Time Zone
Stu
For example,
date
Tue Feb 22 18:19:44 EST 2005
Does anybody have some sample "C" code that can do this
Thanks
Rich Teer
man strftime (and/or buy my book!)
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
Thomas Dickey
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Stu wrote:
>> How does the date command print TZ.
>>
>> For example,
>>
>> date
>> Tue Feb 22 18:19:44 EST 2005
>>
>> Does anybody have some sample "C" code that can do this
> man strftime (and/or buy my book!)
Actually
man date
is the preferred starting point. It does point to strftime, but provides
additional context.
Given that, there's no point in buying your book, unless for research purposes
one chooses to compare it against Stevens' book.
> Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"
(I'd use another word there)
--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net
Ian Clarke
Thomas Dickey wrote:
> Rich Teer <rich...@rite-group.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Stu wrote:
>
> >> How does the date command print TZ.
> >>
> >> For example,
> >>
> >> date
> >> Tue Feb 22 18:19:44 EST 2005
> >>
> >> Does anybody have some sample "C" code that can do this
>
> > man strftime (and/or buy my book!)
>
> Actually
> man date
> is the preferred starting point. It does point to strftime, but
provides
> additional context.
>
> Given that, there's no point in buying your book, unless for research
> purposes
> one chooses to compare it against Stevens' book.
>
> > Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"
> (I'd use another word there)
Do you mean what I think you do? Looking at the two books
I now start to see what I think you mean. I looked at Teer
chapter 16 (Process Relationships) and chapter 9 of Stevens
Advanced Programming in The Unix Environment:
* several paragraphs seem eerily similar in Teer and Stevens
(paragraph sequences that match, same order of ideas in
paragraphs, even quite similar wording in sentences)
* the majority of the diagrams in these chapters are nearly or
exactly the same
* the section titles are mostly the same, and in the same order
* even the titles of the chapters are the same
It seems unlikely that could have happened by chance.
Comparing chapter 15 of Teer with chapter 8 of Stevens (both
called Process Control), in most cases eaqch program in Teer
matches one in Stevens, excepting changes in variables names,
etc.
A rough scan shows other chapters which seem to
have remarkable degrees of similarity.
Very strange...
Thomas Dickey
> Do you mean what I think you do? Looking at the two books
probably.
I have notes on about 40% of the books (working from the beginning).
> I now start to see what I think you mean. I looked at Teer
> chapter 16 (Process Relationships) and chapter 9 of Stevens
> Advanced Programming in The Unix Environment:
> * several paragraphs seem eerily similar in Teer and Stevens
> (paragraph sequences that match, same order of ideas in
> paragraphs, even quite similar wording in sentences)
...except that the rewording in several instances is not as good as the
original (saying something absurd), indicating a lack of comprehension on the
part of the adapter.
> * the majority of the diagrams in these chapters are nearly or
> exactly the same
> * the section titles are mostly the same, and in the same order
mostly - there are a couple interchanges (no particular reason),
and a couple of sections moved across chapters.
> * even the titles of the chapters are the same
> It seems unlikely that could have happened by chance.
> Comparing chapter 15 of Teer with chapter 8 of Stevens (both
> called Process Control), in most cases eaqch program in Teer
> matches one in Stevens, excepting changes in variables names,
> etc.
In several cases (in the parts I've reviewed) the main program's
content is moved to a subroutine.
> A rough scan shows other chapters which seem to
> have remarkable degrees of similarity.
> Very strange...
;-)
Rich Teer
> Do you mean what I think you do? Looking at the two books
> I now start to see what I think you mean. I looked at Teer
> chapter 16 (Process Relationships) and chapter 9 of Stevens
> Advanced Programming in The Unix Environment:
I cover a superset of what Stevens does, and I imitated his writing
style (because I greatly admire it; that's one of the reasons why
I thank Rich Stevens in the acknowledgements section). It shouldn't
be too surprising, then, that there are similarities.
I spent four years of my life writing my book, 3.5 of which I
was otherwise unemployed for (yes, I quit my job to write my
book). As a result, I am in a huge amount of debt, which will
take quite a while to pay off.
If I was plagerising APUE, as some people seem to be implying,
don't you think it would have taken a lot less than FOUR YEARS?
I also notice that those same people aren't so quick to point
out the myriad of differences between the two books.
It seems that some people just aren't happy unless they're shittin'
on someone's parade.
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"
President,
Thomas Dickey
> If I was plagerising APUE, as some people seem to be implying,
> don't you think it would have taken a lot less than FOUR YEARS?
> I also notice that those same people aren't so quick to point
> out the myriad of differences between the two books.
One of my associates has noted that it probably saved you about two years.
Certainly, there are other differences - material incorporated from Solaris
manpages for instance.
> It seems that some people just aren't happy unless they're shittin'
> on someone's parade.
hmm- what's that about "professionalism"?
Ian Clarke
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Ian Clarke wrote:
>
> > Do you mean what I think you do? Looking at the two books
> > I now start to see what I think you mean. I looked at Teer
> > chapter 16 (Process Relationships) and chapter 9 of Stevens
> > Advanced Programming in The Unix Environment:
>
> I cover a superset of what Stevens does, and I imitated his writing
> style (because I greatly admire it; that's one of the reasons why
> I thank Rich Stevens in the acknowledgements section). It shouldn't
> be too surprising, then, that there are similarities.
Yes. But the similarities (some very similarly constructed
paragraphs and sentences, a near 1:1 match between the
diagrams in the Process Relationships chapter and the programs
in the Process Control chapter) I pointed out do not seem to be
ones that would come about by chance; it is more than a matter
of imitation of writing style.
> I spent four years of my life writing my book, 3.5 of which I
> was otherwise unemployed for (yes, I quit my job to write my
> book). As a result, I am in a huge amount of debt, which will
> take quite a while to pay off.
>
> If I was plagerising APUE, as some people seem to be implying,
> don't you think it would have taken a lot less than FOUR YEARS?
> I also notice that those same people aren't so quick to point
> out the myriad of differences between the two books.
Perhaps because it is the number of marked similarities
that is so striking.
> It seems that some people just aren't happy unless they're shittin'
> on someone's parade.
No. Some people are curious about how parts of the two books
could be so similar.
Thomas Dickey
> Rich Teer wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Ian Clarke wrote:
>>
>> > Do you mean what I think you do? Looking at the two books
>> > I now start to see what I think you mean. I looked at Teer
>> > chapter 16 (Process Relationships) and chapter 9 of Stevens
>> > Advanced Programming in The Unix Environment:
>>
>> I cover a superset of what Stevens does, and I imitated his writing
>> style (because I greatly admire it; that's one of the reasons why
>> I thank Rich Stevens in the acknowledgements section). It shouldn't
>> be too surprising, then, that there are similarities.
Steven's book is, however, not mentioned in the bibliography
(only the 3 editions of the unrelated book on network programming).
There are other odd things which I have noticed about
the bibliography.
> Yes. But the similarities (some very similarly constructed
> paragraphs and sentences, a near 1:1 match between the
> diagrams in the Process Relationships chapter and the programs
> in the Process Control chapter) I pointed out do not seem to be
> ones that would come about by chance; it is more than a matter
> of imitation of writing style.
Some of the diagrams that I noticed are rotated by 90 degrees, but
otherwise retaining the same structure and annotation.
>> If I was plagerising APUE, as some people seem to be implying,
>> don't you think it would have taken a lot less than FOUR YEARS?
>> I also notice that those same people aren't so quick to point
>> out the myriad of differences between the two books.
> Perhaps because it is the number of marked similarities
> that is so striking.
>> It seems that some people just aren't happy unless they're shittin'
>> on someone's parade.
> No. Some people are curious about how parts of the two books
> could be so similar.
Well, I was curious, and asked. But I did not receive a proper answer.
Heny Townsend
>>If I was plagerising APUE, as some people seem to be implying,
>>don't you think it would have taken a lot less than FOUR YEARS?
>>I also notice that those same people aren't so quick to point
>>out the myriad of differences between the two books.
>
>
> Perhaps because it is the number of marked similarities
> that is so striking.
>
>
>>It seems that some people just aren't happy unless they're shittin'
>>on someone's parade.
>
>
> No. Some people are curious about how parts of the two books
> could be so similar.
In Rich's defense, his original mentions of the book (here, a few years
ago) referred to the project as an updated edition of APUE. The
implication was that he planned to publish it as the second edition WRS
would certainly have written had he lived.
It was eventually published not by Addison-Wesley, the publisher of
APUE, but by Prentice Hall and not by the name APUE Second Edition but
Solaris Systems Programming. Presumably he was unable to get AW, or the
estate of WRS, or whoever was the "process group leader", to sign off on
the project and had to shop it elsewhere. So I suspect - and note that I
have no personal knowledge of any people or organizations involved -
that when much of the work on this book was done it was intended to be
APUE II.
Seen in that light, there's nothing wrong with using a similar
organization, writing style, and diagrams; all second editions bear a
striking resemblance to their predecessor. I agree he should have have
been more explicit about the debt owed to APUE but the charitable
interpretation is that this was originally expected to be obvious and
then the explicit atributions were forgotten as it was scrubbed up for
Prentice Hall
Even beyond all that, APUE is widely considered one of the best-written
technical books ever. Is there some reason subsequent authors shouldn't
stand on the shoulders of giants? In fact what makes Unix so great is
that it's promiscuous in the best sense of the word; it's never been
afraid to borrow ideas. Windows is an original creation; Unix is an
evolutionary mishmash. Which would you rather use? And why shouldn't the
authors if Unix books use the same techniques which worked so well for
the authors of Unix code?
We're not dealing with fiction or poetry here. Technical books should be
judged on true vs false, acessible vs obscure, complete vs spotty. Not
on originality.
--
Henry Townsend
Thomas Dickey
> Ian Clarke wrote:
>>>If I was plagerising APUE, as some people seem to be implying,
>>>don't you think it would have taken a lot less than FOUR YEARS?
>>>I also notice that those same people aren't so quick to point
>>>out the myriad of differences between the two books.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps because it is the number of marked similarities
>> that is so striking.
>>
>>
>>>It seems that some people just aren't happy unless they're shittin'
>>>on someone's parade.
>>
>>
>> No. Some people are curious about how parts of the two books
>> could be so similar.
> In Rich's defense, his original mentions of the book (here, a few years
> ago) referred to the project as an updated edition of APUE. The
> implication was that he planned to publish it as the second edition WRS
> would certainly have written had he lived.
> It was eventually published not by Addison-Wesley, the publisher of
> APUE, but by Prentice Hall and not by the name APUE Second Edition but
> Solaris Systems Programming. Presumably he was unable to get AW, or the
Presumably (but so far I've not been able to get that information).
And in any case, omitting the bibliography entry doesn't tend to
confirm that hypothesis. Stevens is credited for inspiration, but
none of the content.
> estate of WRS, or whoever was the "process group leader", to sign off on
> the project and had to shop it elsewhere. So I suspect - and note that I
> have no personal knowledge of any people or organizations involved -
> that when much of the work on this book was done it was intended to be
> APUE II.
> Seen in that light, there's nothing wrong with using a similar
> organization, writing style, and diagrams; all second editions bear a
including copying examples and user exercises?
> striking resemblance to their predecessor. I agree he should have have
> been more explicit about the debt owed to APUE but the charitable
> interpretation is that this was originally expected to be obvious and
> then the explicit atributions were forgotten as it was scrubbed up for
> Prentice Hall
If it were that simple, I'd have gotten a good answer.
> Even beyond all that, APUE is widely considered one of the best-written
> technical books ever. Is there some reason subsequent authors shouldn't
> stand on the shoulders of giants? In fact what makes Unix so great is
> that it's promiscuous in the best sense of the word; it's never been
> afraid to borrow ideas. Windows is an original creation; Unix is an
> evolutionary mishmash. Which would you rather use? And why shouldn't the
> authors if Unix books use the same techniques which worked so well for
> the authors of Unix code?
I recommend that you examine both books before talking only about techniques.
> We're not dealing with fiction or poetry here. Technical books should be
> judged on true vs false, acessible vs obscure, complete vs spotty. Not
> on originality.
> --
> Henry Townsend
--
Heny Townsend
>>Seen in that light, there's nothing wrong with using a similar
>>organization, writing style, and diagrams; all second editions bear a
>
>
> including copying examples and user exercises?
Naturally. What second editions do you know that don't "copy" examples
and user exercises, not to mention everything else that hasn't become
incorrect since the first edition was published? That's what second
editions are.
>>Even beyond all that, APUE is widely considered one of the best-written
>>technical books ever. Is there some reason subsequent authors shouldn't
>>stand on the shoulders of giants? In fact what makes Unix so great is
>>that it's promiscuous in the best sense of the word; it's never been
>>afraid to borrow ideas. Windows is an original creation; Unix is an
>>evolutionary mishmash. Which would you rather use? And why shouldn't the
>>authors if Unix books use the same techniques which worked so well for
>>the authors of Unix code?
>
>
> I recommend that you examine both books before talking only about techniques.
I own them both and have looked at some of the sections you cite. The
resemblances are striking; there can be no debate that SSP was written
with APUE lying open to the left of the keyboard. The question is how to
judge that. Consider that if you look at the source code for Solaris
itself you'd find sections which bear a similarly striking resemblance
to *BSD. That's not considered plagiarism, it's considered reuse, as
long as no licenses are violated. The alternative would be NIH syndrome,
also known as Windows.
--
Henry Townsend
Thomas Dickey
> Thomas Dickey wrote:
>>>Seen in that light, there's nothing wrong with using a similar
>>>organization, writing style, and diagrams; all second editions bear a
>>
>>
>> including copying examples and user exercises?
> Naturally. What second editions do you know that don't "copy" examples
none that don't point out that they're second editions.
And as I noted, many of the changes are done for no other apparent reason
than to provide different literal wording, at the expense of accuracy.
As I reviewed SSP, I would notice some gaff, and then refer to Stevens
to see that a technical nuance was lost in the rush to Roget's.
> I own them both and have looked at some of the sections you cite. The
> resemblances are striking; there can be no debate that SSP was written
> with APUE lying open to the left of the keyboard. The question is how to
> judge that. Consider that if you look at the source code for Solaris
> itself you'd find sections which bear a similarly striking resemblance
> to *BSD. That's not considered plagiarism, it's considered reuse, as
> long as no licenses are violated. The alternative would be NIH syndrome,
actually copyright (the second page) is considered a license.
Ian Clarke
> Ian Clarke <i_d_c...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Rich Teer wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Ian Clarke wrote:
> >>
> >> > Do you mean what I think you do? Looking at the two books
> >> > I now start to see what I think you mean. I looked at Teer
> >> > chapter 16 (Process Relationships) and chapter 9 of Stevens
> >> > Advanced Programming in The Unix Environment:
> >>
> >> I cover a superset of what Stevens does, and I imitated his
writing
> >> style (because I greatly admire it; that's one of the reasons why
> >> I thank Rich Stevens in the acknowledgements section). It
shouldn't
> >> be too surprising, then, that there are similarities.
>
> Steven's book is, however, not mentioned in the bibliography
> (only the 3 editions of the unrelated book on network programming).
I see that Doors is covered in Teer and one of the Stevens
network programming books (vol 2). Looking at that chapter,
there does seem again to be a sense of familiarity.
<XXX>
> >> If I was plagerising APUE, as some people seem to be implying,
> >> don't you think it would have taken a lot less than FOUR YEARS?
> >> I also notice that those same people aren't so quick to point
> >> out the myriad of differences between the two books.
>
> > Perhaps because it is the number of marked similarities
> > that is so striking.
>
> >> It seems that some people just aren't happy unless they're
shittin'
> >> on someone's parade.
>
> > No. Some people are curious about how parts of the two books
> > could be so similar.
>
> Well, I was curious, and asked. But I did not receive a proper
answer.
Where did you ask?
Ian Clarke
> Ian Clarke wrote:
> >>If I was plagerising APUE, as some people seem to be implying,
> >>don't you think it would have taken a lot less than FOUR YEARS?
> >>I also notice that those same people aren't so quick to point
> >>out the myriad of differences between the two books.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps because it is the number of marked similarities
> > that is so striking.
> >
> >
> >>It seems that some people just aren't happy unless they're shittin'
> >>on someone's parade.
> >
> >
> > No. Some people are curious about how parts of the two books
> > could be so similar.
>
> In Rich's defense, his original mentions of the book (here, a few
years
> ago) referred to the project as an updated edition of APUE. The
> implication was that he planned to publish it as the second edition
WRS
> would certainly have written had he lived.
This does not seem right. Surely second editions are arranged by
the publisher, not another author: the publisher would *choose*
an author for the revision, and make a contract for that.
> It was eventually published not by Addison-Wesley, the publisher of
> APUE, but by Prentice Hall and not by the name APUE Second Edition
but
> Solaris Systems Programming. Presumably he was unable to get AW, or
the
> estate of WRS, or whoever was the "process group leader", to sign off
on
> the project and had to shop it elsewhere.
I think that Prentice Hall and Addison Wesley are all part of one
big company, Pearson, now. And even if an author could not get
"sign off" from another publisher, that does not mean he can use
the work of one of that publisher's authors without attribution
(and perhaps financial compensation).
> So I suspect - and note that I
> have no personal knowledge of any people or organizations involved -
> that when much of the work on this book was done it was intended to
be
> APUE II.
This book is not billed as a second edition. A second edition
would list the original author, it would usually be done by the
same publisher, and, I believe, some money would still go to the
original author (or estate).
> Seen in that light, there's nothing wrong with using a similar
> organization, writing style, and diagrams; all second editions bear a
> striking resemblance to their predecessor. I agree he should have
have
> been more explicit about the debt owed to APUE but the charitable
> interpretation is that this was originally expected to be obvious and
> then the explicit atributions were forgotten as it was scrubbed up
for
> Prentice Hall
One does not "forget" such things. There can be serious legal
consequences for failing to properly attribute.
> Even beyond all that, APUE is widely considered one of the
best-written
> technical books ever. Is there some reason subsequent authors
shouldn't
> stand on the shoulders of giants?
Absolutely no reason. But that does not allow whole sentences
and paragraphs, pictures, and programs to be taken without
attribution.
> In fact what makes Unix so great is
> that it's promiscuous in the best sense of the word; it's never been
> afraid to borrow ideas. Windows is an original creation;
No. Windows borrowed many of its best ideas from the Mac,
which in turn borrowed heavily from the true innovators
at Xerox PARC. (But this is not the same as borrowing code.)
> Unix is an
> evolutionary mishmash. Which would you rather use? And why shouldn't
the
> authors if Unix books use the same techniques which worked so well
for
> the authors of Unix code?
Because of copyright. Various versions of Unix were essentially
written from scratch. The code itself was not (or should not) be
copied, only the ideas. Where authorship was not original,
attributions were made. Where attributions were not made, or it
was claimed that they were not, court fights have resulted (ATT
versus BSD in the 1980s).
> We're not dealing with fiction or poetry here. Technical books should
be
> judged on true vs false, acessible vs obscure, complete vs spotty.
Not
> on originality.
Does this mean that someone can take an exact copy of an existing
book and then get it republished under his own name? I don't
suppose you mean that, but the point is there must be a line
somewhere. Some parts of the Teer book look uncomfortably close
to Stevens. (I would have felt nervous making that level of
borrowing in a term paper without attribution.)
Ian Clarke
> Thomas Dickey wrote:
>
> >>Seen in that light, there's nothing wrong with using a similar
> >>organization, writing style, and diagrams; all second editions bear
a
> >
> >
> > including copying examples and user exercises?
>
> Naturally. What second editions do you know that don't "copy"
examples
> and user exercises, not to mention everything else that hasn't become
> incorrect since the first edition was published? That's what second
> editions are.
This book is not billed as a second edition (see my previous post).
It is not a second edition. I would be expect that the publisher
of APUE would be puzzled to hear SSP called a second edition of
APUE.
> >>Even beyond all that, APUE is widely considered one of the
best-written
> >>technical books ever. Is there some reason subsequent authors
shouldn't
> >>stand on the shoulders of giants? In fact what makes Unix so great
is
> >>that it's promiscuous in the best sense of the word; it's never
been
> >>afraid to borrow ideas. Windows is an original creation; Unix is an
> >>evolutionary mishmash. Which would you rather use? And why
shouldn't the
> >>authors if Unix books use the same techniques which worked so well
for
> >>the authors of Unix code?
> >
> > I recommend that you examine both books before talking only about
> > techniques.
>
> I own them both and have looked at some of the sections you cite. The
> resemblances are striking; there can be no debate that SSP was
written
> with APUE lying open to the left of the keyboard. The question is how
to
> judge that.
The question is how much passed from the desk, to the keyboard
with little change on the way. In at least two chapters that I
looked at, this seems to have happened to a degree that is
surprisingly large.
> Consider that if you look at the source code for Solaris
> itself you'd find sections which bear a similarly striking
resemblance
> to *BSD. That's not considered plagiarism, it's considered reuse, as
> long as no licenses are violated. The alternative would be NIH
syndrome,
> also known as Windows.
Your analogy does not work. Licenses are involved.
The BSD license explicitly permits unrestricted re-use of the
code - it only requires attribution. I would guess that where
you see significant matching code in BSD and Solaris, there
will be suitable attribution notices.
Book copyright does not permit the same re-use as is granted by
the BSD license.
Thomas Dickey
> I think that Prentice Hall and Addison Wesley are all part of one
> big company, Pearson, now. And even if an author could not get
According to Pearson's webpage, for quite a while.
> "sign off" from another publisher, that does not mean he can use
> the work of one of that publisher's authors without attribution
> (and perhaps financial compensation).
There are editors (and lawyers) in both branches of Pearson.
> This book is not billed as a second edition. A second edition
> would list the original author, it would usually be done by the
> same publisher, and, I believe, some money would still go to the
> original author (or estate).
agreed - another of my associates pointed that out.
>> then the explicit atributions were forgotten as it was scrubbed up for
>> Prentice Hall
> One does not "forget" such things. There can be serious legal
> consequences for failing to properly attribute.
right - if the bibliography had cited APUE, I probably wouldn't have a copy
of SSP right now.
> Absolutely no reason. But that does not allow whole sentences
> and paragraphs, pictures, and programs to be taken without
> attribution.
particularly when there are so many instances.
> Because of copyright. Various versions of Unix were essentially
> written from scratch. The code itself was not (or should not) be
> copied, only the ideas. Where authorship was not original,
> attributions were made. Where attributions were not made, or it
> was claimed that they were not, court fights have resulted (ATT
> versus BSD in the 1980s).
My preference is to also credit the ideas, where their source is known.
> somewhere. Some parts of the Teer book look uncomfortably close
> to Stevens. (I would have felt nervous making that level of
> borrowing in a term paper without attribution.)
There are people who write programs to detect that sort of thing.
Since Pearson has (I assume) both books in computer-readable form,
they might be in a good position to measure the amount of borrowing.
Thomas Dickey
>>
>> Well, I was curious, and asked. But I did not receive a proper answer.
> Where did you ask?
The obvious place - comp.unix.solaris (several of the trolls residing on
that newsgroup strongly recommended the book ;-)
Thomas Dickey
>> Steven's book is, however, not mentioned in the bibliography
>> (only the 3 editions of the unrelated book on network programming).
> I see that Doors is covered in Teer and one of the Stevens
> network programming books (vol 2). Looking at that chapter,
> there does seem again to be a sense of familiarity.
well, at least Teer does have that in his bibliography.
I don't have a need for the network book (since RFC's are readily available),
got APUE some time ago to get some details on pseudo-terminals.
Thomas Dickey
> This book is not billed as a second edition (see my previous post).
> It is not a second edition. I would be expect that the publisher
> of APUE would be puzzled to hear SSP called a second edition of
> APUE.
Agreed:
http://www.pearsoned.co.uk/bookshop/detail.asp?item=247790
Says "in the tradition of", not implying it is a lineal descendent.
> The question is how much passed from the desk, to the keyboard
> with little change on the way. In at least two chapters that I
> looked at, this seems to have happened to a degree that is
> surprisingly large.
A couple that are not:
Chapter 2 is Solaris-specific.
Chapter 3 (Teer) is mostly not from Stevens.
Chapters 8, 9 are derived from other content.
Teer chapters 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12 have substantial borrowing.
I stopped with Chapter 12, deciding I had enough material to make my point.
However, I see there is potential in chapters 13-23 except 18 and 19.
> Book copyright does not permit the same re-use as is granted by
> the BSD license.
Pearson has a webpage (and email address) devoted to receiving requests
for permission to reproduce their content.
Ian Clarke
> Ian Clarke <i_d_c...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Steven's book is, however, not mentioned in the bibliography
> >> (only the 3 editions of the unrelated book on network
programming).
>
> > I see that Doors is covered in Teer and one of the Stevens
> > network programming books (vol 2). Looking at that chapter,
> > there does seem again to be a sense of familiarity.
>
> well, at least Teer does have that in his bibliography.
>
> I don't have a need for the network book (since RFC's are readily
available),
> got APUE some time ago to get some details on pseudo-terminals.
I had a look at that chapter (chap. 23): most of the diagrams
are the same or very similar (and in the same order), there
are a number of rather similar looking paragraphs and a
general order of presentation that is very similar to
Stevens (chap. 19). Most notably, the main example program
of the chapter (pty.c) is the same program (with some
modification) as Stevens wrote.
Ian Clarke
> Ian Clarke <i_d_c...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > This book is not billed as a second edition (see my previous post).
> > It is not a second edition. I would be expect that the publisher
> > of APUE would be puzzled to hear SSP called a second edition of
> > APUE.
>
> Agreed:
>
> http://www.pearsoned.co.uk/bookshop/detail.asp?item=247790
>
> Says "in the tradition of", not implying it is a lineal descendent.
>
> > The question is how much passed from the desk, to the keyboard
> > with little change on the way. In at least two chapters that I
> > looked at, this seems to have happened to a degree that is
> > surprisingly large.
>
> A couple that are not:
>
> Chapter 2 is Solaris-specific.
> Chapter 3 (Teer) is mostly not from Stevens.
> Chapters 8, 9 are derived from other content.
>
> Teer chapters 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12 have substantial borrowing.
>
> I stopped with Chapter 12, deciding I had enough material to make my
point.
> However, I see there is potential in chapters 13-23 except 18 and 19.
>From what I've seen, chapters 15, 16, and 23 of Teer are
surprisingly similar to corresponding chapters of Stevens.
Dragan Cvetkovic
> Thomas Dickey wrote:
[snip]
>> A couple that are not:
>>
>> Chapter 2 is Solaris-specific.
>> Chapter 3 (Teer) is mostly not from Stevens.
>> Chapters 8, 9 are derived from other content.
>>
>> Teer chapters 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12 have substantial borrowing.
>>
>> I stopped with Chapter 12, deciding I had enough material to make my
> point.
>> However, I see there is potential in chapters 13-23 except 18 and 19.
>
>>From what I've seen, chapters 15, 16, and 23 of Teer are
> surprisingly similar to corresponding chapters of Stevens.
Good thing about this excersize of yours is that you will become quite
familiar with both Teer's and Stevens' book, which is good for you.
Keep reading them!
Dragan
--
Dragan Cvetkovic,
To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer
!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
Henry Townsend
> I had a look at that chapter (chap. 23): most of the diagrams
> are the same or very similar (and in the same order), there
> are a number of rather similar looking paragraphs and a
> general order of presentation that is very similar to
> Stevens (chap. 19). Most notably, the main example program
> of the chapter (pty.c) is the same program (with some
> modification) as Stevens wrote.
The APUE sample code is, as far as I can tell, made available for any
use. Which would include use in another book. Say what you like about
the wording but there is nothing wrong with (re)using the code.
--
Henry Townsend
Ian Clarke
> Ian Clarke wrote:
> > I had a look at that chapter (chap. 23): most of the diagrams
> > are the same or very similar (and in the same order), there
> > are a number of rather similar looking paragraphs and a
> > general order of presentation that is very similar to
> > Stevens (chap. 19). Most notably, the main example program
> > of the chapter (pty.c) is the same program (with some
> > modification) as Stevens wrote.
>
> The APUE sample code is, as far as I can tell, made available for any
> use. Which would include use in another book.
I'm not sure how you work this out. The code is part of the book
and the book carries a copyright notice (to the publisher, not
the author!). Yes, the code was made available on Stevens'
homepage, but that does not remove the copyright.
> Say what you like about
> the wording but there is nothing wrong with (re)using the code.
I'd say this: leaving aside copyright, the use of another
person's programs in your own book without even attributing
that use is highly questionable.
Dragan Cvetkovic
> Henry Townsend wrote:
>> Say what you like about
>> the wording but there is nothing wrong with (re)using the code.
>
> I'd say this: leaving aside copyright, the use of another
> person's programs in your own book without even attributing
> that use is highly questionable.
>
Does anyone attribute "Hello World" program?
Ian Clarke
> "Ian Clarke" <i_d_c...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > Henry Townsend wrote:
> >> Say what you like about
> >> the wording but there is nothing wrong with (re)using the code.
> >
> > I'd say this: leaving aside copyright, the use of another
> > person's programs in your own book without even attributing
> > that use is highly questionable.
>
> Does anyone attribute "Hello World" program?
What are you meaining to say?
Dragan Cvetkovic
That some programs become so common and are a part of "UNIX folklore" so
that nobody attributes them any more and doesn't say e.g. "Hello world"
program was originally written by (say) K&R (I don't really know who wrote
that one), reference [1].
Bye, Dragan
Dragan Cvetkovic
> "Ian Clarke" <i_d_c...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Dragan Cvetkovic wrote:
>>> Does anyone attribute "Hello World" program?
>>
>> What are you meaining to say?
>
> That some programs become so common and are a part of "UNIX folklore" so
> that nobody attributes them any more and doesn't say e.g. "Hello world"
> program was originally written by (say) K&R (I don't really know who wrote
> that one), reference [1].
Actually, http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hello-world.html gives
some more info about it.
Ian Clarke
> "Ian Clarke" <i_d_c...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > Dragan Cvetkovic wrote:
> >> "Ian Clarke" <i_d_c...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > Henry Townsend wrote:
> >> >> Say what you like about
> >> >> the wording but there is nothing wrong with (re)using the code.
> >> >
> >> > I'd say this: leaving aside copyright, the use of another
> >> > person's programs in your own book without even attributing
> >> > that use is highly questionable.
> >>
> >> Does anyone attribute "Hello World" program?
> >
> > What are you meaining to say?
>
> That some programs become so common and are a part of "UNIX folklore"
so
> that nobody attributes them any more and doesn't say e.g. "Hello
world"
> program was originally written by (say) K&R (I don't really know who
wrote
> that one), reference [1].
In the Process Control chapter (15) of Teer, it appears
that nearly all of the programs are heavily derived from
the chapter of the same name (8) in Stevens. Are you trying
to draw a parallel between the reproduction of a 5 line
program of unknown origin and the duplication without
attribution of several complex programs, in order to say
that the latter is acceptable practice?
Dragan Cvetkovic
> In the Process Control chapter (15) of Teer, it appears
> that nearly all of the programs are heavily derived from
> the chapter of the same name (8) in Stevens. Are you trying
> to draw a parallel between the reproduction of a 5 line
> program of unknown origin and the duplication without
> attribution of several complex programs, in order to say
> that the latter is acceptable practice?
What complex programs in chapter 15 of Rich Teer? Most of examples there
are a simple demonstration of fork(2), exec(2) wait(2) etc system calls...
Thomas Dickey
> Good thing about this excersize of yours is that you will become quite
> familiar with both Teer's and Stevens' book, which is good for you.
It's too bad you weren't that familiar with the technical areas involved.
Thomas Dickey
That came up a couple of years ago. The publisher's response precludes
this type of reuse.
Thomas Dickey
>> use. Which would include use in another book.
> I'm not sure how you work this out. The code is part of the book
> and the book carries a copyright notice (to the publisher, not
> the author!). Yes, the code was made available on Stevens'
> homepage, but that does not remove the copyright.
See also
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.unix.programmer/msg/68aa666b008823a3
(incorporating the programs in another book is a commercial use ;-)
Thomas Dickey
> Dragan Cvetkovic wrote:
...
>> Does anyone attribute "Hello World" program?
> What are you meaining to say?
Take a look at the credits in SSP. Then take a look at Dragan's postings
in comp.unix.solaris and ask yourself why anyone would choose this person to
review a technical book.
Ian Clarke
> "Ian Clarke" <i_d_c...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > In the Process Control chapter (15) of Teer, it appears
> > that nearly all of the programs are heavily derived from
> > the chapter of the same name (8) in Stevens. Are you trying
> > to draw a parallel between the reproduction of a 5 line
> > program of unknown origin and the duplication without
> > attribution of several complex programs, in order to say
> > that the latter is acceptable practice?
>
> What complex programs in chapter 15 of Rich Teer? Most of examples
there
> are a simple demonstration of fork(2), exec(2) wait(2) etc system
calls...
The dozen or so programs in Teer chapter 15 range from 20
to 50 lines. I can find an analog of EACH of these programs
in Stevens chapter 8. The differences are largely cosmetic:
details of error handling, changes in function and variable
names, using "switch" instead of "if", changing the names
of programs that are passed to exec(), using "return"
instead of "exit". However, the overall structures
and ideas are the same. (In the pseudo-terminals chapter,
a more complex (a few hundred lines spread over several
files) program appears to be borrowed.)
One could argue that a few of these programs are small
enough that the borrowing is trivial, and I would partly
agree. However, it is suspicious that ALL of the programs
have analogs in Stevens (it seems impossible that that could
have happened by chance), especially when considered in
the context of the other close similarities already
mentioned (eg the structure, diagrams, and definite
paragraphs in the "Process Relationships" chapters).
Thomas Dickey
>>Take a look at the credits in SSP. Then take a look at Dragan's postings
>>in comp.unix.solaris and ask yourself why anyone would choose this person to
>>review a technical book.
> Actually, I've seen a number of useful comments from Dragan in some
> newsgroups.
Certainly - anyone can make a manpage reference. But consider the type of
questions he asks...
> But I'm not sure why we have a reviewer responding here instead
> of the author.
It's easier for Dragan to state that he doesn't know something.
Thomas Dickey
> One could argue that a few of these programs are small
> enough that the borrowing is trivial, and I would partly
> agree. However, it is suspicious that ALL of the programs
hmm - not all. only about 90%.
See program 13.5 for instance (compare to Stevens around p380).
> have analogs in Stevens (it seems impossible that that could
> have happened by chance), especially when considered in
> the context of the other close similarities already
> mentioned (eg the structure, diagrams, and definite
> paragraphs in the "Process Relationships" chapters).
same order of presentation, etc.
Michael Kerrisk
<dic...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:
>Michael Kerrisk <michael.kerri...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>>Take a look at the credits in SSP. Then take a look at Dragan's postings
>>>in comp.unix.solaris and ask yourself why anyone would choose this person to
>>>review a technical book.
>
>> Actually, I've seen a number of useful comments from Dragan in some
>> newsgroups.
>
>Certainly - anyone can make a manpage reference. But consider the type of
>questions he asks...
Well, I've seen quite a few informative replies from Dragan, is all I
can say.
Cheers,
Michael
Dragan Cvetkovic
> Dragan Cvetkovic <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Good thing about this excersize of yours is that you will become quite
>> familiar with both Teer's and Stevens' book, which is good for you.
>
> It's too bad you weren't that familiar with the technical areas involved.
>
So, if you can't win the technical discussion, you switch to personal
attacks. How typical...