Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #87295 > unrolled thread
| Started by | TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-05-30 22:28 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-06-07 01:33 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 183 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-05-30 22:28 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-30 23:51 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-05-31 04:23 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-31 02:26 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-05-31 06:41 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-31 03:37 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-05-31 07:46 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-06 08:55 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-06 12:07 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-06 10:14 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-06 13:06 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-06 11:12 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-07 02:45 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 05:13 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-06 18:30 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-06 20:49 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 02:00 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-06 09:07 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 02:11 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-06 09:10 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 02:15 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2026-06-01 12:20 +0300
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-01 09:38 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-02 02:20 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 11:08 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-02 23:58 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-04 11:47 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-04 11:57 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-05 12:53 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-05 17:35 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-05 16:42 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-06 00:06 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-06 10:35 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 03:35 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-07 13:39 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-07 14:41 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-08 00:04 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-08 09:34 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-08 18:08 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-08 21:24 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-09 01:46 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-09 03:09 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-09 11:17 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-10 01:33 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-10 11:53 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-10 18:52 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-10 21:47 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-11 02:58 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-11 01:36 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-11 11:46 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-11 17:15 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-11 07:52 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-11 11:52 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-06-11 18:47 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-11 16:59 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-11 16:55 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-11 01:16 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-11 06:28 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-11 11:42 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-11 16:41 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-11 11:40 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-11 17:35 +0000
[OT] Percetion of the USA abroad (was: Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-11 09:06 +0100
Re: [OT] Percetion of the USA abroad The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-11 12:03 +0100
Re: [OT] Percetion of the USA abroad rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-11 17:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Percetion of the USA abroad "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-11 21:18 +0200
Re: [OT] Percetion of the USA abroad (was: Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-11 17:40 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-10 19:22 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-10 21:48 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-11 00:57 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-11 06:27 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-09 18:28 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-09 02:54 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-09 01:27 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-09 10:57 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-06-07 08:00 -0700
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-07 16:35 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-07 23:48 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-08 00:53 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-08 08:26 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-08 23:06 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-08 00:11 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-09 17:42 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-06 10:39 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 03:44 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-05 23:55 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-06 09:40 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-07 02:47 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-07 13:58 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-07 20:40 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-07 23:39 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 23:00 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-08 04:36 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-08 02:30 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-08 09:19 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-08 23:53 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-08 14:23 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-09 02:28 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-09 18:24 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-10 02:40 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-10 19:17 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-11 00:56 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-11 06:24 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-08 18:08 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-08 22:42 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-09 00:45 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-09 01:44 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-09 03:08 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-09 11:07 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-10 01:03 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-10 10:43 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-10 10:52 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-11 00:33 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-11 06:03 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-11 02:42 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-11 17:26 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-11 11:31 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-09 18:31 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-10 03:16 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-08 09:54 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Eric Pozharski <apple.universe@posteo.net> - 2026-06-08 21:46 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-09 04:50 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-09 03:16 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-09 08:49 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-09 01:48 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-09 11:11 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-10 01:32 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-10 05:38 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-10 10:49 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-10 11:08 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-11 00:31 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-11 03:31 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-11 04:36 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-11 08:37 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-11 19:02 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-09 18:31 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-10 02:54 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-08 14:12 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-08 18:08 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-09 01:30 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-09 11:15 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-09 18:31 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-07 14:30 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 23:38 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-08 09:22 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-09 00:28 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 04:03 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-06 18:42 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-06 08:53 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 01:53 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-06 08:52 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 01:41 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-06 06:41 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-06 03:07 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-06 13:28 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-06 19:16 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 05:18 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-07 18:59 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-06 09:40 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-07 02:51 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 04:56 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-05-31 16:43 +0800
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-05-31 08:48 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-05-31 10:16 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-05-31 10:22 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-06 06:38 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-06 03:04 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-06 13:32 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-06 11:34 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-06 14:01 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-09 20:29 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-09 22:52 +0200
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-10 04:36 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-10 08:48 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-06 09:17 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-06 09:40 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-07 02:57 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-07 16:11 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-09 20:30 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-10 00:19 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-10 00:22 +0000
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 04:18 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 01:33 -0400
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-10 19:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8trj1F104sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87782 |
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 02:40:51 -0400, c186282 wrote: > Yea, but the REGULAR PEOPLE didn't use the mainframe version. It was > an x86 version with sub-megabyte orientation. I think you can expand that to regular people on Windows don't use DB2. FoxPro, derived from dBase, and Access pretty much cornered the Microsoft market.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-11 00:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <FBicnUkM2uq53bf3nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87813 |
On 6/10/26 15:17, rbowman wrote: > On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 02:40:51 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> Yea, but the REGULAR PEOPLE didn't use the mainframe version. It was >> an x86 version with sub-megabyte orientation. > > I think you can expand that to regular people on Windows don't use DB2. > FoxPro, derived from dBase, and Access pretty much cornered the Microsoft > market. I've used dBase and Access ... indeed some extensive development in Access. They DO work, pretty well, with minimal BS. Ok, DID ... Access became odder and odder. They SWEAR that made it all "better" :-) DB2 ... it was expensive and hogged resources, REALLY meant for a mainframe rent-a-byte environment. Never used Oracle though. Dunno why. My org, we eventually went to Revelation/AREV ... PICK based. Very capable (but kinda steep learning curve). You can still buy AREV for like $300, but no support. Tossed like a solid linear foot of functions/docs for my old AREV stuff when I retired. Kinda heart-breaking. DO like multi-value, more 'organic', often more like reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-11 06:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8v2l2F6v90U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87833 |
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 00:56:06 -0400, c186282 wrote: > DB2 ... it was expensive and hogged resources, REALLY > meant for a mainframe rent-a-byte environment. In its time it was the 'real' RDBMS. It assumed you had real DBAs to hold its hand. The GUI interface was lame. I always worked from the dbcmd shell. Programming with embedded sql wasn't bad but it assumed you could set up the tool chain to preprocess the sqc files to c to compile and link them. The cli API is more flexible but also requires more work. Over the years our clients moved to SQL Server. After 2008 it started to get more real but there always were gotchas converting DB2 code to SQL Server. There are annoying differences in the data formats and scalar functions. > Never used Oracle though. Dunno why. $$$ We ultimately didn't get the contract but we adapted the DB2 code for Oracle. It wasn't too bad since Oracle also supports embedded sql. DB2 is not cheap and you start counting cores for the license pricing. There are also limits on the number of users. It's gets vague as we used a daemon to do the DB2 work so the clients connected to our daemon, not DB2 itself. Oracle is the same but more expensive. The client was the DoI parks system so only the finest when they're spending your money. DB2 finally included it in the base product but spatial awareness was a pricey option. Postgres has come a long way and is my personal preference for a heavier db. PostGIS integrates nicely for spatial work and the price is right. We had a legacy bugs database that used FoxPro and I had to export the bug records for our other division. No fun. Esri used Access early on so most of my work with Access was via the Esri API.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-08 18:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dyDVR.24698$Mm3.7319@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #87684 |
On 2026-06-08, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > On 6/8/26 00:36, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> On 2026-06-08, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> >>> On 6/7/26 16:40, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> >>> Sounds like yer programs proceeded 'logically' - until >>> there got to be TOO many files. Sometimes writers highball >>> expectations, sometimes the opposite. "More than 1000 files ? >>> Who'd DO that ???" >> >> The top entry in my list of Famous Last Words is: >> "Oh, don't worry about that; it'll never happen." >> I learned early on that "never" is usually about six months. > > Heh heh ! Damned right !!! > >> But defaulting the work file size to a ridiculously small value >> is just begging for bad things to happen. > > Well ... remember how TINY the Computing Environment > tended to be. Assumptions were made. CP/M, DOS, even > some other systems ... they just ASSUMED usage would > easily fall into line with the system limits. Only > loons would have over 10,000 database records, over > 100 text processing files ! Wouldn't fit in 64k > anyhow !!! Yes, yes, 640K ought to be enough for anyone. But this was a Unix box - I was expecting a bit more common sense. >>>> I have no objection to UTF-8 characters, though. >>> >>> Don't love 'em. >> >> There are some places where I'd avoid them, because they'd >> be too easily abused, erroneously transcribed, etc. But for >> my own use (e.g. a music score by Antonín Dvořák), anything goes. >> >>> By the time 8+3 became 12+3 became 128/256/1024 then >>> naming constraints disappeared. Alas, esp M$, they >>> TOTALLY disappeared. >> >> Ah yes, good old MICROS~1.. >> >>> Several functionaries tended to >>> use the entire first sentence of their docs as the >>> file name - cut-n-paste ! :-) >> >> I once read in a description of the early Mac that said >> "you could write a letter to Grandma in the file name". > > Mac was a bit "ahead" in that respect - I seem to > remember Amiga could do long file names too. Thirty characters. It seemed long at the time, though. > But anything can be taken to a ridiculous extreme. > > Now everyone is USED to the ridiculous extremes. > > So ... we've gotta code AROUND it. Yup. But some of it gets old in a hurry. Like that stupid hex 1A character which MS-DOS inherited from CP/M even though it's not necessary in any file system that stores file sizes to the byte rather than as a number of sectors. Or the COPY command's refusal to copy zero-length files (that one took down a beta site and ate a month's worth of data, so I reworked my batch files to not depend on the COPY command). >>> Anyway, you'll be much much more successful (if overworked) >>> making your code cope with the users instead of expecting >>> the opposite to happen. One of you, LOTS of them ... and >>> some have labor unions ....... >> >> Still, I like to get in little digs like, "You know, if you had >> kept your file names simpler you might not have had to call me. >> Again." And so far, I've gotten away with using ISO 8601 dates >> everywhere. :-) > > Well ... think of "again" as "Job Security" :-) > > Always a ray of sunshine somewhere. > > Anyway, retired ... it's Someone Else's Problem now. Remember the SEP field in _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_? It made Slartibartfast's spaceship invisible by making it look like Somebody Else's Problem. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | No artificial \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | intelligence was X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | used in the creation / \ if you read it the right way. | of this post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-08 22:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <b2mjfmxes1.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87700 |
On 2026-06-08 20:08, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-06-08, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > >> On 6/8/26 00:36, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> On 2026-06-08, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > Thirty characters. It seemed long at the time, though. > >> But anything can be taken to a ridiculous extreme. >> >> Now everyone is USED to the ridiculous extremes. >> >> So ... we've gotta code AROUND it. > > Yup. But some of it gets old in a hurry. Like that stupid > hex 1A character which MS-DOS inherited from CP/M even though > it's not necessary in any file system that stores file sizes > to the byte rather than as a number of sectors. Or the COPY > command's refusal to copy zero-length files (that one took > down a beta site and ate a month's worth of data, so I reworked > my batch files to not depend on the COPY command). It had its uses. For example create a data file, which starts with some descriptive text, including the name of the program to open the file with, and the <EOF>, followed by the actual data. The user would simply "type data.dat" and the instructions would print nicely on the screen. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-09 00:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1107nmj$3k6ea$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87700 |
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 18:08:09 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > Thirty characters. It seemed long at the time, though. The original Mac shipped in 1984 with a filesystem that allowed 63-character filenames. There was no folder hierarchy: the “folders” you saw on the screen were purely a figment of the Finder’s imagination. Then, when Apple introduced a hard drive and double-sided floppies for the Mac in 1986, that also came with a new filesystem that now had real folders ... and a 31-character file/directory name limit. Why? > Like that stupid hex 1A character which MS-DOS inherited from CP/M > even though it's not necessary in any file system that stores file > sizes to the byte rather than as a number of sectors. I imagine it’s because MS-DOS 1.x, like CP/M, only kept track of file allocations in whole sectors. In MS-DOS 2.x, they started trying to copy a few Unix features, like doing file I/O buffering in the OS instead of forcing user programs to worry about it. Unfortunately, building such things on top of a clunky foundation inherited from the 8-bit era was not such a clever thing to do. And Windows users are still paying the price today.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-09 01:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8p9f7F8q2vU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87700 |
On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 18:08:09 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > Yes, yes, 640K ought to be enough for anyone. > But this was a Unix box - I was expecting a bit more common sense. Ah, the good old days when you linked VC++ with 5 different libraries depending, tiny, small, medium, large, frigging huge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-09 03:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <zOCcnVZzd4iVIbr3nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87708 |
On 6/8/26 21:44, rbowman wrote: > On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 18:08:09 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> Yes, yes, 640K ought to be enough for anyone. >> But this was a Unix box - I was expecting a bit more common sense. > > Ah, the good old days when you linked VC++ with 5 different libraries > depending, tiny, small, medium, large, frigging huge. Heh ... we DID try the lower-end SCO UNIX on our new 'AT's. Alas it was both Too Expensive and Too Slow to really be useful. Not all that much software either. But it WAS interesting ... part of why I went to Linux as soon as possible. DOS, soon Win, had much nicer software.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-09 11:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4n1lfmxelh.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87726 |
On 2026-06-09 09:08, c186282 wrote: > On 6/8/26 21:44, rbowman wrote: >> On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 18:08:09 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> Yes, yes, 640K ought to be enough for anyone. >>> But this was a Unix box - I was expecting a bit more common sense. >> >> Ah, the good old days when you linked VC++ with 5 different libraries >> depending, tiny, small, medium, large, frigging huge. > > Heh ... we DID try the lower-end SCO UNIX on > our new 'AT's. Alas it was both Too Expensive > and Too Slow to really be useful. Not all that > much software either. > > But it WAS interesting ... part of why I went > to Linux as soon as possible. > > DOS, soon Win, had much nicer software. I find dos software nicer than Linux software. Editors, for instance. When I started on Linux, I was surprised that ctrl-arrow would not move a word to the left/right, for example. Tons of MsDOS text software that had menus and mouse support. Linux in 1998 felt old. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-10 01:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <p0-dnQrPWuTdbbX3nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87734 |
On 6/9/26 05:07, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-06-09 09:08, c186282 wrote: >> On 6/8/26 21:44, rbowman wrote: >>> On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 18:08:09 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, yes, 640K ought to be enough for anyone. >>>> But this was a Unix box - I was expecting a bit more common sense. >>> >>> Ah, the good old days when you linked VC++ with 5 different libraries >>> depending, tiny, small, medium, large, frigging huge. >> >> Heh ... we DID try the lower-end SCO UNIX on >> our new 'AT's. Alas it was both Too Expensive >> and Too Slow to really be useful. Not all that >> much software either. >> >> But it WAS interesting ... part of why I went >> to Linux as soon as possible. >> >> DOS, soon Win, had much nicer software. > > I find dos software nicer than Linux software. Editors, for instance. > When I started on Linux, I was surprised that ctrl-arrow would not move > a word to the left/right, for example. Tons of MsDOS text software that > had menus and mouse support. Linux in 1998 felt old. DOS 1.x ... I had to WRITE 'sensible' text editors. Even did one in ASM for kicks (was younger then). However I do kind of understand what you're talking about. Too much UNIX/Linux stuff was oriented towards 'academics' and related. Weird, unfriendly to use, non-intuitive. M$, for all its other faults, DID seem to "get it". Hell, even some latter CP/M apps were a lot more sensible than UNIX stuff. "Just hit this meaningless four-key combo to go to the next line ..." Sorry, NO !!! Wanna hit Down Arrow and it's just DONE. Still have SOME of that MASM editor code somewhere, but not the entire product alas. It was kinda like "MousePad", which still beat the hell out of "edlin". Yes, there ARE still some here dedicated to those multi-combo-to-do- anything editors. That's THEIR choice. As much as possible I *disable* those so they won't come up even by accident. Anyway, despite temptations, we did not switch to SCO. Turned out to be a good thing. DID manage to avoid getting hooked on Apple stuff - saved a fortune and a life of servitude :-) But, as said, some of the GOOD stuff about UNIX did get me to buy Linux when it first appeared. Lots of floppies. This was when in-house servers/networking were just becoming viable for "regular" biz. Linux made that stuff much better than DOS/Winders did and didn't try to bleed you for cash.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-10 10:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rmknfmxd88.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87776 |
On 2026-06-10 07:03, c186282 wrote: > On 6/9/26 05:07, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2026-06-09 09:08, c186282 wrote: >>> On 6/8/26 21:44, rbowman wrote: >>>> On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 18:08:09 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yes, yes, 640K ought to be enough for anyone. >>>>> But this was a Unix box - I was expecting a bit more common sense. >>>> >>>> Ah, the good old days when you linked VC++ with 5 different libraries >>>> depending, tiny, small, medium, large, frigging huge. >>> >>> Heh ... we DID try the lower-end SCO UNIX on >>> our new 'AT's. Alas it was both Too Expensive >>> and Too Slow to really be useful. Not all that >>> much software either. >>> >>> But it WAS interesting ... part of why I went >>> to Linux as soon as possible. >>> >>> DOS, soon Win, had much nicer software. >> >> I find dos software nicer than Linux software. Editors, for instance. >> When I started on Linux, I was surprised that ctrl-arrow would not >> move a word to the left/right, for example. Tons of MsDOS text >> software that had menus and mouse support. Linux in 1998 felt old. > > DOS 1.x ... I had to WRITE 'sensible' text editors. > Even did one in ASM for kicks (was younger then). > > However I do kind of understand what you're talking > about. Too much UNIX/Linux stuff was oriented towards > 'academics' and related. Weird, unfriendly to use, > non-intuitive. M$, for all its other faults, DID seem > to "get it". Hell, even some latter CP/M apps were a > lot more sensible than UNIX stuff. > > "Just hit this meaningless four-key combo to go to > the next line ..." Sorry, NO !!! Wanna hit Down Arrow > and it's just DONE. MsDOS editors would apply meanings to ctrl-down or alt-down. Like go down a paragraph. > > Still have SOME of that MASM editor code somewhere, but > not the entire product alas. It was kinda like "MousePad", > which still beat the hell out of "edlin". Yes, there ARE > still some here dedicated to those multi-combo-to-do- > anything editors. That's THEIR choice. As much as possible > I *disable* those so they won't come up even by accident. > > Anyway, despite temptations, we did not switch to SCO. > Turned out to be a good thing. DID manage to avoid > getting hooked on Apple stuff - saved a fortune and a > life of servitude :-) I rejected Apple stuff very early. The student association at the uni made some deal with Amstrad, and we could get an Amstrad PC with two flopies at a reasonable price. I asked them what to choose, a PC or an Apple, and they said that with a PC they could help me to get software used at uni (meaning pirated copies), and that I could easily share stuff. So PC it was, in the Amstrad shape. > But, as said, some of the GOOD stuff about UNIX did get > me to buy Linux when it first appeared. Lots of floppies. > This was when in-house servers/networking were just > becoming viable for "regular" biz. Linux made that stuff > much better than DOS/Winders did and didn't try to bleed > you for cash. What I found dismal was the compilers. Coming from the world of Borland IDEs, programming in C or Pascal was like going back twenty years. So I did not... -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-10 10:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <88lnfmx239.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87795 |
On 2026-06-10 10:43, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-06-10 07:03, c186282 wrote: >> On 6/9/26 05:07, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2026-06-09 09:08, c186282 wrote: >>>> On 6/8/26 21:44, rbowman wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 18:08:09 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > So PC it was, in the Amstrad shape. > >> But, as said, some of the GOOD stuff about UNIX did get >> me to buy Linux when it first appeared. Lots of floppies. >> This was when in-house servers/networking were just >> becoming viable for "regular" biz. Linux made that stuff >> much better than DOS/Winders did and didn't try to bleed >> you for cash. > > > What I found dismal was the compilers. Coming from the world of Borland > IDEs, programming in C or Pascal was like going back twenty years. So I > did not... I forgot to mention what I liked in Linux, coming from the MsDOS/Win world: it was multitasking in text mode, at the root. And it had a scripting language (bash) that was powerful. I no longer needed to attach several auxiliary programs to my batches. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-11 00:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5eGdndA1Et4Yp7f3nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87795 |
On 6/10/26 04:43, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-06-10 07:03, c186282 wrote: >> On 6/9/26 05:07, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2026-06-09 09:08, c186282 wrote: >>>> On 6/8/26 21:44, rbowman wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 18:08:09 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Yes, yes, 640K ought to be enough for anyone. >>>>>> But this was a Unix box - I was expecting a bit more common sense. >>>>> >>>>> Ah, the good old days when you linked VC++ with 5 different libraries >>>>> depending, tiny, small, medium, large, frigging huge. >>>> >>>> Heh ... we DID try the lower-end SCO UNIX on >>>> our new 'AT's. Alas it was both Too Expensive >>>> and Too Slow to really be useful. Not all that >>>> much software either. >>>> >>>> But it WAS interesting ... part of why I went >>>> to Linux as soon as possible. >>>> >>>> DOS, soon Win, had much nicer software. >>> >>> I find dos software nicer than Linux software. Editors, for instance. >>> When I started on Linux, I was surprised that ctrl-arrow would not >>> move a word to the left/right, for example. Tons of MsDOS text >>> software that had menus and mouse support. Linux in 1998 felt old. >> >> DOS 1.x ... I had to WRITE 'sensible' text editors. >> Even did one in ASM for kicks (was younger then). >> >> However I do kind of understand what you're talking >> about. Too much UNIX/Linux stuff was oriented towards >> 'academics' and related. Weird, unfriendly to use, >> non-intuitive. M$, for all its other faults, DID seem >> to "get it". Hell, even some latter CP/M apps were a >> lot more sensible than UNIX stuff. >> >> "Just hit this meaningless four-key combo to go to >> the next line ..." Sorry, NO !!! Wanna hit Down Arrow >> and it's just DONE. > > MsDOS editors would apply meanings to ctrl-down or alt-down. Like go > down a paragraph. > > >> >> Still have SOME of that MASM editor code somewhere, but >> not the entire product alas. It was kinda like "MousePad", >> which still beat the hell out of "edlin". Yes, there ARE >> still some here dedicated to those multi-combo-to-do- >> anything editors. That's THEIR choice. As much as possible >> I *disable* those so they won't come up even by accident. >> >> Anyway, despite temptations, we did not switch to SCO. >> Turned out to be a good thing. DID manage to avoid >> getting hooked on Apple stuff - saved a fortune and a >> life of servitude :-) > > I rejected Apple stuff very early. > > The student association at the uni made some deal with Amstrad, and we > could get an Amstrad PC with two flopies at a reasonable price. I asked > them what to choose, a PC or an Apple, and they said that with a PC they > could help me to get software used at uni (meaning pirated copies), and > that I could easily share stuff. > > So PC it was, in the Amstrad shape. 'Politics' (and Cheapness) ! :-) MAC and PC diverged - and never liked the Mac vibe. The PC world (and usually Linux) just seems to 'think' like I believe computers should think. Guess I'm "square". >> But, as said, some of the GOOD stuff about UNIX did get >> me to buy Linux when it first appeared. Lots of floppies. >> This was when in-house servers/networking were just >> becoming viable for "regular" biz. Linux made that stuff >> much better than DOS/Winders did and didn't try to bleed >> you for cash. > > > What I found dismal was the compilers. Coming from the world of Borland > IDEs, programming in C or Pascal was like going back twenty years. So I > did not... Turbo Pascal changed everything. Vastly more efficient and fun ! Showed how it COULD be. Have it in a DOS VM still - but it is kind of constrained to the 8/16 world. We need a "To_32/64" cross-compiler ! :-) Modern is the Lazarus/FPC environment - IF you can score sub-sub-versions of the various parts that will work together. BEST bet is their site, not current repos. Have had less success of late however. However I still write some stuff in Lazarus - quickest route to a decent working GUI app - and you can also just use it to make non-GUI FPC apps as well. If I have a good Python script that could use more tightening-up and speed ... I re-do it in Pascal. I like Pascal, seems "elegant" to me, 'speaks to the soul' perhaps. Will keep using it. Dr. Nick came up with something GOOD. ALSO have the old M$ Pascal and 'C' multi-pass compilers in that VM. Yes, they DO work and every once in awhile I write some little thing using them. But compared to a good development IDE they're terribly clunky. Have been TRYING to find a Modula-3 compiler - IDE or not - that will actually WORK in Linux. Two or three oft- mentioned ones but have NEVER been able to get them to do even a "Hello World" without a zillion weird errors. The Quebec one is most recommended, but still ... There's GNU M2 ... also odd ... but M3 was "better" and I still pref 'native compilers' over the GNU tricks. DID find a COBOL IDE ... gotta re-install it. Don't totally, or barely, love COBOL, but it doesn't hurt to keep yer hand in. "OpenCobolIDE" - last revision 10 years ago alas. Not too bad. For FORTRAN and 'D' and some others ... install CodeBlocks. Works most easily if you install the compilers first. Rather extensive IDE, almost TOO, that reminds of 'Visual' and the JetBrains products. Always use CodeBlocks when doing 'C'. Ah, try 'TCC' ... small, fast, suprisingly good and TIGHT. Of course there are still plenty of 'old' compilers, including 'B' - hey, it's ALMOST 'C' - and even its predecessors. Fun sometimes. 'Modern' like Rust ... mostly seem to be just less-readable versions of 'C' without any major advantages for my level of application. I'll do 'C'. MOST often do Python these days however, it's become very All-Purpose and has good string stuff. But it's not always "best" for EVERYTHING. Anyway, clearly we remember how clunky it COULD be - and how a few geniuses made that MUCH better. 2nd and 3rd-gen IDEs, you could get a lot of good stuff done FAST. Oh well, I've gone on too long .........
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-11 06:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8v1d4F6jcgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87831 |
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 00:33:40 -0400, c186282 wrote: > Turbo Pascal changed everything. Vastly more efficient and fun ! > Showed how it COULD be. Have it in a DOS VM still - but it is kind of > constrained to the 8/16 world. I was impressed by Turbo Pascal on CP/M -- the system, not the language itself. I also liked Borland's OWL and IDE for C++ Windows programming. C+ + Builder was a change in direction. Their dBase adventure didn't go well either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-11 02:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <FBicnUQM2uprxbf3nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87842 |
On 6/11/26 02:03, rbowman wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 00:33:40 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> Turbo Pascal changed everything. Vastly more efficient and fun ! >> Showed how it COULD be. Have it in a DOS VM still - but it is kind of >> constrained to the 8/16 world. > > I was impressed by Turbo Pascal on CP/M -- the system, not the language > itself. I also liked Borland's OWL and IDE for C++ Windows programming. C+ > + Builder was a change in direction. Their dBase adventure didn't go well > either. I actually like the language itself - STILL do. "Turbo-C++" by whatever names ... kinda stuck to the more traditional 'C'. Apparently SOME people STILL use Turbo-C ... but it's really not compatible with the latest gens of chips/systems. CodeBlocks and related can provide a good IDE for C/C++ development that IS compatible. Not AS easy as the Borland product, but Good Enough.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-11 17:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n909e8Fca6vU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87847 |
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 02:42:00 -0400, c186282 wrote: > CodeBlocks and related can provide a good IDE for C/C++ development > that IS compatible. Not AS easy as the Borland product, but Good > Enough. For Windows applications I used Visual C++, the path of least resistance. It's interesting that Charles Petzhold, who published 'Programming Windows 3.1' and continued with programming Windows xxx, disliked C++ so his books bypassed MFC and focused on using the API with C. He does like C# and used it, saying it was what should have been done all along. The Esri API was COM based C++ so I used VS for that. They eventually switched to C# too. I've done a few standalones with C++ using Vim just like C. I don't care much for the language so my code looks like 'C with Classes', mostly the container classes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-11 11:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qrbqfmx9me.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87831 |
On 2026-06-11 06:33, c186282 wrote: > On 6/10/26 04:43, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2026-06-10 07:03, c186282 wrote: >>> On 6/9/26 05:07, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> On 2026-06-09 09:08, c186282 wrote: >>>>> On 6/8/26 21:44, rbowman wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 18:08:09 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >> I rejected Apple stuff very early. >> >> The student association at the uni made some deal with Amstrad, and we >> could get an Amstrad PC with two flopies at a reasonable price. I >> asked them what to choose, a PC or an Apple, and they said that with a >> PC they could help me to get software used at uni (meaning pirated >> copies), and that I could easily share stuff. >> >> So PC it was, in the Amstrad shape. > > 'Politics' (and Cheapness) ! :-) > > MAC and PC diverged - and never liked the Mac vibe. > The PC world (and usually Linux) just seems to 'think' > like I believe computers should think. Guess I'm "square". > >>> But, as said, some of the GOOD stuff about UNIX did get >>> me to buy Linux when it first appeared. Lots of floppies. >>> This was when in-house servers/networking were just >>> becoming viable for "regular" biz. Linux made that stuff >>> much better than DOS/Winders did and didn't try to bleed >>> you for cash. >> >> >> What I found dismal was the compilers. Coming from the world of >> Borland IDEs, programming in C or Pascal was like going back twenty >> years. So I did not... > > > Turbo Pascal changed everything. Vastly more efficient > and fun ! Showed how it COULD be. Have it in a DOS VM > still - but it is kind of constrained to the 8/16 world. > > We need a "To_32/64" cross-compiler ! :-) > > Modern is the Lazarus/FPC environment - IF you can score But it took almost two decades to come to the level Borland had by 1997. And no C IDE. > sub-sub-versions of the various parts that will work > together. BEST bet is their site, not current repos. Have > had less success of late however. However I still write > some stuff in Lazarus - quickest route to a decent working > GUI app - and you can also just use it to make non-GUI FPC > apps as well. > > If I have a good Python script that could use more tightening-up > and speed ... I re-do it in Pascal. I like Pascal, seems "elegant" > to me, 'speaks to the soul' perhaps. Will keep using it. Dr. Nick > came up with something GOOD. > > ALSO have the old M$ Pascal and 'C' multi-pass compilers > in that VM. Yes, they DO work and every once in awhile I > write some little thing using them. But compared to a > good development IDE they're terribly clunky. > > Have been TRYING to find a Modula-3 compiler - IDE or not - > that will actually WORK in Linux. Two or three oft- > mentioned ones but have NEVER been able to get them to > do even a "Hello World" without a zillion weird errors. > The Quebec one is most recommended, but still ... > > There's GNU M2 ... also odd ... but M3 was "better" > and I still pref 'native compilers' over the GNU tricks. > > DID find a COBOL IDE ... gotta re-install it. Don't > totally, or barely, love COBOL, but it doesn't hurt to > keep yer hand in. "OpenCobolIDE" - last revision 10 > years ago alas. Not too bad. > > For FORTRAN and 'D' and some others ... install CodeBlocks. > Works most easily if you install the compilers first. Rather > extensive IDE, almost TOO, that reminds of 'Visual' and > the JetBrains products. Always use CodeBlocks when doing 'C'. > Ah, try 'TCC' ... small, fast, suprisingly good and TIGHT. > > Of course there are still plenty of 'old' compilers, including > 'B' - hey, it's ALMOST 'C' - and even its predecessors. Fun > sometimes. > > 'Modern' like Rust ... mostly seem to be just less-readable > versions of 'C' without any major advantages for my level > of application. I'll do 'C'. > > MOST often do Python these days however, it's become very > All-Purpose and has good string stuff. But it's not always > "best" for EVERYTHING. > > Anyway, clearly we remember how clunky it COULD be - and how > a few geniuses made that MUCH better. 2nd and 3rd-gen IDEs, > you could get a lot of good stuff done FAST. > > Oh well, I've gone on too long ......... > :-) -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-09 18:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <f_YVR.65226$GKib.62467@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #87708 |
On 2026-06-09, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 18:08:09 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> Yes, yes, 640K ought to be enough for anyone. >> But this was a Unix box - I was expecting a bit more common sense. > > Ah, the good old days when you linked VC++ with 5 different libraries > depending, tiny, small, medium, large, frigging huge. And then there were the tricks you had to do when dealing with arrays larger than 64K. I had a lot of ugly pointer normalization and byte-by-byte copying code that I was only too glad to rip out when we got past those models. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | No artificial \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | intelligence was X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | used in the creation / \ if you read it the right way. | of this post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-10 03:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <p0-dnQTPWuT_krT3nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87748 |
On 6/9/26 14:31, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-06-09, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 08 Jun 2026 18:08:09 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> Yes, yes, 640K ought to be enough for anyone. >>> But this was a Unix box - I was expecting a bit more common sense. >> >> Ah, the good old days when you linked VC++ with 5 different libraries >> depending, tiny, small, medium, large, frigging huge. > > And then there were the tricks you had to do when dealing > with arrays larger than 64K. I had a lot of ugly pointer > normalization and byte-by-byte copying code that I was > only too glad to rip out when we got past those models. Yea ... WASN'T so easy back then ! :-) BUT, the IBM-PC and friends WERE The Future. OK, also Apple ... but .........
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-08 09:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1105vvm$32n5j$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87680 |
On 2026-06-08, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-06-08, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > >> By the time 8+3 became 12+3 became 128/256/1024 then naming >> constraints disappeared. Alas, esp M$, they TOTALLY disappeared. > > Ah yes, good old MICROS~1.. I eagerly anticipate the day Microsoft is ordered to split up following some antitrust ruling, if only because then one could propose the split-up parts be named MICROS~1,MICROS~2,...,MICROS~N. >> Several functionaries tended to use the entire first sentence of >> their docs as the file name - cut-n-paste ! :-) > > I once read in a description of the early Mac that said > "you could write a letter to Grandma in the file name". Any chance this is automated behaviour from the document editor? I seem to recall Word doing something like setting the Title or Subject in metadata to the initial text. But memory may be playing tricks &c.; no WINWORD here so I can't test right now. -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web