Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #81289 > unrolled thread
| Started by | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-01-18 23:10 -0500 |
| Last post | 2026-01-21 04:14 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 158 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-18 23:10 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-19 11:00 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-19 17:33 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-20 12:05 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-01-20 19:01 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-20 20:42 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-20 18:22 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-20 18:05 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-01-20 05:04 +0200
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-20 03:11 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-19 23:21 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-01-20 14:25 +0100
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2026-01-20 14:30 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-19 22:59 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-20 08:42 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-01-20 12:17 +0200
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-20 17:13 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-01-20 17:40 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-01-20 19:01 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-01-20 10:18 -0800
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-20 20:16 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-01-21 07:55 +0200
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-21 08:25 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-21 22:47 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-01-22 08:42 -0800
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-20 21:33 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-20 18:27 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-20 18:02 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-21 06:50 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-21 22:49 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-02-02 14:50 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-02 15:07 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-02 21:19 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-02 21:03 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-03 08:52 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-03 12:57 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-03 13:53 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-04 11:51 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-04 22:09 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-02 20:50 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-03 02:58 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-02 22:23 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-03 19:57 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-04 11:52 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-02-02 20:20 -0800
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-03 00:18 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-02-04 04:18 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-03 23:45 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-02-04 05:14 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-04 00:51 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-04 08:24 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-04 11:56 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-04 14:50 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-04 16:44 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-04 09:15 -0800
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-02-04 19:26 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-04 22:00 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-02-05 08:32 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-04 23:02 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-04 21:58 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-04 22:34 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-04 19:58 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-02-04 15:09 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-02-04 13:05 -0800
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-04 22:04 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-04 23:54 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-04 22:03 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-04 23:49 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-02-05 08:29 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-05 14:06 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-02-05 14:59 +0000
C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-05 08:06 -0800
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-02-05 16:33 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-05 18:12 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-05 22:40 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-06 04:54 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-05 17:33 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-05 09:57 -0800
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-06 04:12 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-06 00:03 -0500
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-06 11:28 -0800
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-02-06 20:03 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-06 20:59 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-06 13:55 -0800
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-06 22:29 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-06 14:43 -0800
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-07 15:36 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-07 20:49 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-02-07 21:26 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-07 22:00 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-02-09 06:53 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-08 01:55 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-08 08:30 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-02-09 06:53 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-08 11:04 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-08 20:07 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-13 11:30 -0800
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-13 21:40 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-13 21:48 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-02-14 07:06 -0500
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-14 00:41 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-02-14 07:16 -0500
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-07 11:53 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-09 09:21 -0800
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-05 22:38 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-06 05:05 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2026-02-05 15:55 +0100
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-05 17:26 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-04 22:12 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-04 23:35 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-04 22:16 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-04 22:13 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-04 21:42 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-05 09:28 +0000
Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-02-05 13:45 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-05 14:14 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-02-05 15:09 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-05 16:03 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-02-06 22:32 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-07 01:12 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-06 21:59 -0500
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-07 12:15 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-07 16:01 -0500
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-07 11:09 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-07 12:10 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-05 19:27 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-05 20:51 -0500
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-06 10:45 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-06 21:44 -0500
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-07 12:29 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-07 16:31 -0500
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-08 10:25 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-08 20:13 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-08 22:39 -0500
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-09 04:58 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-09 10:04 -0800
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-09 23:39 -0500
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-10 08:00 -0800
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-10 23:02 -0500
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-11 06:57 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-11 20:22 -0500
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-12 04:48 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-12 01:04 -0500
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-12 12:52 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-12 21:36 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-02-13 00:02 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-13 00:09 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-13 10:18 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-09 09:56 -0800
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-05 20:48 -0500
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-06 10:42 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-06 21:31 -0500
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-07 12:23 +0000
Memory Allocatiuon Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-02-05 13:37 +0000
Re: Memory Allocatiuon Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-05 14:03 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-20 10:16 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-20 17:58 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-21 04:14 +0000
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-03 02:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mud6inFfr0lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #81700 |
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 20:50:44 -0500, c186282 wrote: > On 2/2/26 09:50, Rich wrote: >> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 08:42:08 +0000, Richard Kettlewell >>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes: >>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote: >>>>>>> I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS almost >>>>>>> infinitely useful these days. The look and feel is sort of BASIC, >>>>>>> sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++. >>>>>>> It Just Works. >>>>>> >>>>>> I've not used any of those languages in decades, either. >>>>> >>>>> I've played with Python, BASIC and Pascal. >>>>> >>>>> The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular >>>>> when it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it >>>>> can't produce stand-alone programs. >>>> >>>> That’s debatable, but either way, most people don’t care about that >>>> enough to impact language choice. >>> >>> So do all versions of Linux come with a built-in Python interpreter? >> >> No version of Linux includes any built-in languages (unless you >> consider the fancy bpf code a "language"). "Linux" is just the kernel, >> nothing more. >> >> Most Linux **distributions** include Python (and a whole host of other >> languages) in their repositories that one can install on one's system. > > Strictly speaking, correct. > > However who the fuck uses the bare kernel ? The world works with > distros - and they all contain GCC at minimum, now also Python. Pedants will be pedantic. It's usually followed by a rant about GNU/Linux. The unicorn called GNU/Hurd isn't mentioned very often. The FSF isn't enthused about the one distro that might sort of work. "The Free Software Foundation can't recommend Debian GNU/Hurd or the Arch distribution; we must suppose that they don't meet our freedom standards any more than Debian GNU/Linux and the Arch distribution based on the Linux kernel do. Likewise we have not evaluated other GNU/Hurd distributions in regard to ethical criteria. Please visit http:// www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html to learn what those standards are." https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/running/distrib.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-02 22:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <NmGdnfSiis-l9xz0nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #81705 |
On 2/2/26 21:58, rbowman wrote: > On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 20:50:44 -0500, c186282 wrote: > >> On 2/2/26 09:50, Rich wrote: >>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 08:42:08 +0000, Richard Kettlewell >>>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes: >>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote: >>>>>>>> I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS almost >>>>>>>> infinitely useful these days. The look and feel is sort of BASIC, >>>>>>>> sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++. >>>>>>>> It Just Works. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've not used any of those languages in decades, either. >>>>>> >>>>>> I've played with Python, BASIC and Pascal. >>>>>> >>>>>> The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular >>>>>> when it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it >>>>>> can't produce stand-alone programs. >>>>> >>>>> That’s debatable, but either way, most people don’t care about that >>>>> enough to impact language choice. >>>> >>>> So do all versions of Linux come with a built-in Python interpreter? >>> >>> No version of Linux includes any built-in languages (unless you >>> consider the fancy bpf code a "language"). "Linux" is just the kernel, >>> nothing more. >>> >>> Most Linux **distributions** include Python (and a whole host of other >>> languages) in their repositories that one can install on one's system. >> >> Strictly speaking, correct. >> >> However who the fuck uses the bare kernel ? The world works with >> distros - and they all contain GCC at minimum, now also Python. > > Pedants will be pedantic. It's usually followed by a rant about GNU/Linux. > The unicorn called GNU/Hurd isn't mentioned very often. The FSF isn't > enthused about the one distro that might sort of work. Put two people in a room and you get "politics" :-) They will soon fight to the death about the fine meaning of the word "is". > "The Free Software Foundation can't recommend Debian GNU/Hurd or the Arch > distribution; we must suppose that they don't meet our freedom standards > any more than Debian GNU/Linux and the Arch distribution based on the > Linux kernel do. Likewise we have not evaluated other GNU/Hurd > distributions in regard to ethical criteria. Please visit http:// > www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html to learn what > those standards are." > > https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/running/distrib.html I didn't realize Arch was considered so evil/heretical ! Still have one machine running an Arch deriv - maybe I should smash it with a sledgehammer before the daemons escape and destroy the universe ? In any case, both GCC and Clang are very good. Package developers still assume GCC though. I've done some mid-sized apps compiled with GCC and Clang and there's no obvious advantage - speed, code size - with either. If you can do it with GCC you can do it with Clang and vice-versa.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-03 19:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <muf29eFpgkjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #81706 |
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 22:23:36 -0500, c186282 wrote: > I didn't realize Arch was considered so evil/heretical ! I didn't either. Debian has been on Stallman's shit list since '98; q.v. Perens and Raymond. Unfortunately Perens is a gun grabber.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-04 11:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10lvbui$2a0lm$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81717 |
On 03/02/2026 19:57, rbowman wrote: > On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 22:23:36 -0500, c186282 wrote: > >> I didn't realize Arch was considered so evil/heretical ! > > I didn't either. Debian has been on Stallman's shit list since '98; q.v. > Perens and Raymond. > Stallman rhymes with anchor. > Unfortunately Perens is a gun grabber. -- Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-02 20:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10lrt1t$16vf1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81705 |
On 2/2/26 18:58, rbowman wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 20:50:44 -0500, c186282 wrote:
>
>> On 2/2/26 09:50, Rich wrote:
>>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 08:42:08 +0000, Richard Kettlewell
>>>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes:
>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote:
>>>>>>>> I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS almost
>>>>>>>> infinitely useful these days. The look and feel is sort of BASIC,
>>>>>>>> sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++.
>>>>>>>> It Just Works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've not used any of those languages in decades, either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've played with Python, BASIC and Pascal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular
>>>>>> when it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it
>>>>>> can't produce stand-alone programs.
>>>>>
>>>>> That’s debatable, but either way, most people don’t care about that
>>>>> enough to impact language choice.
>>>>
>>>> So do all versions of Linux come with a built-in Python interpreter?
>>>
>>> No version of Linux includes any built-in languages (unless you
>>> consider the fancy bpf code a "language"). "Linux" is just the kernel,
>>> nothing more.
>>>
>>> Most Linux **distributions** include Python (and a whole host of other
>>> languages) in their repositories that one can install on one's system.
>>
>> Strictly speaking, correct.
>>
>> However who the fuck uses the bare kernel ? The world works with
>> distros - and they all contain GCC at minimum, now also Python.
Hurd is not totally functional yet and the distributions that contain
it are put out
so that people can try it out. Maybe coders will do something with it.
>
> Pedants will be pedantic. It's usually followed by a rant about GNU/Linux.
> The unicorn called GNU/Hurd isn't mentioned very often. The FSF isn't
> enthused about the one distro that might sort of work.
Well they are purists and since most distribution include firmware some
of which will be proprietary code they do not recommend those.
I would not reccomend a GNU/Linux distribution which would not
run on most hardware available. That might be what we would have
with a totally free(Open Source) distribution. You might be confined to
terminal use only. That would be fine for many folks who started using
Linux much earlier in life than I did but I need a Desktop Environment
as well as code that will run on most machines. The machines I learned
to do computing with are no longer built except in very expensive
editions which mostly emulate on x86 hardware the 6502, 8503.
and 680x0 cpus on which on the C=64, C=64/128, Amiga computer
used. After I learned the ins and outs of AmigaOS 1.2-3.9 I got
sick and have very little brain power left to learn new stuff.
>
> "The Free Software Foundation can't recommend Debian GNU/Hurd or the Arch
> distribution; we must suppose that they don't meet our freedom standards
> any more than Debian GNU/Linux and the Arch distribution based on the
> Linux kernel do. Likewise we have not evaluated other GNU/Hurd
> distributions in regard to ethical criteria. Please visit http://
> www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html to learn what
> those standards are."
>
> https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/running/distrib.html
One of the problems with totally free i.e. non-proprietary
software is that Hurd needs drivers and probably cannot use Linux
drivers though
maybe a intermediate software could use them with Hurd. Mostly though
you might
find yourself confined to terminal use to hopefully call programs with
GUI to
do the work, number crunching in spreadsheets, databases text and word
processing, web browsing and Usenet. They might not come because the
developers may have
other ways to spend their time. A kernel is being written in Rust and
that distribution
may have similar problem.
The Freesoftware foundation is free to choose what degree of proprietary
code, i.e. firmware that they allow before they think it is intolerable
to their
elevated standards.
I only recommend what I am using...
bliss- Dell Precision 7730- PCLOS 2026.01- Linux 6.12.68 pclos1- KDE
Plasma 6.5.5
"Nearly any fool can use a GNU/Linux Computer..."
After all here I am...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-03 00:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jpicnVU9EJaOGBz0nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #81708 |
On 2/2/26 23:20, Bobbie Sellers wrote: > > > On 2/2/26 18:58, rbowman wrote: >> On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 20:50:44 -0500, c186282 wrote: >> >>> On 2/2/26 09:50, Rich wrote: >>>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 08:42:08 +0000, Richard Kettlewell >>>>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes: >>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote: >>>>>>>>> I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS almost >>>>>>>>> infinitely useful these days. The look and feel is sort of BASIC, >>>>>>>>> sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++. >>>>>>>>> It Just Works. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've not used any of those languages in decades, either. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've played with Python, BASIC and Pascal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular >>>>>>> when it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it >>>>>>> can't produce stand-alone programs. >>>>>> >>>>>> That’s debatable, but either way, most people don’t care about that >>>>>> enough to impact language choice. >>>>> >>>>> So do all versions of Linux come with a built-in Python interpreter? >>>> >>>> No version of Linux includes any built-in languages (unless you >>>> consider the fancy bpf code a "language"). "Linux" is just the kernel, >>>> nothing more. >>>> >>>> Most Linux **distributions** include Python (and a whole host of other >>>> languages) in their repositories that one can install on one's system. >>> >>> Strictly speaking, correct. >>> >>> However who the fuck uses the bare kernel ? The world works with >>> distros - and they all contain GCC at minimum, now also Python. > > Hurd is not totally functional yet and the distributions that > contain it are put out > so that people can try it out. Maybe coders will do something with it. > >> >> Pedants will be pedantic. It's usually followed by a rant about GNU/ >> Linux. >> The unicorn called GNU/Hurd isn't mentioned very often. The FSF isn't >> enthused about the one distro that might sort of work. > > > Well they are purists and since most distribution include firmware > some > of which will be proprietary code they do not recommend those. > > I would not reccomend a GNU/Linux distribution which would not > run on most hardware available. That might be what we would have > with a totally free(Open Source) distribution. You might be confined to > terminal use only. That would be fine for many folks who started using > Linux much earlier in life than I did but I need a Desktop Environment > as well as code that will run on most machines. The machines I learned > to do computing with are no longer built except in very expensive > editions which mostly emulate on x86 hardware the 6502, 8503. > and 680x0 cpus on which on the C=64, C=64/128, Amiga computer > used. After I learned the ins and outs of AmigaOS 1.2-3.9 I got > sick and have very little brain power left to learn new stuff. Death By Guru-Meditation Messages ? :-) >> "The Free Software Foundation can't recommend Debian GNU/Hurd or the Arch >> distribution; we must suppose that they don't meet our freedom standards >> any more than Debian GNU/Linux and the Arch distribution based on the >> Linux kernel do. Likewise we have not evaluated other GNU/Hurd >> distributions in regard to ethical criteria. Please visit http:// >> www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html to learn >> what >> those standards are." >> >> https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/running/distrib.html > > > One of the problems with totally free i.e. non-proprietary > software is that Hurd needs drivers and probably cannot use Linux > drivers though > maybe a intermediate software could use them with Hurd. Mostly though > you might > find yourself confined to terminal use to hopefully call programs with > GUI to > do the work, number crunching in spreadsheets, databases text and word > processing, web browsing and Usenet. They might not come because the > developers may have > other ways to spend their time. A kernel is being written in Rust and > that distribution > may have similar problem. > > The Freesoftware foundation is free to choose what degree of > proprietary > code, i.e. firmware that they allow before they think it is intolerable > to their > elevated standards. > I only recommend what I am using... Everybody thinks they have The Better Idea. Alas only a tiny tiny few DO have that. A kernel in Rust ? WHY ? Apparently "just because we can". All the other developers are not going to suddenly learn how to deal with it. Linux soon reached a sort of "standard setup" ... and it WORKS very well. NO reason to re-write everything in Rust or COBOL or anything else. 99.99% of the world WON'T follow you there - it all becomes just an 'academic exercise'. "Rust" ... 'C' with an even more annoying syntax :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-04 04:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn10o5i50.fbd.spamtrap42@one.localnet> |
| In reply to | #81709 |
On 2026-02-03, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >... > > Everybody thinks they have The Better Idea. Alas only > a tiny tiny few DO have that. > > A kernel in Rust ? WHY ? Apparently "just because we can". > All the other developers are not going to suddenly learn > how to deal with it. > > Linux soon reached a sort of "standard setup" ... and it > WORKS very well. NO reason to re-write everything in Rust > or COBOL or anything else. 99.99% of the world WON'T follow > you there - it all becomes just an 'academic exercise'. > > "Rust" ... 'C' with an even more annoying syntax :-) And, if I remember correctly from when I studied it a few years ago some rather odd rules about when/how pointers can be passed around. Sometimes, it takes a lot of gyrating to declare the pointer in the right place to satisfy the "memory safety" rules. -- Robert Riches spamtrap42@jacob21819.net (Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-03 23:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <cJycnetwIcSVUh_0nZ2dnZfqnPQAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #81721 |
On 2/3/26 23:18, Robert Riches wrote: > On 2026-02-03, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> ... >> >> Everybody thinks they have The Better Idea. Alas only >> a tiny tiny few DO have that. >> >> A kernel in Rust ? WHY ? Apparently "just because we can". >> All the other developers are not going to suddenly learn >> how to deal with it. >> >> Linux soon reached a sort of "standard setup" ... and it >> WORKS very well. NO reason to re-write everything in Rust >> or COBOL or anything else. 99.99% of the world WON'T follow >> you there - it all becomes just an 'academic exercise'. >> >> "Rust" ... 'C' with an even more annoying syntax :-) > > And, if I remember correctly from when I studied it a few years > ago some rather odd rules about when/how pointers can be passed > around. Sometimes, it takes a lot of gyrating to declare the > pointer in the right place to satisfy the "memory safety" rules. It's been a few years ... however I did download the Rust suite yesterday and will fool around with it some to see how it's come along and whether it's worth it. However my recollection was that if you can do it in Rust then you can do it with 'C' just as easily. "Safety" ... that always complicates things. Look into Ada, if you dare :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-04 05:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn10o5ldr.6k0.spamtrap42@one.localnet> |
| In reply to | #81722 |
On 2026-02-04, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > On 2/3/26 23:18, Robert Riches wrote: >> On 2026-02-03, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>> ... >>> >>> Everybody thinks they have The Better Idea. Alas only >>> a tiny tiny few DO have that. >>> >>> A kernel in Rust ? WHY ? Apparently "just because we can". >>> All the other developers are not going to suddenly learn >>> how to deal with it. >>> >>> Linux soon reached a sort of "standard setup" ... and it >>> WORKS very well. NO reason to re-write everything in Rust >>> or COBOL or anything else. 99.99% of the world WON'T follow >>> you there - it all becomes just an 'academic exercise'. >>> >>> "Rust" ... 'C' with an even more annoying syntax :-) >> >> And, if I remember correctly from when I studied it a few years >> ago some rather odd rules about when/how pointers can be passed >> around. Sometimes, it takes a lot of gyrating to declare the >> pointer in the right place to satisfy the "memory safety" rules. > > It's been a few years ... however I did download > the Rust suite yesterday and will fool around > with it some to see how it's come along and whether > it's worth it. > > However my recollection was that if you can do > it in Rust then you can do it with 'C' just as > easily. > > "Safety" ... that always complicates things. Look > into Ada, if you dare :-) Did a bit of web searching to refresh memory. The term is "ownership": https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch04-01-what-is-ownership.html https://luk6xff.github.io/other/safe_secure_rust_book/memory_safety/pointers.html I didn't find exactly the wording I was looking for, but IIRC one of the key issues is you cannot have a function that allocates memory and returns a pointer to said allocated memory, because that violates the rule from the first link that, "When the owner goes out of scope, the value will be dropped." Largely, it's that restriction that causes difficulty when some code is ported from C to Rust. Workarounds to that restriction are required in Rust that are not required in C. -- Robert Riches spamtrap42@jacob21819.net (Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-04 00:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <-EOdnRUZmNTqQx_0nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #81723 |
On 2/4/26 00:14, Robert Riches wrote: > On 2026-02-04, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> On 2/3/26 23:18, Robert Riches wrote: >>> On 2026-02-03, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>>> ... >>>> >>>> Everybody thinks they have The Better Idea. Alas only >>>> a tiny tiny few DO have that. >>>> >>>> A kernel in Rust ? WHY ? Apparently "just because we can". >>>> All the other developers are not going to suddenly learn >>>> how to deal with it. >>>> >>>> Linux soon reached a sort of "standard setup" ... and it >>>> WORKS very well. NO reason to re-write everything in Rust >>>> or COBOL or anything else. 99.99% of the world WON'T follow >>>> you there - it all becomes just an 'academic exercise'. >>>> >>>> "Rust" ... 'C' with an even more annoying syntax :-) >>> >>> And, if I remember correctly from when I studied it a few years >>> ago some rather odd rules about when/how pointers can be passed >>> around. Sometimes, it takes a lot of gyrating to declare the >>> pointer in the right place to satisfy the "memory safety" rules. >> >> It's been a few years ... however I did download >> the Rust suite yesterday and will fool around >> with it some to see how it's come along and whether >> it's worth it. >> >> However my recollection was that if you can do >> it in Rust then you can do it with 'C' just as >> easily. >> >> "Safety" ... that always complicates things. Look >> into Ada, if you dare :-) > > Did a bit of web searching to refresh memory. The term is > "ownership": > > https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch04-01-what-is-ownership.html > > https://luk6xff.github.io/other/safe_secure_rust_book/memory_safety/pointers.html > > I didn't find exactly the wording I was looking for, but IIRC one > of the key issues is you cannot have a function that allocates > memory and returns a pointer to said allocated memory, because > that violates the rule from the first link that, "When the owner > goes out of scope, the value will be dropped." Largely, it's > that restriction that causes difficulty when some code is ported > from C to Rust. Workarounds to that restriction are required in > Rust that are not required in C. Being able to pass pointers back and forth is a strong point with 'C'. In theory this COULD be exploited by evil actors, but I can't find any clear doc on whether it's been done to any relevant degree. Most security probs result from developer stupidity, not from the underlying language and methods. Amazing how many still allocate mem, or even just string space or use thereof, without the slightly newer functions that let you specify just HOW many bytes are involved. "Buffer overflow" is still a prime attack vector. Keep seeing it in M$ warning notes and no doubt there's similar idiocy in Linux/UNIX apps as well. K&R was damned good - most of my code still looks like that - but it didn't anticipate state-sponsored attacks. As for Ada ... I wonder how many suicides/burn-outs happen in its 'programmer community'. I did some Ada - and my first functions were tricks to defeat the fixed/dynamic memory 'protections' just so ANYTHING could be accomplished.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-04 08:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <wwvwm0sudar.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #81724 |
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes: > On 2/4/26 00:14, Robert Riches wrote: >> Did a bit of web searching to refresh memory. The term is >> "ownership": >> https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch04-01-what-is-ownership.html >> https://luk6xff.github.io/other/safe_secure_rust_book/memory_safety/pointers.html >> I didn't find exactly the wording I was looking for, but IIRC one >> of the key issues is you cannot have a function that allocates >> memory and returns a pointer to said allocated memory, because >> that violates the rule from the first link that, "When the owner >> goes out of scope, the value will be dropped." Largely, it's >> that restriction that causes difficulty when some code is ported >> from C to Rust. Workarounds to that restriction are required in >> Rust that are not required in C. > > Being able to pass pointers back and forth is a strong point with > 'C'. In theory this COULD be exploited by evil actors, but I can't > find any clear doc on whether it's been done to any relevant degree. Yes, constantly and for many decades now. Have a look through CVE databases or follow a list like oss-security and you’ll see a steady stream of vulnerabilities arising from C’s lack of memory safety. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-04 11:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10lvc6a$2a0lm$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81730 |
On 04/02/2026 08:24, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >> Being able to pass pointers back and forth is a strong point with >> 'C'. In theory this COULD be exploited by evil actors, but I can't >> find any clear doc on whether it's been done to any relevant degree. > Yes, constantly and for many decades now. Have a look through CV > databases or follow a list like oss-security and you’ll see a steady > stream of vulnerabilities arising from C’s lack of memory safety. Yes, constantly and for many decades now. Have a look through CV databases or follow a list like oss-security and you’ll see a steady stream of memory bound exception arising from generations of lazy amateur programming.... -- Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-04 14:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <wwvikcco95q.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #81734 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes: > On 04/02/2026 08:24, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >>> Being able to pass pointers back and forth is a strong point with >>> 'C'. In theory this COULD be exploited by evil actors, but I can't >>> find any clear doc on whether it's been done to any relevant degree. >> Yes, constantly and for many decades now. Have a look through CV > >> databases or follow a list like oss-security and you’ll see a steady >> stream of vulnerabilities arising from C’s lack of memory safety. > > Yes, constantly and for many decades now. Have a look through CV > databases or follow a list like oss-security and you’ll see a steady > stream of memory bound exception arising from generations of lazy > amateur programming.... By that standard the original Unix team were lazy amateurs, given the vulnerabilities in their code. The reality is that the language is error-prone, and blaming programmers for the outcome is just sticking your head in the sand. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-04 16:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10lvt12$2g653$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81735 |
On 04/02/2026 14:50, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes: >> On 04/02/2026 08:24, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >>>> Being able to pass pointers back and forth is a strong point with >>>> 'C'. In theory this COULD be exploited by evil actors, but I can't >>>> find any clear doc on whether it's been done to any relevant degree. >>> Yes, constantly and for many decades now. Have a look through CV > >>> databases or follow a list like oss-security and you’ll see a steady >>> stream of vulnerabilities arising from C’s lack of memory safety. >> >> Yes, constantly and for many decades now. Have a look through CV >> databases or follow a list like oss-security and you’ll see a steady >> stream of memory bound exception arising from generations of lazy >> amateur programming.... > > By that standard the original Unix team were lazy amateurs, given the > vulnerabilities in their code. I would say that that is a fair description of their abilities. Berkeley Unix was almost completely written by students. Very little of any of the distributions were subject to in depth scrutiny. Even after it became severely non free. And that applies as much to Microsoft as well. > > The reality is that the language is error-prone, and blaming programmers > for the outcome is just sticking your head in the sand. > All languages are error prone. And blaming that for deficiencies in programmer quality is just sticking your head in the sand. -- "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them" Margaret Thatcher
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-04 09:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <20260204091514.000013fd@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #81736 |
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 16:44:18 +0000 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > The reality is that the language is error-prone, and blaming > > programmers for the outcome is just sticking your head in the sand. > > All languages are error prone. > And blaming that for deficiencies in programmer quality is just > sticking your head in the sand. But this time, *this time* we've found the fabled Language That Makes Bugs Impossible, we swear...!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-04 19:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <X3NgR.71402$ugK.21391@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #81737 |
On 2026-02-04, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 16:44:18 +0000 > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>> The reality is that the language is error-prone, and blaming >>> programmers for the outcome is just sticking your head in the sand. >> >> All languages are error prone. >> And blaming that for deficiencies in programmer quality is just >> sticking your head in the sand. > > But this time, *this time* we've found the fabled Language That Makes > Bugs Impossible, we swear...! Yes, it doesn't let you do anything. And if you can't do anything, you can't do anything wrong. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-04 22:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10m0fiq$2n7r1$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81739 |
On 04/02/2026 19:26, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-02-04, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 16:44:18 +0000 >> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>>> The reality is that the language is error-prone, and blaming >>>> programmers for the outcome is just sticking your head in the sand. >>> >>> All languages are error prone. >>> And blaming that for deficiencies in programmer quality is just >>> sticking your head in the sand. >> >> But this time, *this time* we've found the fabled Language That Makes >> Bugs Impossible, we swear...! > > Yes, it doesn't let you do anything. And if you can't do anything, > you can't do anything wrong. > It's like that wonderful preamplifier featured in an April edition of Wireless world. The ASPOW* technology has enormous bandwidth with Zero distortion. *A Stright Piece Of Wire. -- “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.” – H. L. Mencken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-05 08:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10m2666$36k4g$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81744 |
The Natural Philosopher wrote this post by blinking in Morse code: > On 04/02/2026 19:26, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> On 2026-02-04, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 16:44:18 +0000 >>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>> The reality is that the language is error-prone, and blaming >>>>> programmers for the outcome is just sticking your head in the sand. >>>> >>>> All languages are error prone. >>>> And blaming that for deficiencies in programmer quality is just >>>> sticking your head in the sand. >>> >>> But this time, *this time* we've found the fabled Language That Makes >>> Bugs Impossible, we swear...! >> >> Yes, it doesn't let you do anything. And if you can't do anything, >> you can't do anything wrong. > > It's like that wonderful preamplifier featured in an April edition of > Wireless world. The ASPOW* technology has enormous bandwidth with Zero > distortion. > > *A Stright Piece Of Wire. Fiber optics has more than 10 times the bandwidth. Hmmm, it seem it might be 1000, not ten. -- QOTD: "Who? Me? No, no, NO!! But I do sell rugs."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-04 23:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <05Odnf4BZIXTixn0nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #81739 |
On 2/4/26 14:26, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-02-04, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 16:44:18 +0000 >> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>>> The reality is that the language is error-prone, and blaming >>>> programmers for the outcome is just sticking your head in the sand. >>> >>> All languages are error prone. >>> And blaming that for deficiencies in programmer quality is just >>> sticking your head in the sand. >> >> But this time, *this time* we've found the fabled Language That Makes >> Bugs Impossible, we swear...! > > Yes, it doesn't let you do anything. And if you can't do anything, > you can't do anything wrong. YOU get it. Many do NOT.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-04 21:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10m0fer$2n7r1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81737 |
On 04/02/2026 17:15, John Ames wrote: > On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 16:44:18 +0000 > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>> The reality is that the language is error-prone, and blaming >>> programmers for the outcome is just sticking your head in the sand. >> >> All languages are error prone. >> And blaming that for deficiencies in programmer quality is just >> sticking your head in the sand. > > But this time, *this time* we've found the fabled Language That Makes > Bugs Impossible, we swear...! > LOL! Its called TCL. Trained Chimpanzee Language. -- “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.” – H. L. Mencken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web