Difference between Cygwin and DOS handling of string input
ttkingdom
in DOS and Cygwin. I'm puzzled and don't know what caused this.
This program counts the number of characters, spaces, lines, and tabs.
It is compiled with gcc
#include <stdio.h>
int main ()
{
double countline = 1, countchar = 0, counttab = 0, countspace = 0;
int c;
printf("Please type in anything, end with EOF (CTRL + D or Z): \n");
while ((c = getchar()) != EOF)
{
if (c == '\n') { ++countline; }
else if (c == ' ') { ++countspace; }
else if (c == '\t') { ++counttab; }
else { ++countchar; }
}
printf("\nYou have typed in %.0f char(s), %.0f space(s), %.0f tab(s),
%.0f line(s).",
countchar, countspace, counttab, countline);
return 0;
}
This program ends when input is EOF, which is CTRL + Z in DOS, CTRL +
D in Cygwin (somewhere on the internet says so :D)
The problems are:
1/ It ends well in DOS with a CTRL + Z, but in Cygwin it needs a CTRL
+ D and an ENTER.
2/ In DOS it count the number of space and tab incorrectly. Try enter
5 spaces and 3 tabs. In Cygwin it counts correctly.
Please anyone explain to me what causes these discrepancies.
Keith Thompson
> I have here 1 elementary piece of code, which produce different result
> in DOS and Cygwin. I'm puzzled and don't know what caused this.
>
> This program counts the number of characters, spaces, lines, and tabs.
> It is compiled with gcc
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> int main ()
> {
> double countline = 1, countchar = 0, counttab = 0, countspace = 0;
> int c;
> printf("Please type in anything, end with EOF (CTRL + D or Z): \n");
> while ((c = getchar()) != EOF)
> {
> if (c == '\n') { ++countline; }
> else if (c == ' ') { ++countspace; }
> else if (c == '\t') { ++counttab; }
> else { ++countchar; }
> }
> printf("\nYou have typed in %.0f char(s), %.0f space(s), %.0f tab(s),
> %.0f line(s).",
> countchar, countspace, counttab, countline);
> return 0;
> }
>
> This program ends when input is EOF, which is CTRL + Z in DOS, CTRL +
> D in Cygwin (somewhere on the internet says so :D)
>
> The problems are:
> 1/ It ends well in DOS with a CTRL + Z, but in Cygwin it needs a CTRL
> + D and an ENTER.
The way you specify end-of-file on interactive input varies from
system to system. In Unix-like environments such as Cygwin, I
believe the sequence is either a control-D at the beginning of a
line, or a double control-D if you're not at the beginning of a line.
(The eof character can be configured.)
> 2/ In DOS it count the number of space and tab incorrectly. Try enter
> 5 spaces and 3 tabs. In Cygwin it counts correctly.
What does it do on DOS? (And are you really running DOS, or a command
window under Windows?)
Systems typically perform some translations on input. It wouldn't
surprise me if either DOS or a Windows command window did something to
input tab characters.
> Please anyone explain to me what causes these discrepancies.
Please explain to us just what these discrepancies are.
--
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"
Tom St Denis
Bill Gates is an asshole.
Nothing in MS-DOS is even remotely SysV, POSIX.1 or BSD/Linux
compatible. They use CTRL+Z for term (which is how you stop processes
in UNIX) as opposed to CTRL+D (which is how you disconnect a stream),
they use \r\n as opposed to \n, etc and so on.
Just write your app to allow both \r and \n [in any order, Macs used
to use *just* \r btw] and you're set.
Tom
ttkingdom
1/ I opened up cmd.exe, cd to the folder and run the .exe file. I type
in 5 spaces and 3 tabs, CTRL + Z, and it says "you have typed in 0
space and 0 tabs"
Same as above with Cygwin, CTRL + D, ENTER, and it says correctly that
"you have typed in 5 space and 3 tabs".
2/ In cmd.exe the program stops at CTRL + Z, and display the results.
In Cygwin, it is supposed to stop at CTRL + D. But it does not. After
CTRL + D, I have to ENTER for it to stop.
I'm not trying to make this program work, I just want to know what is
happening behind in the system. Please help or provide any clue/
suggestion.
Richard Tobin
Tom St Denis <t...@iahu.ca> wrote:
>Nothing in MS-DOS is even remotely SysV, POSIX.1 or BSD/Linux
>compatible. They use CTRL+Z for term (which is how you stop processes
>in UNIX) as opposed to CTRL+D (which is how you disconnect a stream),
>they use \r\n as opposed to \n, etc and so on.
I've been using Unix for over 25 years, and my end-of-file character
has always been ctrl-Z. Ctrl-D is merely a default.
And it's hardly surprising that MS-DOS was not compatible with Unix,
since it was derived (indirectly) from DEC operating systems such
as RSX-11 which used ctrl-Z for end of file and CR-LF for line
ends.
>Just write your app to allow both \r and \n [in any order, Macs used
>to use *just* \r btw] and you're set.
If you're reading text files, use text mode which should do the
appropriate conversions for you.
-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
Giacomo Degli Esposti
What happens if you press ENTER before ctrl+Z in DOS?
Just guessing, but input is usually line-buffered so the chars are not
delivered
to the application until you press ENTER.
It could be that when you press ^Z the chars still in the buffer are
dropped
and not delivered to the program.
BTW. what DOS compiler are you using?
ciao
Giacomo
ttkingdom
Thanks for your suggestion. I'm using gcc but now I think that for DOS
I should use Borland C Compiler.
Richard
Just why do you think the originators of MS-DOS should have made
anything posix v1 compliant?
No. Don't answer that. You're clearly another one of these MS hating
lunatics.
Richard
> In article <37ef342f-5a35-4e51...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
> Tom St Denis <t...@iahu.ca> wrote:
>
>>Nothing in MS-DOS is even remotely SysV, POSIX.1 or BSD/Linux
>>compatible. They use CTRL+Z for term (which is how you stop processes
>>in UNIX) as opposed to CTRL+D (which is how you disconnect a stream),
>>they use \r\n as opposed to \n, etc and so on.
>
> I've been using Unix for over 25 years, and my end-of-file character
> has always been ctrl-Z. Ctrl-D is merely a default.
>
> And it's hardly surprising that MS-DOS was not compatible with Unix,
> since it was derived (indirectly) from DEC operating systems such
> as RSX-11 which used ctrl-Z for end of file and CR-LF for line
> ends.
You beat me to it. Tom is another time machine surfer where he would
have made everything old compatible with leading standards of today.
>
>>Just write your app to allow both \r and \n [in any order, Macs used
>>to use *just* \r btw] and you're set.
>
> If you're reading text files, use text mode which should do the
> appropriate conversions for you.
>
> -- Richard
--
"Avoid hyperbole at all costs, its the most destructive argument on
the planet" - Mark McIntyre in comp.lang.c
jacob navia
Posix version 1: 1988 (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX#Versions)
MSDOS vesion 1: 1982 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS)
Bill Gates is an asshole because he did not write an OS compatible
with a standard that would be published 6 years later...
This is typical of this guy (Tom St Denis).
Just nonsense, but nonsense in the line of c.l.c: windows hater,
even if it is completely ridiculous.
jacob
Richard
Another person living in the past (witness lack of knowledge of modern
RCS systems) who blames everything else except himself and poor
tools. We've seen the type before.
Tom St Denis
> rich...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes:
> > In article <37ef342f-5a35-4e51-9d33-349296efa...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
> > Tom St Denis <t...@iahu.ca> wrote:
>
> >>Nothing in MS-DOS is even remotely SysV, POSIX.1 or BSD/Linux
> >>compatible. They use CTRL+Z for term (which is how you stop processes
> >>in UNIX) as opposed to CTRL+D (which is how you disconnect a stream),
> >>they use \r\n as opposed to \n, etc and so on.
>
> > I've been using Unix for over 25 years, and my end-of-file character
> > has always been ctrl-Z. Ctrl-D is merely a default.
In UNIX ^Z has been "stop process" for a very long time (hint: before
MS-DOS). At least they got ^C right...
> You beat me to it. Tom is another time machine surfer where he would
> have made everything old compatible with leading standards of today.
I just think if something works don't break it. Microsoft by design
does things very differently from others to isolate and corner off
their customers from the "real world." Skills I learn today under say
Redhat don't magically become irrelevant because I move to a job where
they use Fedora, or Ubuntu, or BSD. Whereas quite a bit of the
practical skills you learn under Windows are 100% useless anywhere
else. Not to forget to mention their interpretation of what C and C++
are and are not...
BillG and his co-horts are assholes because they waved bye-bye to
sound engineering way long ago in search of the almighty buck. And
here we have today, a man who has more money than God, and he STILL
actively pursues the path of least engineering correctness. He's
already won the fight and he's still kicking people while they're
down. He's an asshole. So we as the generation after him (I was born
when Microsoft was just getting into the stride of PC OSes) have to
deal with their bullshit everyday. I thank the almighty FSM and the
grace of his noodly appendage that I work at a place where Linux is
the norm.
As to the general theme of the question, usually I write parsers that
accept all forms of \r, \n, \r\n, \n\r and then my software "just
works." I don't assume the end of fgets is NUL or \n (like it would
be in Linux) because then my application doesn't work in MS-DOS,
Windows, or on older Macs, etc...
Tom
Tom St Denis
And it would have been wholesale impossible for Microsoft to clean up
some of their behaviour over time? And/or not continue to make things
worse?
If I can run DOS applications on a Linux machine through DOSbox why
can't Microsoft and all their money do the same damn thing? That way
older apps still will run and newer apps will be more standards
compliant.
Answer: They don't care about being open to competition because
they're a bunch of greedy assholes.
Tom
Tom St Denis
> Another person living in the past (witness lack of knowledge of modern
> RCS systems) who blames everything else except himself and poor
> tools. We've seen the type before.
So far it seems to really only be you going off on a tirade against my
ideas and posts. Maybe it's just you who has a problem with me?
Also I don't consider Windows "modern." I consider them way behind
the times. Sure their aero based GDI gui is fancy but where are the
multiple desktops, or remote shells, or hell a shell to begin with
(cmd.exe doesn't count). They still don't come with useful userland
tools, while NTFS has *real* file permissions their GUIs don't give
you access to them, their user security is somewhat of a joke, you
have to be root to install most apps, they poorly implemented things
like IPsec, they only run on x86 class processors [I don't really
consider WinCE real...], takes gobs of ram and disk space, etc...
In the same disk space as a blank Vista install I can get a very
complete Debian install with 100s of userland tools including
compilers, debuggers, shells, archivers, WYSIWYG editors, browsers,
media players, etc. I can boot a Linux box into a very small amount
of ram. I can easily write kernel drivers and use full access to free
and unfettered source to do so...
So it's not that I look to Windows as "omg it's too advanced, old is
better." It's that I look at it and think "why would anyone buy this
when OSS offers so much more." And I think of people like Microsoft
mgmt as assholes for peddling this mediocre shiny useless toy OS on
people...
Tom
jacob navia
> On Dec 17, 12:47 pm, Richard <rgrd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Another person living in the past (witness lack of knowledge of modern
>> RCS systems) who blames everything else except himself and poor
>> tools. We've seen the type before.
>
> So far it seems to really only be you going off on a tirade against my
> ideas and posts. Maybe it's just you who has a problem with me?
>
Its not only Richard, its me too...
> Also I don't consider Windows "modern." I consider them way behind
> the times. Sure their aero based GDI gui is fancy but where are the
> multiple desktops,
In lcc-win you have the source code for a multiple desktops application under windows
since windows xp...
or remote shells,
Remote desktop allows you more than just a text mode shell and that since windows NT...
or hell a shell to begin with
> (cmd.exe doesn't count).
And why it doesn't count? Obviously because you are a windows hater
> They still don't come with useful userland
> tools, while NTFS has *real* file permissions their GUIs don't give
> you access to them,
Right click in any file, the "properties". You can do this since
windows NT (10 years go).
> their user security is somewhat of a joke, you
> have to be root to install most apps,
Under Unix too
they poorly implemented things
> like IPsec, they only run on x86 class processors [I don't really
> consider WinCE real...], takes gobs of ram and disk space, etc...
>
In a word:
Saint Denis knows nothing about windows and displays his ignorance here.
Tom St Denis
> Its not only Richard, its me too...
No offense, but since you took a jump off the sanity-wagon you don't
really count either.
> In lcc-win you have the source code for a multiple desktops application under windows
> since windows xp...
Last I checked you can't move windows from one desktop to another
(part of the problem being GDI windows need a parent and can't change
them). To me you don't have "real" multiple desktop support until you
can move one to the other.
> or remote shells,
SSH is *NOT* part of a standard Windows 7 install.
> Remote desktop allows you more than just a text mode shell and that since windows NT...
Sometimes text mode is better (hint: compiling something, turning on/
off a service, changing a system param). Specially over high latency
networks.
> or hell a shell to begin with
>
> > (cmd.exe doesn't count).
>
> And why it doesn't count? Obviously because you are a windows hater
No, because it's incomplete, a bitch to script with, not even remotely
compatible with tcsh, bash, ash, sh, etc... Not to forget to mention
the lack of userland tools like sed, awk, grep, [ ], etc... that make
shell scripting remotely useful...
> > They still don't come with useful userland
> > tools, while NTFS has *real* file permissions their GUIs don't give
> > you access to them,
>
> Right click in any file, the "properties". You can do this since
> windows NT (10 years go).
Last I checked [admittedly I'm not at a windows box now] you can't
change, for example, the execute bit from inside the GUI. e.g.
chmod +x notepad.exe
> > their user security is somewhat of a joke, you
> > have to be root to install most apps,
>
> Under Unix too
Um no, most *nix applications are designed so they can be installed
relative to your home directory.
> > like IPsec, they only run on x86 class processors [I don't really
> > consider WinCE real...], takes gobs of ram and disk space, etc...
>
> In a word:
>
> Saint Denis knows nothing about windows and displays his ignorance here.
I worked on an IPsec project last year. WinXP Pro by default only
supports 3DES, doesn't support AES, and doesn't support SHA-256 [to be
fair Linux doesn't support SHA-256 either... but at least they have
AES support].
Arguing with you people is like arguing with Christians. I can say
something like "December 25th is actually a pagan holiday celebrating
the winter solstice" and you'll just slap "na-huh, it's a jesus day
and you're a poopy head!!!"
Windows is *not* an advanced OS, and for what people pay they should
be getting a hell of a lot more. Anyone who thinks otherwise has
drunk the koolaid and is 100% not objective.
Tom
Seebs
>> (cmd.exe doesn't count).
> And why it doesn't count? Obviously because you are a windows hater
It doesn't count because it's not an actual stable programming language
with a real parser and basic features.
>> their user security is somewhat of a joke, you
>> have to be root to install most apps,
> Under Unix too
Not really. You can install anything you want in your home directory,
and nearly anything would work.
> Saint Denis knows nothing about windows and displays his ignorance here.
Maybe things have changed a lot, but most of that was true a while back.
I don't imagine it's likely to change much.
-s
--
Copyright 2009, 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!
Squeamizh
> On Dec 17, 2:06 pm, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> > Its not only Richard, its me too...
>
> No offense, but since you took a jump off the sanity-wagon you don't
> really count either.
>
> > In lcc-win you have the source code for a multiple desktops application under windows
> > since windows xp...
>
> Last I checked you can't move windows from one desktop to another
> (part of the problem being GDI windows need a parent and can't change
> them). To me you don't have "real" multiple desktop support until you
> can move one to the other.
>
> > or remote shells,
>
> SSH is *NOT* part of a standard Windows 7 install.
>
> > Remote desktop allows you more than just a text mode shell and that since windows NT...
>
> Sometimes text mode is better (hint: compiling something, turning on/
> off a service, changing a system param). Specially over high latency
> networks.
>
> > or hell a shell to begin with
>
> > > (cmd.exe doesn't count).
>
> > And why it doesn't count? Obviously because you are a windows hater
>
> No, because it's incomplete, a bitch to script with, not even remotely
> compatible with tcsh, bash, ash, sh, etc... Not to forget to mention
> the lack of userland tools like sed, awk, grep, [ ], etc... that make
> shell scripting remotely useful...
Download cygwin, and 10 minutes later all of the above problems are
solved. Why complain when an easy solution is already out there?
December 25th is a Christian holiday. There is a sliver of truth in
your claim, but as usual, you've gotten almost all the facts wrong,
and you were incredibly lame and annoying in the process.
>
> Windows is *not* an advanced OS, and for what people pay they should
> be getting a hell of a lot more. Anyone who thinks otherwise has
> drunk the koolaid and is 100% not objective.
Obviously Windows is different from UNIX. Windows is easy to use. If
you place a higher priority on "advanced" features, then, uh, don't
use Windows?
Richard Tobin
Tom St Denis <t...@iahu.ca> wrote:
>In UNIX ^Z has been "stop process" for a very long time (hint: before
>MS-DOS).
MS-DOS got it from CP/M, which predates job control in Unix.
Flash Gordon
> On Dec 17, 12:36 pm, Richard <rgrd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> rich...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes:
>>> In article <37ef342f-5a35-4e51-9d33-349296efa...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Tom St Denis <t...@iahu.ca> wrote:
>>>> Nothing in MS-DOS is even remotely SysV, POSIX.1 or BSD/Linux
>>>> compatible. They use CTRL+Z for term (which is how you stop processes
>>>> in UNIX) as opposed to CTRL+D (which is how you disconnect a stream),
>>>> they use \r\n as opposed to \n, etc and so on.
>>> I've been using Unix for over 25 years, and my end-of-file character
>>> has always been ctrl-Z. Ctrl-D is merely a default.
>
> In UNIX ^Z has been "stop process" for a very long time (hint: before
> MS-DOS). At least they got ^C right...
On VMS ^Z is exit, ^Y is interrupt, and ^C is cancel (from memory). Unix
was not the only game in town back then.
>> You beat me to it. Tom is another time machine surfer where he would
>> have made everything old compatible with leading standards of today.
>
> I just think if something works don't break it.
There are plenty of things wrong with Unix, including a number of things
which are wrong with the standard security model.
> Microsoft by design
> does things very differently from others to isolate and corner off
> their customers from the "real world."
There have always been lots of different ways things are done.
> Skills I learn today under say
> Redhat don't magically become irrelevant because I move to a job where
> they use Fedora, or Ubuntu, or BSD. Whereas quite a bit of the
> practical skills you learn under Windows are 100% useless anywhere
> else.
They would not have done you much good on VMS.
> Not to forget to mention their interpretation of what C and C++
> are and are not...
There C compiler has been pretty good in its support for C89 for a long
time.
> BillG and his co-horts are assholes because they waved bye-bye to
<snip>
> grace of his noodly appendage that I work at a place where Linux is
> the norm.
If you want to rant about operating systems find an advocacy group.
> As to the general theme of the question, usually I write parsers that
> accept all forms of \r, \n, \r\n, \n\r and then my software "just
> works."
Open a file in text mode and just read it and all you have to deal with
is \n. The only time you have to do something else is if you need to
deal with foreign format text files which have not been converted during
transfer (good file transfer tools will do the transformation to native
format of the destination for you).
> I don't assume the end of fgets is NUL or \n (like it would
> be in Linux) because then my application doesn't work in MS-DOS,
> Windows, or on older Macs, etc...
They do if you open the file in text mode. That is what text mode is *for*!
Oh, and an advantage of \r\n as your line termination is that it matches
most of the text based internet protocols.
--
Flash Gordon
Nobody
> This program ends when input is EOF, which is CTRL + Z in DOS, CTRL +
> D in Cygwin (somewhere on the internet says so :D)
The concept of "EOF" for interactive input is quite different between DOS
and Unix.
For a text-mode stream, DOS treats a ^Z character as EOF. This even works
in files. The reason is that the filesystem used by CP/M (on which DOS is
based) didn't store the length of a file in bytes, only in blocks.
With binary formats, you could typically deduce the length of the data
from the data itself, so any padding to a block boundary didn't matter.
Text files used ^Z to indicate the end of the data.
Unix doesn't have a general EOF character. The "tty" (i.e. terminal)
device driver supports an EOF character; typically ^D (although not
always; historically, # has been a common EOF character), although it can
be configured.
When this character is read from the tty device, the driver reports EOF to
the process reading from the device. This state is transient; the process
can ignore the EOF and continue to read from the tty, in which case a
subsequent ^D will return another EOF.
This behaviour only applies to terminals (anything connected via a serial
port, plus programs like terminal emulators which pretend to be connected
via a serial port), and only if the terminal is in "canonical" mode (if
it's in "raw" mode ^D, ^C, ^Z etc are returned as normal characters).
Nick
> Oh, and an advantage of \r\n as your line termination is that it
> matches most of the text based internet protocols.
Can someone remind me exactly of how this works. AIUI (and could be
wrong), '\n' will be translated to whatever is appropriate for the
system. So could generate a CR LF pair on DOS and its descendents, LF on
Unix and something else entirely on something else (like start next
record on IBMs with fixed length records).
If I want to send the necessary characters for an Internet header,
irrespective of what OS my code will be running on (well, as far as Unix
and Windows goes anyway) what should I write? Is there a risk that "\r\n"
will generate two CRs? Should I assume ASCII and send 10 and 13
(probably in octal)?
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
Michael Foukarakis
> Also I don't consider Windows "modern." I consider them way behind
> the times.
> Sure their aero based GDI gui is fancy but where are the
> multiple desktops,
there
> or remote shells, or hell a shell to begin with
> (cmd.exe doesn't count).
Powershell. And cmd *is* a shell.
> They still don't come with useful userland
> tools,
Please point me to the Linux/UNIX analogous of OllyDbg. Then you can
talk shit again.
> while NTFS has *real* file permissions their GUIs don't give
> you access to them,
Of course they do. RTFM.
> their user security is somewhat of a joke,
Yeah, UNIXoids are totally secure. Puh-lease..
> you
> have to be root to install most apps,
Have you tried apt-get install on Ubuntu lately?
> they poorly implemented things
> like IPsec,
As of this line, you are redirected to various bug and vulnerability
reports for the Linux kernel..
> And I think of people like Microsoft
> mgmt as assholes for peddling this mediocre shiny useless toy OS on
> people...
MS management are very bright entrepreneurs. Asshole are, evidently,
everywhere.
Ben Bacarisse
> Flash Gordon <sm...@spam.causeway.com> writes:
>
>> Oh, and an advantage of \r\n as your line termination is that it
>> matches most of the text based internet protocols.
>
> Can someone remind me exactly of how this works. AIUI (and could be
> wrong), '\n' will be translated to whatever is appropriate for the
> system.
On output to a text file, yes, but binary mode is best for handling a
protocol stream.
> So could generate a CR LF pair on DOS and its descendents, LF on
> Unix and something else entirely on something else (like start next
> record on IBMs with fixed length records).
>
> If I want to send the necessary characters for an Internet header,
> irrespective of what OS my code will be running on (well, as far as Unix
> and Windows goes anyway) what should I write? Is there a risk that "\r\n"
> will generate two CRs?
Not on a binary stream. The best way to ensure you get what you write
(or that you read what is really there) is to use binary mode for such
streams.
> Should I assume ASCII and send 10 and 13
> (probably in octal)?
The protocol will say exactly what codes to send so you don't have to
assume anything.
--
Ben.
Dik T. Winter
> > their user security is somewhat of a joke, you
> > have to be root to install most apps,
>
> Under Unix too
Wrong, I never install an app as root.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, science park 123, 1098 xg amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Dik T. Winter
> On Dec 17, 12:36=A0pm, Richard <rgrd...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> > > I've been using Unix for over 25 years, and my end-of-file character
>
> In UNIX ^Z has been "stop process" for a very long time (hint: before
> MS-DOS).
Barely. Job control came into BSD Unix with 4BSD with the renewed C shell,
in 1980. MS-DOS came into being in 1981.
jacob navia
> In article <hgdvej$2eg$1...@aioe.org> j...@nospam.org writes:
> > Tom St Denis a �crit :
> ...
> > > their user security is somewhat of a joke, you
> > > have to be root to install most apps,
> >
> > Under Unix too
>
> Wrong, I never install an app as root.
apt-get install needs you to be root. This is under the
debian and ubuntu distributions of linux.
To install gcc, for instance, you need to be root to
acess /usr/local/bin. Yes, you can install everything under your
own directory, but (as you know very well) that wouldn't be very
practical.
gwowen
> apt-get install needs you to be root. This is under the
> debian and ubuntu distributions of linux.
True, but on recent Ubuntus non-privileged users can, by default, run
apt-get install/upgrade using sudo, supplying only their own
passwords. Of course, this does not allow the user to install
arbitrary software as root, only those from the officially blessed
repositories.
Tom St Denis
> Download cygwin, and 10 minutes later all of the above problems are
> solved. Why complain when an easy solution is already out there?
But you PAY for Windows. That's like saying spend $100K on a
supercar, then having my friend Larry tweak it up for you to make it
enjoyable. If Windows were free than what you're saying would make
sense, but since you pay for it, it should be at least as good as the
competition.
> December 25th is a Christian holiday. There is a sliver of truth in
> your claim, but as usual, you've gotten almost all the facts wrong,
> and you were incredibly lame and annoying in the process.
The putting of Christs Mass around Dec 25th stems DIRECTLY from the
Winter Solstice celebrations. Christians like to think they invented
everything, and that everything they have is original and sacred.
It's not. It's the same bullshit invention as you go along as every
other religion. My point though is arguing with them is much the same
as the trolls here. They ignore all of your facts and reply with
nonsense character assassinations.
> Obviously Windows is different from UNIX. Windows is easy to use. If
> you place a higher priority on "advanced" features, then, uh, don't
> use Windows?
I don't find Ubuntu "hard to use." But that's also because I take
personal responsibility to not be a helpless individual at all times.
But more so, even if I didn't know how to use the shells and terminals
in Linux I think I could still navigate around the Gnome desktop with
relative ease. Saying "Linux is hard" is a mantra Windows defenders
use all the time. I just wish they'd stop chanting it long enough to
realize it's not true. Assuming you don't have a physical or mental
handicap..., if I sit you down in front of a Ubuntu box and you can't
figure out how to get firefox loaded in say under 1 minute, you're
just a helpless individual and people should rightly mock you because
you should be ashamed of how incapable you are.
Tom
Tom St Denis
wrote:
> On Dec 17, 8:23 pm, Tom St Denis <t...@iahu.ca> wrote:> Also I don't consider Windows "modern." I consider them way behind
> > the times.
>
> There's a word for that. 'Denial'.
I guess we have different criteria for advanced or modern. To me if I
BUY and install a distro [of whatever] then have to buy/find/scrounge
around for tools to actually make it useful, while many other distros
make that available by default... it's not an advanced OS.
I mean let's work down the list of things you don't get from a blank
Vista/Win7 install
- compiler, build tools like make, cvs/rcs, debuggers, etc...
- real shell [that is compatible with the 1000s upon 1000s of scripts
out there]
- remote shell access [rdesktop is cool but let's be real, TTY is
often better]
- Office Suite
- Image Editing Tools
- Audio Mixing Tools
- Tux Racer
- Ton of userland tools that make work possible (perl, sed, awk, grep,
find, xargs, gzip, ...)
- oh, and the source to all of that
> Powershell. And cmd *is* a shell.
cmd.exe is a shell in that it's a TTY that lets you run commands, but
compared to the versatility of say bash ... get real.
And Powershell is not remotely compatible with sh/csh/tcsh/bash. It
uses it's own scripting language because it's "special."
> > They still don't come with useful userland
> > tools,
>
> Please point me to the Linux/UNIX analogous of OllyDbg. Then you can
> talk shit again.
Well show me in Win7 where you get tools like sed, perl, awk,
grep, ...
And before you comment on the usefulness, a very common one I get is
say you have a directory of 100s of files with the names like
Family_Summer_2007_*.jpg
And you want to change it to 2008. How do you do that in Powershell
or cmd.exe?
> > you
> > have to be root to install most apps,
>
> Have you tried apt-get install on Ubuntu lately?
I *can* install apps into my home dir. Not through apt-get mind you,
but by other means. I've made use of this on boxes I don't own
before...
> > they poorly implemented things
> > like IPsec,
>
> As of this line, you are redirected to various bug and vulnerability
> reports for the Linux kernel..
Yes, but they're at least open about it and fix it (hint: where I work
we submit patches to the LKML...).
> > And I think of people like Microsoft
> > mgmt as assholes for peddling this mediocre shiny useless toy OS on
> > people...
>
> MS management are very bright entrepreneurs. Asshole are, evidently,
> everywhere.
They're very good at segregating the market so they don't have to
compete on core technical competence. I mean look at every single
thing they do
- C#, designed to compete against Java. Not compatible
- IE, with variations on CSS, adds things like activex to be non-
comptaible
- WMP, invents a variant container called .AVI and .wma/wmv using
basically the same MPEG codecs, non compatible
- Office, stores documents in proprietary binary formats, does not
import/export ODF, only available on Windows
- Visual Studio, uses their own variant of make, is not C99 compatible
[or try to be], IDE tied to the compiler.
- MSN, came after ICQ, it's just different
- CIFS/SAMBA, because NFS is too hard
- etc, etc, etc...
And I'm not saying those apps are all shit, but there is also no real
technical reason they aren't compatible with one another other than
they want more money, they're greedy. Look at the recent Java
developments. Part of the argument for C# was that Java was behind
the times. But apparently Java is fluid, as they're adding new
language constructs ... Ask any web developer that supports IE and
other browsers which is their favourite browser...
People who blindly support these types of actions are just
contributing to the mass mess of mediocrity where instead of pitting
engineers head to head on how best to implement given standards, they
let their business managers decide the technical details on how best
to screw over their end users.
Tom
Willem
) On Dec 17, 11:20�am, Tom St Denis <t...@iahu.ca> wrote:
)> Arguing with you people is like arguing with Christians. �I can say
)> something like "December 25th is actually a pagan holiday celebrating
)> the winter solstice" and you'll just slap "na-huh, it's a jesus day
)> and you're a poopy head!!!"
You just made his point: (text in blockquotes is mine).
) December 25th is a Christian holiday. [meaning: na-huh, it's a jesus day]
) There is a sliver of truth in your claim, but as usual, you've gotten
) almost all the facts wrong, and you were incredibly lame and annoying
) in the process. [meaning: and you're a poopy head!!!]
As a side note:
What the christians did was to incorporate pagan holidays into their faith,
in an attempt to more easily convert the people to christianity. And then
they changed it around as if it was a christian holiday all along.
... Kind of like Microsoft, isn't it ?
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
Kenny McCormack
Tom St Denis <t...@iahu.ca> wrote:
>On Dec 18, 4:55�am, Michael Foukarakis <electricde...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Dec 17, 8:23�pm, Tom St Denis <t...@iahu.ca> wrote:> Also I don't
>consider Windows "modern." �I consider them way behind
>> > the times.
>>
>> There's a word for that. 'Denial'.
>
>I guess we have different criteria for advanced or modern. To me if I
>BUY and install a distro [of whatever] then have to buy/find/scrounge
>around for tools to actually make it useful, while many other distros
>make that available by default... it's not an advanced OS.
>
>I mean let's work down the list of things you don't get from a blank
>Vista/Win7 install
First, this is certainly:
Off topic. Not portable. Cant discuss it here. Blah, blah, blah.
(Where are the regs pointing this out - and redirecting you to, oh, say,
comp.something.something.advocacy?)
Second, I won't go over your stuff point-by-point, but do note that just
about everything that you see as a problem with Windows, is seen by
Windows defenders and most of the rest of the world as features. So, as
in a lot of the US political debate, we're not arguing over the facts,
we're arguing over what they mean. I.e., over what is good and what is
bad.
The real point is that Microsoft/DOS/Windows was designed from the
ground up to make money. To produce a healthy software industry, to
provide jobs for individuals, and to promote a thriving economy. That
often means specifically not being too good. If they ever actually get
it right, it could destroy the last good export (software) that the US
has. And most people, that is, outside of eggheads like us, view all of
the above as the real point. The software/OS itself is merely means to
ends.
Third, re: desktops. Yes, it is there (in current versions of Windows).
No, there are no tools provided out-of-the-box to access it. You have
to write your own, as I have done (or purchase one). And, no, you can't
move a window between desktops, but, again, this is a *feature* (i.e.,
as above, it is a question of what you think is good). Finally, if you
want the more fluid kind of desktops that Linux windows managers
provide, there are simpler tools available (I d/l'd one decades ago that
was written in assembler - the guy who wrote it was so proud of how
small it was - and that he had written it in pure assembler).
Dik T. Winter
...
> To install gcc, for instance, you need to be root to
> acess /usr/local/bin. Yes, you can install everything under your
> own directory, but (as you know very well) that wouldn't be very
> practical.
I would not know why that would be impractical. I have done just such
a thing many times. And many people at this institute install apps in
their home directory because they do not have root access on their
desktop.
Tom St Denis
wrote:
> Second, I won't go over your stuff point-by-point, but do note that just
> about everything that you see as a problem with Windows, is seen by
> Windows defenders and most of the rest of the world as features. So, as
> in a lot of the US political debate, we're not arguing over the facts,
> we're arguing over what they mean. I.e., over what is good and what is
> bad.
I think the vast majority of people fall into one of two categories
1) Windows does just enough for them [i.e. it's the IE box] that
they're cool with it
2) It doesn't but they're unaware of serious alternatives and they
just put up with it.
The split for most "happy" users is probably something like 90%/10%.
But my point is even the people in camp #1 are better served with an
OSS distro. Not only do they save money, but it forces Microsoft to
compete on technical grounds [re: innovation] as opposed to market
share grounds [re: brand recognition]. We *all* lose out, even Linux
users when Microsoft doesn't compete because there ARE plenty of smart
and brilliant people at MSFT who are otherwise bound to work in anti-
competitive manners.
> The real point is that Microsoft/DOS/Windows was designed from the
> ground up to make money. To produce a healthy software industry, to
> provide jobs for individuals, and to promote a thriving economy. That
> often means specifically not being too good. If they ever actually get
> it right, it could destroy the last good export (software) that the US
> has. And most people, that is, outside of eggheads like us, view all of
> the above as the real point. The software/OS itself is merely means to
> ends.
I think there is a market for OSS too, and it's more on the service
side than the boxed software side. There will always be a niche for
custom tools and odd software (like FPGA layout/synth tools for
instance). But for common things like compilers, OSes, browsers, etc,
it's just not there. And doing things to prolong the death of the
market is not helping people.
> Third, re: desktops. Yes, it is there (in current versions of Windows).
> No, there are no tools provided out-of-the-box to access it. You have
> to write your own, as I have done (or purchase one). And, no, you can't
> move a window between desktops, but, again, this is a *feature* (i.e.,
> as above, it is a question of what you think is good). Finally, if you
> want the more fluid kind of desktops that Linux windows managers
> provide, there are simpler tools available (I d/l'd one decades ago that
> was written in assembler - the guy who wrote it was so proud of how
> small it was - and that he had written it in pure assembler).
My point isn't that you can't do things with Windows, it's that if you
buy a new PC with a blank HD, then spend $299 on a copy of Windows 7,
what do you get? Now change the scenario to you buy a blank CD-R and
write Ubuntu 9.10 on it. What do you get?
For most people they "get" a savings of $299. They're not developers/
etc so they just want a desktop to store their pictures/mp3s and
browse the web. But secretly they're also getting innovation as there
is competition on the engineering side to improve the OS and tools
underneath. They're also not fostering a business that shouldn't
exist [in the form it does]. For the rest they're getting an OS/
distro they can actually out of the box do work with.
If I, Tom St Denis, am going to shell out $299 for an OS/Distro I
better have tools after I finish the install process. If all I'm
doing is installing a host OS for OSS tools, I'll just install an OSS
OS.
Tom
Richard
> On Dec 18, 4:55 am, Michael Foukarakis <electricde...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Dec 17, 8:23 pm, Tom St Denis <t...@iahu.ca> wrote:> Also I don't consider Windows "modern." I consider them way behind
>> > the times.
>>
>> There's a word for that. 'Denial'.
>
> I guess we have different criteria for advanced or modern. To me if I
> BUY and install a distro [of whatever] then have to buy/find/scrounge
> around for tools to actually make it useful, while many other distros
> make that available by default... it's not an advanced OS.
An advanced OS? You get more ludicrous with every post.
>
> I mean let's work down the list of things you don't get from a blank
> Vista/Win7 install
>
> - compiler, build tools like make, cvs/rcs, debuggers, etc...
> - real shell [that is compatible with the 1000s upon 1000s of scripts
> out there]
> - remote shell access [rdesktop is cool but let's be real, TTY is
> often better]
> - Office Suite
> - Image Editing Tools
> - Audio Mixing Tools
> - Tux Racer
Bwahahahaha!
> - Ton of userland tools that make work possible (perl, sed, awk, grep,
> find, xargs, gzip, ...)
> - oh, and the source to all of that
You also get none of those from certain Linux installs. As a Linux user
for about 10 years now I am well aware of what is there and what isn't
and most if not all of the useful things are also downloadable for
Windows too. And you do know that tools like Aptitude download things
don't you?
>
>> Powershell. And cmd *is* a shell.
>
> cmd.exe is a shell in that it's a TTY that lets you run commands, but
> compared to the versatility of say bash ... get real.
>
> And Powershell is not remotely compatible with sh/csh/tcsh/bash. It
> uses it's own scripting language because it's "special."
>
>> > They still don't come with useful userland
>> > tools,
>>
>> Please point me to the Linux/UNIX analogous of OllyDbg. Then you can
>> talk shit again.
>
> Well show me in Win7 where you get tools like sed, perl, awk,
> grep, ..
Install them.
Tom, you're a man blinded by your hatred and your own limited
knowledge. Stop making a fool of yourself.
Kenny McCormack
>In article <hgfr42$en7$1...@aioe.org> j...@nospam.org writes:
>...
> > To install gcc, for instance, you need to be root to
> > acess /usr/local/bin. Yes, you can install everything under your
> > own directory, but (as you know very well) that wouldn't be very
> > practical.
>
>I would not know why that would be impractical. I have done just such
>a thing many times. And many people at this institute install apps in
>their home directory because they do not have root access on their
>desktop.
You guys are missing the point. The fact that you need to be
Administrator to install (most) apps on a Windows box is a *FEATURE*.
It was designed this way intentionally and on purpose. It was not any
kind of oversight or bug or limitation. It was done this way in direct
response to corporate requirements.
I know this sounds heretical to most of the people here, but from the
management's point of view, you don't *WANT* people installing apps on
their machines. You *WANT* centralized control.
Tom St Denis
> An advanced OS? You get more ludicrous with every post.
Name features provided by the Win7 kernel that aren't in BSD or
Linux.
> You also get none of those from certain Linux installs. As a Linux user
> for about 10 years now I am well aware of what is there and what isn't
> and most if not all of the useful things are also downloadable for
> Windows too. And you do know that tools like Aptitude download things
> don't you?
Actually, your typical redhat, fedora, gentoo, ubuntu, debian,
knoppix, etc distros come with userland tools and compilers [well
maybe not all the dev libs].
But ....
> Tom, you're a man blinded by your hatred and your own limited
> knowledge. Stop making a fool of yourself.
You're completely missing my point.
What you're saying is "No tom, it's a good idea to shell out $299 for
a proprietary vendor locked in OS, then load it up with OSS to make it
useful" as opposed to "just find a free OS, and load it up with the
same tools, while you're at it the free OS is also not vendor locked
in, is usually technically superior, etc..."
If the $299 OS were really that good I wouldn't have to load it up
with OSS to make it useful. Basically, for me, I'd be spending $299
for a kernel and a few system tools (defrag, format, etc..).
Everything else from the webbrowser to the compilers, office suite,
shell, etc would be provided by OSS [or others]. Whereas, I can
download a Ubuntu 9.10 CD for free, get all the tools I need, and heck
even the source in case I want to hack something [and I've actually
done this on numerous occasions].
You're just arguing for arguing sake, you don't actually have a valid
point other than to say "I disagree with you."
Name me one thing you get from a Win7 install from an actual technical
or practical point of view that you don't get from an Ubuntu install.
Tom St Denis
wrote:
> In article <KuuoLy....@cwi.nl>, Dik T. Winter <Dik.Win...@cwi.nl> wrote:
What they need in those cases are dumb terminals, not computers.
Tom
Gareth Owen
>> I know this sounds heretical to most of the people here, but from the
>> management's point of view, you don't *WANT* people installing apps on
>> their machines. You *WANT* centralized control.
>
> What they need in those cases are dumb terminals, not computers.
No. Not at all. They want users to utilise their desktop PCs resources
(i.e. memory, CPU, not just peripherals), but only to run a pre-blessed
list of programs. A dumb terminal is usually just a display, with the
processing being done elsewhere.
The only problem with wanting centralized control is that its almost
impossible to manage. Almost every technical measure on any consumer
OS, has proved to be circumventable. If you have a reasonable amount of
network access and can create files and directories, you can probably
install whatever the hell you like, albeit not in the default location.
In 99% of the cases its easier for employers to employ trustworthy
people, and then to trust them.
Richard
Err, no Tom they don't. They want computers with local hard drives,
centralized back up and administration.
Corporations do not want people installing god knows what on their
machines where are there for a fixed purpose - to run the apps critical
for their businesses. As a linux fan you, of all people, should
understand that since Linux can be locked down even more so.
--
"Avoid hyperbole at all costs, its the most destructive argument on
the planet" - Mark McIntyre in comp.lang.c
Tom St Denis
> Err, no Tom they don't. They want computers with local hard drives,
> centralized back up and administration.
>
> Corporations do not want people installing god knows what on their
> machines where are there for a fixed purpose - to run the apps critical
> for their businesses. As a linux fan you, of all people, should
> understand that since Linux can be locked down even more so.
No, I suspect they don't care for local storage actually. If I'm
running a shop of data entry folk I want them to have a screen,
keyboard and mouse. All their data is stored on a server which is
backed up, raided, etc... If anything they will run applications
remotely [e.g. load them off a network share].
Of course, if you can't trust your employees enough not to fuck up
their own computers...
Tom
Richard
> On Dec 18, 11:37 am, Richard <rgrd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Err, no Tom they don't. They want computers with local hard drives,
>> centralized back up and administration.
>>
>> Corporations do not want people installing god knows what on their
>> machines where are there for a fixed purpose - to run the apps critical
>> for their businesses. As a linux fan you, of all people, should
>> understand that since Linux can be locked down even more so.
>
> No, I suspect they don't care for local storage actually. If I'm
Wrong of course since a lot of small businesses dont even network and
also dont want a single point of failure (ie the server).
> running a shop of data entry folk I want them to have a screen,
> keyboard and mouse. All their data is stored on a server which is
Who said data entry? You just pulled that out your arse. What about
graphics design, word processing, audio/vidoe processing etc etc. All
want local CPU power.
> backed up, raided, etc... If anything they will run applications
> remotely [e.g. load them off a network share].
err, I hate to tell you this but loading a program off a networked hard
drive is NOT running applications remotely.
>
> Of course, if you can't trust your employees enough not to fuck up
> their own computers...
No you cant. Most work place desktop "Users" are clueless and know just
to use the apps they need and are more than likely to bork their
machines by installing their favourite virus riddled junk from home
given half the opportunity.
>
> Tom
Kenny McCormack
>> An advanced OS? You get more ludicrous with every post.
>
>Name features provided by the Win7 kernel that aren't in BSD or
>Linux.
Well, for one thing, built-in "real" support for multiple desktops.
(That isn't either a kludge in the "window manager" [in X] or something
based on just hiding and unhiding windows)
Am I beginning to sound like a Windows advocate???
P.S. Where, or where, are the regs telling us this advocacy stuff is
really, really, off-topic? Where is a reg when you need one???
Kaz Kylheku
> In article <hgdvej$2eg$1...@aioe.org> j...@nospam.org writes:
> ...
> > > their user security is somewhat of a joke, you
> > > have to be root to install most apps,
> >
> > Under Unix too
>
> Wrong, I never install an app as root.
If you don't install a program as root, then the program cannot be
placed in a root-owned directory tree like /usr, and the binaries
are owned by a regular user.
That is fine if that user will be the only one using the program. If
other users use that program, they have to trust that user.
Richard Heathfield
<fb286251-9af0-423d...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Tom St Denis wrote:
<snip>
> The putting of Christs Mass around Dec 25th stems DIRECTLY from the
> Winter Solstice celebrations.
Right.
> Christians like to think they invented everything,
Could you take your religious misconceptions to a place where they're
topical, please?
<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
Richard Heathfield
Tom St Denis wrote:
<snip>
> If I'm
> running a shop of data entry folk I want them to have a screen,
> keyboard and mouse. All their data is stored on a server which is
> backed up, raided, etc... If anything they will run applications
> remotely [e.g. load them off a network share].
That's how I'd do it, too, if I had the choice. But it's not the way
it's typically done - at least, not in the UK.
> Of course, if you can't trust your employees enough not to fuck up
> their own computers...
...then you probably have a realistic view of your employees.
Corporate computers tend to end up in one of two states - locked down
or screwed up. (Home computers rarely get the luxury of the first
option, so they tend toward the second instead.)
Flash Gordon
> In article <6339bd6a-0354-40bf...@1g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> Tom St Denis <t...@iahu.ca> wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 10:11 am, Richard <rgrd...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> P.S. Where, or where, are the regs telling us this advocacy stuff is
> really, really, off-topic? Where is a reg when you need one???
I've already made that request once. Now please, everyone, stop arguing
about which OSs are real/advanced/crap or whatever. You all know that
has sod all to do with even the widest possible definition of the
purpose of this group.
--
Flash Gordon
Richard
Wrong of course since the OS might determine the C tools in use. And C
and its uses are most definitely ARE on topic here.
Tom St Denis
> >> Tom St Denis <t...@iahu.ca> wrote:
> >>> On Dec 18, 10:11 am, Richard <rgrd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> P.S. Where, or where, are the regs telling us this advocacy stuff is
> >> really, really, off-topic? Where is a reg when you need one???
>
> > I've already made that request once. Now please, everyone, stop arguing
> > about which OSs are real/advanced/crap or whatever. You all know that
> > has sod all to do with even the widest possible definition of the
> > purpose of this group.
>
> Wrong of course since the OS might determine the C tools in use. And C
> and its uses are most definitely ARE on topic here.
Actually that's wrong anyways since this group is supposed to be for
the C language and not the compilers. Compiler support falls under
other groups specific to a particular vendor.
That being said, I think we should curtail this thread a bit (I won't
reply past here, if you feel some great need to reply do so in
private). Though once in a while it's fun to just go off on a
rant... And let's not take ourselves too too seriously. Nothing we
do here matters anyways.
Anyways, pleasant duking it out :-) reply in private if you must, I
won't be reading this thread anymore.
Tom
Richard Tobin
Kaz Kylheku <kkyl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>If you don't install a program as root, then the program cannot be
>placed in a root-owned directory tree like /usr, and the binaries
>are owned by a regular user.
>
>That is fine if that user will be the only one using the program. If
>other users use that program, they have to trust that user.
Whereas if the user had installed them as root, other users would
have to ... trust that user.
-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
Richard Heathfield
<fbd600c5-ad0a-4b3d...@q16g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
Tom St Denis wrote:
> On Dec 18, 1:04 pm, Richard <rgrd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Flash Gordon <s...@spam.causeway.com> writes:
<snip>
>> > Now please, everyone, stop
>> > arguing about which OSs are real/advanced/crap or whatever. You
>> > all know that has sod all to do with even the widest possible
>> > definition of the purpose of this group.
>>
>> Wrong of course since the OS might determine the C tools in use.
>> And C and its uses are most definitely ARE on topic here.
>
> Actually that's wrong anyways
That goes without saying. You're arguing with someone who contributes
nothing but bile to the group, and whose views on topicality are of
little more than passing interest to even the most relaxed of
readers. Why bother?
<snip>
Flash Gordon
> Flash Gordon <sm...@spam.causeway.com> writes:
>
>> Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>> In article <6339bd6a-0354-40bf...@1g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Tom St Denis <t...@iahu.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 18, 10:11 am, Richard <rgrd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> P.S. Where, or where, are the regs telling us this advocacy stuff is
>>> really, really, off-topic? Where is a reg when you need one???
>> I've already made that request once. Now please, everyone, stop arguing
>> about which OSs are real/advanced/crap or whatever. You all know that
>> has sod all to do with even the widest possible definition of the
>> purpose of this group.
>
> Wrong of course since the OS might determine the C tools in use. And C
> and its uses are most definitely ARE on topic here.
The state of your bank balance might determine the C tools in use, since
you might not be able to afford to buy a commercial C compiler, so do
you want to post your last bank statement here for review?
--
Flash Gordon
Squeamizh
> Squeamizh wrote:
>
> ) On Dec 17, 11:20 am, Tom St Denis <t...@iahu.ca> wrote:
> )> Arguing with you people is like arguing with Christians. I can say
> )> something like "December 25th is actually a pagan holiday celebrating
> )> the winter solstice" and you'll just slap "na-huh, it's a jesus day
> )> and you're a poopy head!!!"
>
> You just made his point: (text in blockquotes is mine).
>
> ) December 25th is a Christian holiday. [meaning: na-huh, it's a jesus day]
> ) There is a sliver of truth in your claim, but as usual, you've gotten
> ) almost all the facts wrong, and you were incredibly lame and annoying
> ) in the process. [meaning: and you're a poopy head!!!]
Your saying "I know you are, but what am I?" doesn't somehow mean that
I "made his point." But congratulations for discovering the ultimate
debate tactic.
>
> As a side note:
> What the christians did was to incorporate pagan holidays into their faith,
> in an attempt to more easily convert the people to christianity. And then
> they changed it around as if it was a christian holiday all along.
Yes, I'm aware of that theory. As I said, there is a sliver of truth
in what Tom wrote. If this theory were actually proven then perhaps
Tom wouldn't have come off as such a jackass.
> ... Kind of like Microsoft, isn't it ?
Huh?
io_x
"Tom St Denis" <t...@iahu.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:15affea1-f0e8-41dd...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
basically the same MPEG codecs, non compatible
# wrong .wma for me are very well
io_x
buy a new PC with a blank HD, then spend $299 on a copy of Windows 7,
#here i spend less 209 E
Nobody
> I know this sounds heretical to most of the people here, but from the
> management's point of view, you don't *WANT* people installing apps on
> their machines. You *WANT* centralized control.
In which case, using Windows is out of the question. Microsoft seem to be
incapable of developing anything more complex than Notepad without adding
some mechanism for it to execute arbitrary code. Being able to restrict
who can install EXEs is a bit pointless when every other program offers
99% of the functionality via JavaScript, Flash, C#, VBScript, etc.
Really, you have two choices. Either you grant certain privileges to the
user and surrender any control over the means by which the user makes use
of them (i.e. account-based controls), or you take the SELinux/RSBAC
route (role-based controls) and either spend 90% of your time saying
"not allowed", or hire at least two skilled sysadmins for each user.
The "third way" is to use account based controls along with some gimmick
that makes it appear that you actually have more control than you really
do. IOW, the first choice, but with added delusions.
Michael Foukarakis
> On Dec 18, 4:55 am, Michael Foukarakis <electricde...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > the times.
>
> > There's a word for that. 'Denial'.
>
> I guess we have different criteria for advanced or modern. To me if I
> BUY and install a distro [of whatever] then have to buy/find/scrounge
> around for tools to actually make it useful, while many other distros
> make that available by default... it's not an advanced OS.
>
> Vista/Win7 install
>
> - compiler, build tools like make, cvs/rcs, debuggers, etc...
> - real shell [that is compatible with the 1000s upon 1000s of scripts
> out there]
> - remote shell access [rdesktop is cool but let's be real, TTY is
> often better]
> - Office Suite
> - Image Editing Tools
> - Audio Mixing Tools
> - Tux Racer
> find, xargs, gzip, ...)
> - oh, and the source to all of that
>
>
> cmd.exe is a shell in that it's a TTY that lets you run commands, but
> compared to the versatility of say bash ... get real.
>
> And Powershell is not remotely compatible with sh/csh/tcsh/bash. It
> uses it's own scripting language because it's "special."
>
> > > They still don't come with useful userland
> > > tools,
>
> > Please point me to the Linux/UNIX analogous of OllyDbg. Then you can
> > talk shit again.
>
> Well show me in Win7 where you get tools like sed, perl, awk,
>
> And before you comment on the usefulness, a very common one I get is
> say you have a directory of 100s of files with the names like
>
> Family_Summer_2007_*.jpg
>
> And you want to change it to 2008. How do you do that in Powershell
> or cmd.exe?
>
source of associated tricks. You have lots to learn, I suggest you
start fast.
After that, I also suggest you study the separation between an
operating system and user application.
Have fun.
Nick
> Nick <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> writes:
>
>> Flash Gordon <sm...@spam.causeway.com> writes:
>>
>>> Oh, and an advantage of \r\n as your line termination is that it
>>> matches most of the text based internet protocols.
>>
>> Can someone remind me exactly of how this works. AIUI (and could be
>> wrong), '\n' will be translated to whatever is appropriate for the
>> system.
>
> On output to a text file, yes, but binary mode is best for handling a
> protocol stream.
>
>> So could generate a CR LF pair on DOS and its descendents, LF on
>> Unix and something else entirely on something else (like start next
>> record on IBMs with fixed length records).
>>
>> If I want to send the necessary characters for an Internet header,
>> irrespective of what OS my code will be running on (well, as far as Unix
>> and Windows goes anyway) what should I write? Is there a risk that "\r\n"
>> will generate two CRs?
>
> Not on a binary stream. The best way to ensure you get what you write
> (or that you read what is really there) is to use binary mode for such
> streams.
So how to I, portably, convert stdout to "binary mode"?
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
Gareth Owen
> Well show me in Win7 where you get tools like sed, perl, awk, grep,
> ...
You get them from www.mingw.org
Look for the msys environment.
> And before you comment on the usefulness, a very common one I get is
> say you have a directory of 100s of files with the names like
>
> Family_Summer_2007_*.jpg
>
> And you want to change it to 2008. How do you do that in Powershell
> or cmd.exe?
In cmd.exe you type "bash".
Then when the bash executable has started, you type
for i in Family_Summer_2007_*.jpg
do mv -i "$i" "${i/_2007_/_2008_}"
done
Command shells are not the same things as operating systems.
Operating systems are not same thing as command shells.
Gareth Owen -- exclusively Linux at home since the mid-90s, happily
using Windows XP with mingw/msys at work.
Ben Bacarisse
> Ben Bacarisse <ben.u...@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>
>> Nick <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> writes:
>>
>>> Flash Gordon <sm...@spam.causeway.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Oh, and an advantage of \r\n as your line termination is that it
>>>> matches most of the text based internet protocols.
>>>
>>> Can someone remind me exactly of how this works. AIUI (and could be
>>> wrong), '\n' will be translated to whatever is appropriate for the
>>> system.
>>
>> On output to a text file, yes, but binary mode is best for handling a
>> protocol stream.
<snip>
> So how to I, portably, convert stdout to "binary mode"?
You can't. You can try, of course, with freopen but that can fail to
have the desired effect.
I hope you did not think I was saying that it's all easy and there is
no problem. I was just saying that a binary stream is the only
portable way go, despite the ensuing restrictions such as not being
able to use stdout for this purpose.
--
Ben.
Richard
> In
> <fbd600c5-ad0a-4b3d...@q16g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> Tom St Denis wrote:
>
>> On Dec 18, 1:04 pm, Richard <rgrd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Flash Gordon <s...@spam.causeway.com> writes:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> > Now please, everyone, stop
>>> > arguing about which OSs are real/advanced/crap or whatever. You
>>> > all know that has sod all to do with even the widest possible
>>> > definition of the purpose of this group.
>>>
>>> Wrong of course since the OS might determine the C tools in use.
>>> And C and its uses are most definitely ARE on topic here.
>>
>> Actually that's wrong anyways
Wrong. Or are you really trying to tell me that the OS has no impact on
the tools used? As someone who was unaware of chunk handling in modern
RCS systems I suspect your views on the tools might be a tad
limited. Your recent anti MS rants suggest you are a bit blinkered.
>
> That goes without saying. You're arguing with someone who contributes
> nothing but bile to the group, and whose views on topicality are of
> little more than passing interest to even the most relaxed of
> readers. Why bother?
>
> <snip>
Bile? Calling you a conceited arse is not bile. If you didn't hide
behind killfiles you would realise that.
Richard
What are you talking about? That is one the most ridiculous things even
you have posted.
Alan Curry
Nick <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>
>So how to I, portably, convert stdout to "binary mode"?
How did you, "portably", get a socket on stdout?
--
Alan Curry
Richard Tobin
>>So how to I, portably, convert stdout to "binary mode"?
>How did you, "portably", get a socket on stdout?
I don't see the relevance of this question. The assumption is that
the program is run with stdout connected to a socket. How this is
done is irrelevant to the author of the C program. You might as
well ask "how do you portably run a program".
And of course the question of how to set stdout to binary mode is
applicable in other circumstances where the output is a file.
Incidentally, it's possible on many systems to open a socket using
only standard C functions.
Flash Gordon
> Flash Gordon <sm...@spam.causeway.com> writes:
>
>> Richard wrote:
>>> Flash Gordon <sm...@spam.causeway.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>>>> In article <6339bd6a-0354-40bf...@1g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> Tom St Denis <t...@iahu.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 18, 10:11 am, Richard <rgrd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> P.S. Where, or where, are the regs telling us this advocacy stuff is
>>>>> really, really, off-topic? Where is a reg when you need one???
>>>> I've already made that request once. Now please, everyone, stop arguing
>>>> about which OSs are real/advanced/crap or whatever. You all know that
>>>> has sod all to do with even the widest possible definition of the
>>>> purpose of this group.
>>> Wrong of course since the OS might determine the C tools in use. And C
>>> and its uses are most definitely ARE on topic here.
>> The state of your bank balance might determine the C tools in use, since
>> you might not be able to afford to buy a commercial C compiler, so do
>> you want to post your last bank statement here for review?
>
> What are you talking about? That is one the most ridiculous things even
> you have posted.
I was pointing out how ridiculous your claim was. People not only pick
tools based on the OS they will use, but finances and all sorts of other
issues. So if having a bearing on the tools you chose is enough to make
something topical, finances are topical, as are politics, availability
of internet access, how close the local PCWorld is... the list is endless.
--
Flash Gordon
Alan Curry
Richard Tobin <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <hgjfv3$fno$1...@aioe.org>, Alan Curry <pac...@kosh.dhis.org> wrote:
>
>>>So how to I, portably, convert stdout to "binary mode"?
>
>>How did you, "portably", get a socket on stdout?
>
>I don't see the relevance of this question. The assumption is that
>the program is run with stdout connected to a socket. How this is
>done is irrelevant to the author of the C program. You might as
>well ask "how do you portably run a program".
Seriously, why worry about how to do network protocols via stdin/stdout if
you don't have an actual use case? It happens with inetd for example, but I
don't think inetd is popular on Windows. It's not even popular on unix
anymore, with the most often-used daemons being standalone httpd and sshd.
>
>And of course the question of how to set stdout to binary mode is
>applicable in other circumstances where the output is a file.
>
>Incidentally, it's possible on many systems to open a socket using
>only standard C functions.
When you fopen() /dev/tcp you can say "r+b", which just leaves
stdin, stdout, and stderr as the only trouble spots.
If you want to be extreme about it, there's no way you can "portably" do
any Internet protocols in C, since they're all defined in terms of octets and
your system might have 11-bit chars and then there's no sequence of stdio
output calls that can possibly have the right number of bits to form the
correct sequence of 8-bit bytes. C is just not capable of being used for
network-related code apparently.
Meanwhile back in reality, things aren't as bad as the C Standard
hand-wringing might suggest. If this comes up at all, you start with code
assuming sane file semantics (i.e. "text mode" and "binary mode" are useless
jibber-jabber so just ignore them) and add #ifdef'ed "detextify(stdout)" code
for any outlying systems you care about.
--
Alan Curry
Seebs
> I was pointing out how ridiculous your claim was.
You write as though you think he can comprehend written English...
> People not only pick
> tools based on the OS they will use, but finances and all sorts of other
> issues. So if having a bearing on the tools you chose is enough to make
> something topical, finances are topical, as are politics, availability
> of internet access, how close the local PCWorld is... the list is endless.
... Or common forms of argument, in this case, reductio ad absurdum. So
I guess you're also assuming he can comprehend at least one thing written
in Latin. :)
-s
--
Copyright 2009, 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!
Dik T. Winter
> In article <KuuoL...@cwi.nl>, Dik T. Winter <Dik.W...@cwi.nl> wrote:
...
> >I would not know why that would be impractical. I have done just such
> >a thing many times. And many people at this institute install apps in
> >their home directory because they do not have root access on their
> >desktop.
>
> You guys are missing the point. The fact that you need to be
> Administrator to install (most) apps on a Windows box is a *FEATURE*.
> It was designed this way intentionally and on purpose. It was not any
> kind of oversight or bug or limitation. It was done this way in direct
> response to corporate requirements.
>
> I know this sounds heretical to most of the people here, but from the
> management's point of view, you don't *WANT* people installing apps on
> their machines. You *WANT* centralized control.
Ah, yes, I remember, there was a reason we use Linux here.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, science park 123, 1098 xg amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Nick
> In article <hgjinr$1uq9$1...@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
> Richard Tobin <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In article <hgjfv3$fno$1...@aioe.org>, Alan Curry <pac...@kosh.dhis.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>So how to I, portably, convert stdout to "binary mode"?
>>
>>>How did you, "portably", get a socket on stdout?
>>
>>I don't see the relevance of this question. The assumption is that
>>the program is run with stdout connected to a socket. How this is
>>done is irrelevant to the author of the C program. You might as
>>well ask "how do you portably run a program".
>
> Seriously, why worry about how to do network protocols via stdin/stdout if
> you don't have an actual use case? It happens with inetd for example, but I
> don't think inetd is popular on Windows. It's not even popular on unix
> anymore, with the most often-used daemons being standalone httpd and sshd.
I've got a use case. A C interpreter started by httpd (of some
variety). Even there, the specs say that after the Content-type I should
be sending "two carriage return/new line pairs" (eg
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/howto/cgi.html). In practice I've
never had a problem, and I suspect the web servers I've used are pretty
tolerant in what they want there. But, nevertheless, I'm intrigued as
to how I guarantee to send precisely that down stdout. After all, it's
possible to do significant amounts of server-side programming entirely
in standard C.
[The bit above where the snipping starts, was the statement that to do
it I needed to open the file in binary mode, hence my request. In
practice, I don't want to change the mode on stdout; I want to send a
particular byte sequence down stdout].
Squeamizh
> Richard wrote:> >>>>> In article <6339bd6a-0354-40bf-ab73-72df047ca...@1g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>> Tom St Denis <t...@iahu.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Dec 18, 10:11 am, Richard <rgrd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> <snip>
>
> >>>>> P.S. Where, or where, are the regs telling us this advocacy stuff is
> >>>>> really, really, off-topic? Where is a reg when you need one???
> >>>> I've already made that request once. Now please, everyone, stop arguing
> >>>> about which OSs are real/advanced/crap or whatever. You all know that
> >>>> has sod all to do with even the widest possible definition of the
> >>>> purpose of this group.
> >>> Wrong of course since the OS might determine the C tools in use. And C
> >>> and its uses are most definitely ARE on topic here.
> >> The state of your bank balance might determine the C tools in use, since
> >> you might not be able to afford to buy a commercial C compiler, so do
> >> you want to post your last bank statement here for review?
>
> > What are you talking about? That is one the most ridiculous things even
> > you have posted.
>
> I was pointing out how ridiculous your claim was. People not only pick
> tools based on the OS they will use, but finances and all sorts of other
> issues. So if having a bearing on the tools you chose is enough to make
> something topical, finances are topical, as are politics, availability
> of internet access, how close the local PCWorld is... the list is endless.
The state of one's finances is not topical, but the price of different
C tools is.
Michael Tsang
Hash: SHA1
gwowen wrote:
> On Dec 18, 12:05 pm, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
>> apt-get install needs you to be root. This is under the
>> debian and ubuntu distributions of linux.
>
> True, but on recent Ubuntus non-privileged users can, by default, run
> apt-get install/upgrade using sudo, supplying only their own
> passwords. Of course, this does not allow the user to install
> arbitrary software as root, only those from the officially blessed
> repositories.
The privilege is granted from /etc/sudoers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAks0y6sACgkQG6NzcAXitM9+XwCgjCqVgY13Wx9d4TmPQ7E7CN9X
A7EAoI1P/UchppbIGYpwdziQCYAc3OPX
=Q7zs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----