387ad...@k5g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> spinoza1111�<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Torvalds: "You use this as an excuse for the limitations of minix?
>> > Sorry, but you
>> > loose: I've got more excuses than you have, and linux still beats the
>> > pants of minix in almost all areas. �Not to mention the fact that most
>> > of the good code for PC minix seems to have been written by Bruce
>> > Evans."
>>
>> > Two half-literate spelling errors
>>
>> Hold that thought. �(I'm guessing you mean "loose" for "lose"
>> and "of" for "off". �The former is all too common, and a genuine
>> mistake, but the latter -- why not assume it's a typo?)
>
> Coherence theory of truth, darling. Torvalds was foaming at the mouth
> with rage and is a poor writer. I'm neither.
How's your Swedish (in a rage or otherwise)?
> By their fruits...I point out typos that do not in themselves prove
> anything only to reinforce the global wrongness of Torvalds attack on
> Tanenberg. I make typos because I don't have much time to waste on
> this foolishness. He makes them because he's a half literate buffoon
> and code monkey who stole an idea.
None of these allegations have been susbtantiated in any way.
> My Homeric nods have a different meaning altogether. If I wanted to
> waste time on people who disgust me, I'd proofread more. As it is, I
> don't. Whereas Torvalds clearly doesn't know how to spell.
You use the present tense when criticising an ancient posting?
> Torvalds' hostile tone is that of a thief;
More abuse. Unsubstantiated.
I won't even get into definitions of theft...
> Seebach's is that of a
> stalker. They make mistakes and are ready to try to divert attention
> from their mistakes by attacking others. Whereas I'm doing something
> almost unexampled in clc, and that's defending another person's
> reputation (Schildt) in a group in which infants and Mama's boys get
> their rocks off by destroying other people anonymously and/or part of
> a mob.
You are (in this thread) attacking others. PKB.
>> [ snip ]
>>
>> > This was Torvalds' first response. It is clear that Torvalds set the
>> > style for attacking professors and authors in the name of creating
>> > software by means of slave labor. He was a bitter, twisted little
>> > graduate student who stole Minix. Tanenbaum was basically just to
>> > decent to kick his fucking ass.
>>
>> "To decent"? �A typo, no doubt. �
>
> Yes, a typo, Ms Enabler. You could find an infinite number of typos
> and they wouldn't be a pitcher of warm spit.
Yours are fine, Torvalds are not?
> You disgust me, and I have no more time to waste. So maybe you'll find
> more typos. The fact remains that you lack the cognitive skills above
> a low upper bound to understand the issue here, which is that a bunch
> of uneducated dime a dozen corporate creeps are misusing this group to
> make themselves precisely what they are not.
Now you find another person to abuse.
How can you justify this abuse?
Mark
Fair point. So you are saying that that *specific* throwaway comment
led directly to a vanity career for Seebach? Your basis for this is
what?
Keith Thompson
> spinoza1111 <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[more of the same]
> Now you find another person to abuse.
>
> How can you justify this abuse?
How can *you* justify encouraging it by responding to it?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Mark
> Mark <sp...@not.welcome.here.ac.uk> writes:
>> spinoza1111 <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [more of the same]
>> Now you find another person to abuse.
>>
>> How can you justify this abuse?
>
> How can *you* justify encouraging it by responding to it?
Fair point - will give up.
Keith Thompson
>
> [more of the same]
B. L.: I have a serious question for you. I seem to recall that,
in the past, you've made posts here that were actually about C.
The vast majority if your recent posts have been (a) not about C,
and (b) responses to "spinoza1111"'s posts (which, as we've seen,
simply encourage him to post more of his nonsense).
Are you here to discuss C? To put it another way, if I were
to filter out all your articles, would I risk missing anything
interesting or useful? I'd rather not do that, but at this point
I'm seriously considering it.
I completely understand the urge to post a rebuttal when "someone is
WRONG on the Internet" (<http://xkcd.com/386/>). I haven't always
been successful in resisting the urge myself. I just don't want to
watch someone else making the same mistake I've made, again and again.
Seebs
> spinoza1111 <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I am not saying that. "Some of the evil in the world" is not "all of
>> the evil in the world". The problem here is that people like Seebach
>> literally are incapable of seeing that they do evil.
The irony is amazing, but even ignoring that, I'd point out that this is
plainly untrue. I have never claimed not to have done evil; I'm not a
particularly nice guy. I frequently see that I do, or have done, evil.
Usually, I react by trying to change my behavior. Sometimes I succeed.
Usually, I'll at least seriously consider criticism from basically anyone.
The only exceptions I make are people who consistently get most of their
facts wrong in their explanations, or who refuse to offer any explanation
not rooted in invented motives.
> Fair point. So you are saying that that *specific* throwaway comment
> led directly to a vanity career for Seebach? Your basis for this is
> what?
I don't think he has one.
Richard Heathfield
> On Apr 20, 3:39 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>> spinoza1111wrote:
>>
<snip>
>>> Two half-literate spelling errors
>> Anyone who spells "desperate" with two 'a's is in no position to
>> complain about illiteracy.
>
> Torvalds' spelling errors are part of a larger picture
Special pleading. His spelling errors make him half-literate, but yours
are okay because it's you making them. Sheer hypocrisy.
<snip>
> We all have online dictionaries, creep.
It doesn't show.
Kenny McCormack
spinoza1111 <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
>> famous/rich/powerful/etc. That we're not (and trust me, I've never
>> heard of any of the CLC gang outside of CLC) these things, speaks all.
>
>Minor point: Seebach and Heathfield are known as authors outside of
>CLC as I am. The most externally distinguished person here is Navia.
Known, yes. Famous, no. There's a difference.
To be perfectly honest, the only person here who I have heard about
outside of (i.e., independently of) CLC - is Seebach. In fact, when he
started posting here (within the last 6 months or so), my first reaction
(which I wrote about at the time) was that he was slumming it.
I would rate Seebach as something slightly above "known", but nowhere
near "famous".
...
>> >You not infrequently have to face the choice between standing up for
>> >what you believe to be right and personal advantage. Those who point
>> >out that a war is unwinnable, for example, can make themselves very
>> >unpopular, even if their advice, if taken, would save the State from
>> >disaster.
>>
>> Very good point, and well said.
>>
>> And again, I'd say that most CLCers would not be afraid to "speak truth
>> to power" - at whatever personal peril that entailed.
>
>I must disagree.
Well, this is complicated. On the surface of it, it sounds like I am
actually saying something complimentary of CLC regs. But therein lies
the irony. CLC regs would have us believe that they would willingly
brownnose in exchange for the cash/women/fame. It is kind of a
reverse/reverse as to what is actually desirable.
My point is that if they really believed what they say - and were any
good at it (brownnosing) - they would be off with the cash, women, and
fame, and not wasting their time here on CLC. That they are, instead,
posting about it here (and trying to convince us of something which is
clearly untrue), shows what losers they are.
P.S. (For any of the usual anklebiters out there) Tu quoque won't work
against me here. I've already admitted that I have the time and
leisure to waste my time posting to CLC. I merely object to others
being hypocritical about it.
--
(This discussion group is about C, ...)
Wrong. It is only OCCASIONALLY a discussion group
about C; mostly, like most "discussion" groups, it is
off-topic Rorsharch [sic] revelations of the childhood
traumas of the participants...
spinoza1111
wrote:
> In article <32637498-c40d-4baa-a0bc-d50e17f4a...@s9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> famous/rich/powerful/etc. That we're not (and trust me, I've never
> >> heard of any of the CLC gang outside of CLC) these things, speaks all.
>
> >Minor point: Seebach and Heathfield are known as authors outside of
> >CLC as I am. The most externally distinguished person here is Navia.
>
> Known, yes. Famous, no. There's a difference.
Correct. Seebs & Heathfield certainly doesn't merit a wikipedia
biography, any more than Schildt, whose bio was created to trash
Schildt. Navia is only slightly more well known, but neither does he
merit a wikipedia.
>
> To be perfectly honest, the only person here who I have heard about
> outside of (i.e., independently of) CLC - is Seebach. In fact, when he
> started posting here (within the last 6 months or so), my first reaction
> (which I wrote about at the time) was that he was slumming it.
>
Then we found he fit right in
Then we found that he belongs
Right here in the loony bin
Where he sings his tuneless songs.
> I would rate Seebach as something slightly above "known", but nowhere
> near "famous".
>
> ...
>
> >> >You not infrequently have to face the choice between standing up for
> >> >what you believe to be right and personal advantage. Those who point
> >> >out that a war is unwinnable, for example, can make themselves very
> >> >unpopular, even if their advice, if taken, would save the State from
> >> >disaster.
>
> >> Very good point, and well said.
>
> >> And again, I'd say that most CLCers would not be afraid to "speak truth
> >> to power" - at whatever personal peril that entailed.
>
> >I must disagree.
>
> Well, this is complicated. On the surface of it, it sounds like I am
> actually saying something complimentary of CLC regs. But therein lies
> the irony. CLC regs would have us believe that they would willingly
> brownnose in exchange for the cash/women/fame. It is kind of a
> reverse/reverse as to what is actually desirable.
>
> My point is that if they really believed what they say - and were any
> good at it (brownnosing) - they would be off with the cash, women, and
> fame, and not wasting their time here on CLC. That they are, instead,
> posting about it here (and trying to convince us of something which is
> clearly untrue), shows what losers they are.
Most of us proles, Kenny, can't get to square one. We count ourselves
lucky if we meet one fat girl who doesn't sweat much and we marry her.
I was a little bit more lucky in that department after I moved to
Silicon Valley and started to work out, and discovered that it
prevented me from setting my cubicle on fire or punching out the boss,
and was able to date a somewhat better class of chick for a while
until the various C-list celebs and former Playboy bunnies figured out
that I had no cash for them to spend, having remit same to my former
wife and kids.
But the supermodels know losers when they see them, and computer
programmer is down there with "lives with Mom". Of course now I'm a
"teacher" but that's no better. And when I was writing my Apress book
I was "telemarketer"...nuf ced. And when I had to cash my Apress
advances to eat after 24 hours of no food, I was "author". They look
at you real funny at the currency exchange when you tell them you're
an "author". Fortunately, the guy at the pawnshop had a sense of
humor.
>
> P.S. (For any of the usual anklebiters out there) Tu quoque won't work
> against me here. I've already admitted that I have the time and
> leisure to waste my time posting to CLC. I merely object to others
> being hypocritical about it.
I would simply say that this certainly wasn't the hope: the creation
of gods in the clouds and the Fascistic oppression of all by all down
here in East Hell. In the early days of software, being good at it
meant you could escape the brutal racism, classism, ageism and sexism
of Amerikkkan society. But then everything was "rationalized" and we
might as well be back to the world of that miniseries Mad Men.
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111 wrote:
> > On Apr 20, 3:39 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> >> spinoza1111wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>> Two half-literate spelling errors
> >> Anyone who spells "desperate" with two 'a's is in no position to
> >> complain about illiteracy.
>
> > Torvalds' spelling errors are part of a larger picture
>
> Special pleading. His spelling errors make him half-literate, but yours
> are okay because it's you making them. Sheer hypocrisy.
No, dear boy, coherence theory of truth. I make a set of conclusions
about Torvalds...the theft of Tanenbaum's intellectual production, the
unimaginative cloning of an outdated operating system, the vicious
replies to Tanenbaum's courtesy, the failure to understand the need
for safety and security, and then I look at the spelling errors, and
it all adds up to Dorkdom. Whereas my spelling errors are Homeric
nods.
There is a dork from Finland
Who built an OS by hand
It's nothing new
It's "unix" to me if "linux" to you:
Thus labored the dork from Finland
blm...@myrealbox.com
Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> writes: > In article
> <4c5b851b-3b4d-4d6a...@k5g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> > spinoza1111 <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > [more of the same]
> >
> > [more of the same]
>
> B. L.: I have a serious question for you. I seem to recall that,
> in the past, you've made posts here that were actually about C.
> The vast majority if your recent posts have been (a) not about C,
> and (b) responses to "spinoza1111"'s posts (which, as we've seen,
> simply encourage him to post more of his nonsense).
>
> Are you here to discuss C? To put it another way, if I were
> to filter out all your articles, would I risk missing anything
> interesting or useful? I'd rather not do that, but at this point
> I'm seriously considering it.
"Thanks, I needed that" ?
"I'm trying." "Yes, very." ?
I think I've rather lost track lately of why I'm "here". Thanks
for the reminder that there's a limit to how much topic drift the
regulars will tolerate. I could blame the influence of a couple
of other groups I follow, where as one of the regulars put it
"topic drift is practically an organizing principle", but -- nah.
A somewhat longer reply was dispatched by e-mail earlier, but
I thought maybe a public reply might be in order too.
> I completely understand the urge to post a rebuttal when "someone is
> WRONG on the Internet" (<http://xkcd.com/386/>). I haven't always
> been successful in resisting the urge myself. I just don't want to
> watch someone else making the same mistake I've made, again and again.
--
Keith Thompson
[...]
> "Thanks, I needed that" ?
>
> "I'm trying." "Yes, very." ?
>
> I think I've rather lost track lately of why I'm "here". Thanks
> for the reminder that there's a limit to how much topic drift the
> regulars will tolerate. I could blame the influence of a couple
> of other groups I follow, where as one of the regulars put it
> "topic drift is practically an organizing principle", but -- nah.
>
> A somewhat longer reply was dispatched by e-mail earlier, but
> I thought maybe a public reply might be in order too.
I've been meaning to reply to your e-mail; I just haven't gotten
to it yet, and I apologize for that.
Thanks for your response, and for the reminder that it's actually
possible for someone on Usenet respond positively to criticism. 8-)}
spinoza1111
> In article <ln1veac8w6....@nuthaus.mib.org>,
> Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> writes: > In article
> > >spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > [more of the same]
>
> > > [more of the same]
>
> > B. L.: I have a serious question for you. I seem to recall that,
> > in the past, you've made posts here that were actually about C.
> > The vast majority if your recent posts have been (a) not about C,
> > and (b) responses to "spinoza1111"'s posts (which, as we've seen,
> > simply encourage him to post more of his nonsense).
>
> > Are you here to discuss C? To put it another way, if I were
> > to filter out all your articles, would I risk missing anything
> > interesting or useful? I'd rather not do that, but at this point
> > I'm seriously considering it.
>
> "Thanks, I needed that" ?
>
> "I'm trying." "Yes, very." ?
>
> I think I've rather lost track lately of why I'm "here". Thanks
> for the reminder that there's a limit to how much topic drift the
> regulars will tolerate. I could blame the influence of a couple
> of other groups I follow, where as one of the regulars put it
> "topic drift is practically an organizing principle", but -- nah.
There seems to be an informal rule here that personal destruction and
hatred is ALWAYS on topic. If one finds an illuminating political
aspect to the way programming is organized, or relates the origin of
object-oriented programming in the need for Kyrsten Nygaard to
document procedures for Danish labor unions (citing the New York
Times), that's somehow "topic drift". But Keith Thompson constant
snarling is not "off-topic"...because loudmouth thugs here get a free
pass from the enablers.
If you clowns were truly "on topic", you would discuss C for systems
programming alone, for even applications programming would necessitate
getting "off topic" in the sense of having a clue about the
application. But even systems programming would be "off topic"...if it
strayed into an area that would expose the regs' ignorance, as in the
case, recently, where the regs told a person with a question about
yacc to take a hike.
Thompson is offside each and every time he snarls that I'm a troll,
since that too is off-topic. Like Seebach, he doesn't have the balls
to directly address me, because the basic reason for his opinion of me
is his puzzlement...that someone could master programming (something
which takes most posters here an extraordinarily long time, and which
isn't mastered at all by others) and have enough time left over to
read Hannah Arendt and the New York Times.
Of course, for intelligent people, programming is something mastered
quickly once understood as a separate concern from computer science on
the one hand, or applications on the other. This may be why it is
complicated needlessly by programmers who insist on shibboleths and on
inappropriately using outdated languages. This is a cover up for their
ignorance and incompetence, which in Thompson's case was on display
when he approved Seebach's famous one line and off by one strlen().
blm...@myrealbox.com
[ snip ]
> > A somewhat longer reply was dispatched by e-mail earlier, but
> > I thought maybe a public reply might be in order too.
>
> I've been meaning to reply to your e-mail; I just haven't gotten
> to it yet, and I apologize for that.
Not a problem, though it is good to know that it arrived -- on
occasion e-mail sent from one of my non-work e-mail accounts seems
to go astray, or be blocked by the intended receiver's ISP. The
myrealbox.com one in particular seems to be not very good for
outgoing mail, though okay for incoming most of the time. (I think!)
But it's not as if it's costing me anything. <shrug>
> Thanks for your response, and for the reminder that it's actually
> possible for someone on Usenet respond positively to criticism. 8-)}
:-) indeed.
I notice that I'm being mentioned from time to time in spinoza1111's
posts, and it *is* tempting to reply, but -- one day at a time, maybe.
Richard Heathfield
> On Apr 21, 9:18 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>> spinoza1111 wrote:
>>> On Apr 20, 3:39 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>>>> spinoza1111wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> Two half-literate spelling errors
>>>> Anyone who spells "desperate" with two 'a's is in no position to
>>>> complain about illiteracy.
>>> Torvalds' spelling errors are part of a larger picture
>> Special pleading. His spelling errors make him half-literate, but yours
>> are okay because it's you making them. Sheer hypocrisy.
>
> No, dear boy, coherence theory of truth.
No, just hypocrisy.
<nonsense snipped>
Phil Carmody
> spinoza1111 wrote:
>> On Apr 21, 9:18 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>>> spinoza1111 wrote:
>>>> On Apr 20, 3:39 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> spinoza1111wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>> Two half-literate spelling errors
>>>>> Anyone who spells "desperate" with two 'a's is in no position to
>>>>> complain about illiteracy.
>>>> Torvalds' spelling errors are part of a larger picture
>>> Special pleading. His spelling errors make him half-literate, but yours
>>> are okay because it's you making them. Sheer hypocrisy.
>>
>> No, dear boy, coherence theory of truth.
>
> No, just hypocrisy.
>
> <nonsense snipped>
What happened to the attempt to stop replying to the idiotic
loontroll unless there was significant C content?
Phil
--
I find the easiest thing to do is to k/f myself and just troll away
-- David Melville on r.a.s.f1
Richard Heathfield
<snip>
> What happened to the attempt to stop replying to the idiotic
> loontroll unless there was significant C content?
Look up "attempt". (In other words, you have a point.)
Kenny McCormack
Phil Carmody <thefatphi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Richard Heathfield <loon...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
...
>What happened to the attempt to stop replying to the idiotic
>loontroll unless there was significant C content?
I see you're doing your part.
--
> No, I haven't, that's why I'm asking questions. If you won't help me,
> why don't you just go find your lost manhood elsewhere.
CLC in a nutshell.