seebs/schildt II
the...@nospam.net
after a relaxing and reflective weekend.
Seebs: Unaware what day it is. The empties are piled up all over his
basement
apartment but since he found an extra few bottles in the closet he didn't
get a chance
to observe the liquor store was closed...his only indication that it was
Sunday.
William Hughes
Get help!
- William Hughes
Seebs
> Get help!
Oh, come now. What could be better evidence of a successful and fulfilling
life than using an anonymous news service to post insulting messages directed
at someone you don't know and have never had any kind of interaction with,
on a daily basis? I am sure that, were Anonymous Coward to remember to log
in to post*, we'd find that he was a high-karma user.
-s
[*] You know, like on slashdot.
--
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!
spinoza1111
> On 2010-04-12, William Hughes <wpihug...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Get help!
>
> Oh, come now. What could be better evidence of a successful and fulfilling
> life than using an anonymous news service to post insulting messages directed
> at someone you don't know and have never had any kind of interaction with,
> on a daily basis? I am sure that, were Anonymous Coward to remember to log
> in to post*, we'd find that he was a high-karma user.
>
> -s
> [*] You know, like on slashdot.
> --
I agree with Seebach. The guy who started this thread is a Lanier
troll, someone who anonymously posts a drive-by insult. The post was
uncalled for. Anyone who doesn't want to technically analyze Schildt v
Seebach and contribute constructive discourse (such as the fact that
the purpose of int main() is to make Linux into a standard, or the
fact that C semantics was not defined properly in C99 owing to vendor
greed) needs to stay out of this discussion.
William Hughes
<snip>
> ..constructive discourse (such as the fact that
> the purpose of int main() is to make Linux into a standard, or the
> fact that C semantics was not defined properly in C99 owing to vendor
> greed)
The mind boggles.
- William Hughes
Seebs
> The mind boggles.
Yes, rather. The return type of main predates Linux by upwards of a decade.
The "vendor greed" thing... well, he's been asked before, and he's never
produced a shred of evidence, nor addressed the obvious fact that, if vendors
wanted to save work, there are a lot of features that would not have been
proposed and expanded on by vendors.
-s
--
William Hughes
> In article
> <75b624af-5e23-49c9-b6a0-f96137959...@g9g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
>
You're joking right ?!? PLEASE tell me you're joking!
- William Hughes
spinoza1111
...some inferior minds have a tendency to "boggle"; the brain slides
around the brain pan as it shrinks.
>
> - William Hughes
spinoza1111
> On 2010-04-12, William Hughes <wpihug...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 12, 1:34 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> ..constructive discourse (such as the fact that
> >> the purpose of int main() is to make Linux into a standard, or the
> >> fact that C semantics was not defined properly in C99 owing to vendor
> >> greed)
> > The mind boggles.
>
> Yes, rather. The return type of main predates Linux by upwards of a decade.
Yes, because Torvalds essentially stole unix, a 1970s operating
system, from the author of a book about unix for the PC, a unix called
Minix. I had that book and was shocked that Torvalds would so steal
the work of another, but it seems that computer authors are fair game
for bullying and theft. Gates was right in 1976; most "hackers" are
criminals. Most are common thieves, others are stalkers.
> The "vendor greed" thing... well, he's been asked before, and he's never
> produced a shred of evidence, nor addressed the obvious fact that, if vendors
> wanted to save work, there are a lot of features that would not have been
> proposed and expanded on by vendors.
Can you identify some of them? They are outweighed by the situations
in which you declared that common constructs such as the void main
were invalid even when the final standard says (clumsily) that they
are, hosted v freestanding being the clumsy result of the Linux bigots
insistence on a crazy legacy feature. They are outweighed by the
instances of nondeterministic semantics.
>
> -s
> --
spinoza1111
> In article
> <75b624af-5e23-49c9-b6a0-f96137959...@g9g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> William Hughes <wpihug...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
It was well known at the time (I was in graduate school) that the guy
who developed MS-DOS used some concepts of unix, badly.
>
> --
> Tim
>
> "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
> nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
Mark
> On Apr 13, 3:59 am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>> On 2010-04-12, William Hughes <wpihug...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 12, 1:34 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ><snip>
>> >> ..constructive discourse (such as the fact that
>> >> the purpose of int main() is to make Linux into a standard, or the
>> >> fact that C semantics was not defined properly in C99 owing to vendor
>> >> greed)
>> > The mind boggles.
>>
>> Yes, rather. The return type of main predates Linux by upwards of a decade.
>
> Yes, because Torvalds essentially stole unix, a 1970s operating
> system, from the author of a book about unix for the PC, a unix called
> Minix. I had that book and was shocked that Torvalds would so steal
> the work of another, but it seems that computer authors are fair game
> for bullying and theft. Gates was right in 1976; most "hackers" are
> criminals. Most are common thieves, others are stalkers.
For someone so keen to accuse people of libel, you are quick to level
serious accusations against others.
This version of events is *so* wrong, it's hard to know where to start.
I'd retract this and apologise to Torvalds, if I were you.
Ian Collins
> spinoza1111<spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<deluded twaddle snipped>
> For someone so keen to accuse people of libel, you are quick to level
> serious accusations against others.
>
> This version of events is *so* wrong, it's hard to know where to start.
>
> I'd retract this and apologise to Torvalds, if I were you.
I used to think he posted bollocks out of ignorance, now it's clear he
does it to get a reaction. Just ignore him.
--
Ian Collins
Richard Heathfield
Torvalds won't be suing him for libel any time soon. There's no mileage
in claiming that a nut has damaged your reputation.
--
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
Mark
Oh, Torvalds won't care. This period of history has been done to death.
I was just offering Nilges an opportunity to avoid another charge of
hypocrisy.