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 194 — 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 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-12 12:00 +0100
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 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-12 12:02 +0100
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] TINA applied to political opponents (was: Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-12 09:35 +0100
Re: [OT] TINA applied to political opponents The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-12 12:07 +0100
Re: [OT] TINA applied to political opponents Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-12 14:18 +0000
Re: [OT] TINA applied to political opponents The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-12 16:46 +0100
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-12 02:52 -0400
Re: The boring Linux habit that saves machines The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-12 12:20 +0100
[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 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-12 12:12 +0100
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: [OT] Percetion of the USA abroad The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-12 12:07 +0100
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 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-12 02:37 -0400
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 | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-07 23:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1104vg4$2rlf4$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87662 |
On Sun, 07 Jun 2026 20:40:08 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-06-07 04:47, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> >> I must admit, I could probably live with forbidding newlines in >> file/directory names. Why not reserve one little character, just to >> make life that little bit easier for shell script writers? ;) > > ... > > It generated all sorts of invalid characters - starting with colon - > then worked its way up to 0xFF, wrapped around to 0x00, and carried > on. Cleaning up that mess was a pain in the ass. Now, you see, I wouldn’t go that far. On a POSIX system, those characters would not be technically “invalid”, because then the OS would have failed the filesystem operation with an error instead of permitting the creation of such filenames. And if they’re valid filenames, it *is* possible to deal with them in a POSIX shell. I wouldn’t call it “a pain in the ass”, it just takes some careful programming. > I don't mind forbidding a number of characters in file names: > carriage return, line feed, colon, slash (both forward and > back), and NUL to name a few. Whenever I need a “/” in a file/directory name, I substitute the Unicode lookalike ”∕” instead. Works just as well visually, but causes no problems with the OS or scripts. ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-07 23:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <SCudnXWn6J_Srbv3nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87662 |
On 6/7/26 16:40, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-06-07, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >> On 2026-06-07 04:47, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 09:40:20 GMT, TheLastSysop wrote: >>> >>>> Most backup bugs in this area are not the weird Unicode character >>>> itself; they are the one forgotten script that splits on whitespace >>>> or treats a newline in a filename as a record separator. >>> >>> I must admit, I could probably live with forbidding newlines in >>> file/directory names. Why not reserve one little character, just to >>> make life that little bit easier for shell script writers? ;) >> >> I have never seen them in real life. I would make a firing offence to >> create such files. Biz doesn't work without employees :-) Long nasty narrative filenames with lots of punctuation became our norm and nobody would stop doing it. A 'human nature' issue alas. Yes, 8+3 ALL CAPS is indeed easy to deal with, but at this point, just forget it. Got to adapt yer code to the humans. > In the early '90s we ported a bunch of COBOL programs from our > Univac mainframe to a Unix box. Micro Focus COBOL was generally > a pretty decent compiler, and made the port fairly easy. However, > we discovered a couple of nasty things in its implementation of > the SORT verb. First of all, the work files it created on disk > defaulted to being ridiculously small - a few K at most. This > paved the way for the really nasty misfeature: the creation of > work file names. The data we were sorting was large enough that > it generated something like 12,000 little work files. The names > of these files contained a 3-digit sequence number. When it > passed 999, the overflow caused the high-order digit to continue > to work its way up through the ASCII table - and beyond. It > generated all sorts of invalid characters - starting with colon - > then worked its way up to 0xFF, wrapped around to 0x00, and > carried on. Cleaning up that mess was a pain in the ass. DID briefly work with Micro Focus ... also translating a number of old apps to more 'modern' langs. 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 ???" Want fun - try moving dozens of old FORTRAN stat apps to GWBASIC ... and HAND-CODING the math-coprocessor instructions as DATA statements. Ah, the Good Old Days ! :-) No, they couldn't afford a good FORTRAN compiler at the time ..... > I don't mind forbidding a number of characters in file names: > carriage return, line feed, colon, slash (both forward and > back), and NUL to name a few. Runs of multiple spaces, or a > space at the beginning or the end of a file name, is harder > to enforce, but it's just asking for trouble and I do my > best to avoid all of them. > > I have no objection to UTF-8 characters, though. Don't love 'em. By the time 8+3 became 12+3 became 128/256/1024 then naming constraints disappeared. Alas, esp M$, they TOTALLY disappeared. Several functionaries tended to use the entire first sentence of their docs as the file name - cut-n-paste ! :-) Yes, that sometimes included mystery "invisible" characters from the word processor. UTF ... ever tried to FIND those neat old angle/block/etc char sets that came with the old IBM-PCs, ASCII 129+ ? Made for NICE terminal forms really easy. 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 .......
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-08 04:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nFrVR.31495$4Y2.20574@fx43.iad> |
| In reply to | #87673 |
On 2026-06-08, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > On 6/7/26 16:40, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > > Sounds like yer programs proceeded 'logically' - until > there got to be TOO many files. Sometimes writers highball > expectations, sometimes the opposite. "More than 1000 files ? > Who'd DO that ???" The top entry in my list of Famous Last Words is: "Oh, don't worry about that; it'll never happen." I learned early on that "never" is usually about six months. But defaulting the work file size to a ridiculously small value is just begging for bad things to happen. >> I have no objection to UTF-8 characters, though. > > Don't love 'em. There are some places where I'd avoid them, because they'd be too easily abused, erroneously transcribed, etc. But for my own use (e.g. a music score by Antonín Dvořák), anything goes. > By the time 8+3 became 12+3 became 128/256/1024 then > naming constraints disappeared. Alas, esp M$, 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". > 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. :-) -- /~\ 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 | 2026-06-08 02:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <SCudnXOn6J8J_Lv3nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87680 |
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 !!! >>> 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. But anything can be taken to a ridiculous extreme. Now everyone is USED to the ridiculous extremes. So ... we've gotta code AROUND it. >> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-08 09:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1105ttl$32iur$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87684 |
On 08/06/2026 07:30, c186282 wrote: > 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 !!! The only assumption they made was that coders would not be stupid enough to write code that exceeded their limits. They anticipated writing tools for engineers, not abstractions for computer scientists. -- The New Left are the people they warned you about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-08 23:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <zOCcnVhzd4jKE7r3nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87688 |
On 6/8/26 04:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 08/06/2026 07:30, c186282 wrote: >> 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 !!! > > The only assumption they made was that coders would not be stupid enough > to write code that exceeded their limits. > They anticipated writing tools for engineers, not abstractions for > computer scientists. Think back to the great early-DOS apps. The max file sizes, record numbers, were often very limited. They just made ASSUMPTIONS based on the tech of the moment. Within just a few years they were off by orders of magnitude - but WOULD sell you the New And Improved version, of course :-) I remember stuffing big ISA boards with masses of little RAM chips - trying to be VERY careful not to bend the pins. Even thus a few WOULD be bad. Fun ! "Extended" memory was NEW - but everyone WANTED it. I remember our first, GIGANTIC, 10mb hard disk - Rodime. Full-height and seemed to weigh near 10 pounds. But WOW ! Earned a weird rep back then, the guy who programmed with a Buck Knife ... always needed one to align and insert and pry-out odd chips :-) Before that, mag-tape units. Slower,n shit from a constipated yak. Overlays were SUCH fun to code ... Can still remember when early Turbo Pascal offered easy overlays - DOS 2.x & CP/M. Used them quite a bit. "Computing" just grew a LOT LOT LOT faster than anybody imagined, kind of the fabled 'exponential curve' for awhile. In a few years our DB had ten YEARS worth of detailed records in accounts - old and new stuff. The indexing files alone were WAY over 64kb. TODAY ... "large" is kind of assumed ... but sure as hell wasn't ALWAYS that way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-08 14:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8o1inFqrflU8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87684 |
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 02:30:35 -0400, c186282 wrote: > 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 !!! The DB2 database had two tables for person and vehicle records that were meant to be used for looking up recent activity for Georgie Gangster and so forth. In theory older records were irrelevant and would be purged, but there wasn't any mechanism to do so. When the client complained about the system being slow I found there were well over a million records and an index had never been se up. The whole mess was several gigabytes. This was around 2001 and I had a hell of a time finding an AIX machine in house with that much free space to restore it for testing. Flash back to my first hard drive on an AT clone. I can't remember if it was 5 or 10 MB but I had no idea why you would ever need that much storage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-09 02:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <zOCcnVVzd4gVL7r3nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87695 |
On 6/8/26 10:23, rbowman wrote: > On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 02:30:35 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> 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 !!! > > The DB2 database had two tables for person and vehicle records that were > meant to be used for looking up recent activity for Georgie Gangster and > so forth. In theory older records were irrelevant and would be purged, but > there wasn't any mechanism to do so. When the client complained about the > system being slow I found there were well over a million records and an > index had never been se up. That DB2 was "ok", FOR IT'S TIME. But again ... built initially for a 64k/floppy environment. Same with all the spreadsheets and word processors and such. Computing power just built SO fast ... most writers were always well behind the curve. > The whole mess was several gigabytes. This was around 2001 and I had a > hell of a time finding an AIX machine in house with that much free space > to restore it for testing. At some point my org switched to "Revelation/AREV". This was based on PICK-OS. It could handle BIG stuff for the most part (except really huge sorts). We put massive numbers of records into that. DO still like the 'multi-value' record format, wrote libs for several langs emulating that. > Flash back to my first hard drive on an AT clone. I can't remember if it > was 5 or 10 MB but I had no idea why you would ever need that much > storage. Ours was 10mb ... like $3000 early-80s dollars as I remember. Rodime, full-height, MFM, custom card, HEAVY !!! The asst director spent a whole weekend trying to get it to boot. I came in on Monday - and just gave it about 90 seconds and it worked. The boss wasn't patient enough to wait 90 seconds before he'd reboot :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-09 18:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8r42cFbsbqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87722 |
On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 02:28:13 -0400, c186282 wrote: > That DB2 was "ok", FOR IT'S TIME. > > But again ... built initially for a 64k/floppy environment. Same with > all the spreadsheets and word processors and such. Er, DB2 was developed and ran on IBM mainframes. It wasn't until the '90s that implementations were available for Windows, Linux and other lesser systems. The database I referred to was on a RS6000 server running AIX. DB2 != dBase. Another early database was Raima's DB Vista that goes back to 1984. We use it for archiving information for local access, usually 6 months worth. The data was also sent to the DB2 database but vista was a lot faster. We also used it for GIS vector data. Esri used dBase when they created the shapefile format that still is the lingua franca today. The implementation was sort of a hack, with dBase used to store pointers into a separate file where the vecttor information was stored in variable length records. Vista had the concept of set ownership and was a more graceful implementation but Esri is the 500 lb. gorilla in the field. That early design choice stuck with Esri. Even as they move on to Access, SQL Server, and their won FileGDB design the data was not normalized. Every segment of Chestnut Street was a separate record that repeated the attributes of the street along with its geometry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-10 02:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1OKdnZzWId1Jm7T3nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87744 |
On 6/9/26 14:24, rbowman wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 02:28:13 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> That DB2 was "ok", FOR IT'S TIME. >> >> But again ... built initially for a 64k/floppy environment. Same with >> all the spreadsheets and word processors and such. > > Er, DB2 was developed and ran on IBM mainframes. It wasn't until the '90s > that implementations were available for Windows, Linux and other lesser > systems. Yea, but the REGULAR PEOPLE didn't use the mainframe version. It was an x86 version with sub-megabyte orientation. > The database I referred to was on a RS6000 server running AIX. > > DB2 != dBase. Nope. DB2 was a pretty GOOD database system - but only if tuned for the mini/mainframe environments of the time. > Another early database was Raima's DB Vista that goes back to 1984. We use > it for archiving information for local access, usually 6 months worth. The > data was also sent to the DB2 database but vista was a lot faster. We also > used it for GIS vector data. > > Esri used dBase when they created the shapefile format that still is the > lingua franca today. The implementation was sort of a hack, with dBase > used to store pointers into a separate file where the vecttor information > was stored in variable length records. Vista had the concept of set > ownership and was a more graceful implementation but Esri is the 500 lb. > gorilla in the field. > > That early design choice stuck with Esri. Even as they move on to Access, > SQL Server, and their won FileGDB design the data was not normalized. > Every segment of Chestnut Street was a separate record that repeated the > attributes of the street along with its geometry. Kinda messy ! My place got into Revelation/AREV ... a PICK-OS based database/devel environment. Multivalue records. Very powerful once you got past the learning curve. LIKED it. Recreated a lib of useful parallel functions for a number of different languages. STILL use multivalue records for some stuff - easy to build. May NOT be so easy to EDIT alas ... "intent" can come into play :-) Oh, you can still buy AREV, v3.?, for about $300. No support though, still DOS environment oriented.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| 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]
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