Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.unix.programmer > #16874

Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily

From cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups comp.unix.programmer
Subject Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily
Date 2025-01-07 13:59 +0000
Organization PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID <vljbvv$gl9$1@reader2.panix.com> (permalink)
References <uu54la$3su5b$6@dont-email.me> <vlgud7$1mgh5$1@dont-email.me> <vlh5ag$1nruu$1@dont-email.me> <677c7a1b$0$28501$426a74cc@news.free.fr>

Show all headers | View raw

In article <677c7a1b$0$28501$426a74cc@news.free.fr>,
Nicolas George  <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> wrote:
>Kalevi Kolttonen, dans le message <vlh5ag$1nruu$1@dont-email.me>, a
> écrit :
>> I am no expert, but I guess if you need to do async programming
>> on UNIX/Linux userspace, your best is to use POSIX Threads.
>
>Very common misconception.

This is correct. Threads are a concurrency mechanism.  You use
them to write (more or less) sequential execution flows that run
concurrently with respect to one another.  They are not needed
to do "async programming UNIX/Linux userspace".  Indeed, in some
sense they're sort of the antithesis of async programming.

>The communication mechanisms between POSIX
>threads and Unix I/O are completely alien to each-other: it is not possible
>to poll() on a thread condition, nor is it it possible to set up a condition
>to be woken by data on a file descriptor. As a result, anybody who tries to
>use threads to solve problems of I/O concurrency ends up having to implement
>a poll() or equivalent loop in each thread, defeating the purpose.

This, however, does not follow.  I don't see why "poll" is
strictly required for IO concurrency.

In addition to signalfd etc, there is no reason you cannot, say,
have a signal handler that broadcasts on a condition variable
after an asynchronous IO operation completes, thus waking up a
thread.

More generally, in the context of a multithreaded program,
(assuming the POSIX threading model) the "condition to be woken
by data on a file descriptor" is that the IO operation on which
the thread was blocked has completed or been interrupted.  In a
system with kernel scheduled threads, this simply means that the
thread becomes runnable again, and will be resumed at some
point; this is exactly analogous to the sort of state
transitions a process goes through in a traditional Unix-style
kernel when blocked on IO.

Moreover, nothing prevents a program from, say, sharing a
producer/consumer queue between threads where one extracts
entries and performs IO on them while the other prepares IO
operations to be performed by the worker.  For that matter, one
can have multiple IO threads pushing work into a queue that's
executed by a pool of worker threads.

>POSIX threads are good to improve on computation concurrency, but they do
>not make I/O concurrency simpler, quite the opposite.
>
>The same might not be true for other kinds of threads.

A nice property of POSIX threads is that, in _most_
implementations, if you go off and initiate some blocking
operation, such as performing (blocking) IO on a file descriptor
of some sort, other runnable threads in the system can continue
executing.  Thus, it follows that you can have multiple IO
operations in separate threads pending at one time.  In that
sense, one can leverage threads for IO concurrency (indeed, many
programs do just that).  Threads can block independently without
impeding execution of the overall program.

Of course, not all POSIX thread implementations are capable of
doing this: consider a purely userspace "green" thread
implementation; executing a single blocking system call blocks
the whole program.  In those, in many cases, blocking IO is
emulated at the library level (which translates "normal" IO
operations into their non-blocking counterparts) to give the
illusion of sequential program flow; of course, the simulacrum
is inexact at best, which is why most systems push thread
management up into the kernel.

	- Dan C.

Back to comp.unix.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Sebastian <sebastian@here.com.invalid> - 2024-11-11 07:31 +0000
  Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-11 10:06 +0000
    Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Wolfgang Agnes <wagnes@jemoni.to> - 2024-11-11 08:28 -0300
      Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-11-11 16:21 +0000
    Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-11 20:55 +0000
    Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-12 10:14 +0100
      Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-12 09:21 +0000
        Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-12 10:31 +0100
          Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-12 09:53 +0000
            Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-12 15:05 +0100
              Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-12 15:09 +0000
        Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Wolfgang Agnes <wagnes@jemoni.to> - 2024-11-12 13:47 -0300
  Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-11 21:24 +0000
    Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-12 10:23 +0100
      Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Wolfgang Agnes <wagnes@jemoni.to> - 2024-11-12 13:50 -0300
      Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-12 20:29 +0000
    Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) - 2024-11-19 18:43 -0800
      Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-20 04:34 +0000
      Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-20 08:21 +0000
        Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-20 11:51 +0100
          Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-20 11:30 +0000
            Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-20 16:38 +0100
              Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-20 16:38 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-20 17:54 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-11-20 10:03 -0800
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-21 08:18 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-11-21 07:56 -0800
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-21 14:13 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-21 16:06 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-21 08:13 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-11-21 07:58 -0800
              Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-20 17:50 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-21 14:40 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-21 15:07 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 13:30 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-22 15:41 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-22 15:52 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 17:18 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-22 17:35 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 17:43 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 17:43 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 17:17 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-22 17:48 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 18:12 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-22 18:48 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 19:05 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-22 19:24 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 19:46 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-11-22 17:26 -0500
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 23:06 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-11-22 22:49 -0500
                [OT] Thunderbird Reply-button (was Re: <subject that has now for long nothing to do with the OP>) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-23 05:26 +0100
                Re: [OT] Thunderbird Reply-button (was Re: <subject that has now for long nothing to do with the OP>) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-11-23 00:04 -0500
                Re: [OT] Thunderbird Reply-button Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-23 06:09 +0100
                Re: [OT] Thunderbird Reply-button James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-11-23 09:24 -0500
                Re: [OT] Thunderbird Reply-button Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-23 20:14 +0100
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-23 13:53 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-11-22 18:14 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-11-22 18:22 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 18:30 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-22 18:59 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 19:15 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-22 19:26 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 19:51 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages mas@a4.home - 2024-11-21 15:46 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-11-21 16:08 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-21 17:31 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> - 2024-11-21 17:53 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-21 17:19 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 14:14 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-22 15:27 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 21:14 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-22 22:09 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 23:10 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-11-22 17:16 -0500
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-22 22:34 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-11-22 23:44 -0500
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-23 14:05 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-11-23 10:22 -0500
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-11-23 16:38 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-27 13:59 +0000
                Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able (Was: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-12-27 14:35 +0000
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-27 14:56 +0000
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-12-27 16:14 +0000
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2024-12-27 15:07 -0300
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-27 23:09 +0000
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-27 23:22 +0000
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-28 00:44 +0100
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-27 23:56 +0000
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-28 00:11 +0000
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2024-12-27 21:22 -0300
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-28 19:48 +0000
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-28 20:30 +0000
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-28 21:07 +0000
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-29 09:50 +0000
                Why TF? (Was: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-12-29 10:33 +0000
                Re: Why TF? (Was: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-29 10:38 +0000
                Re: Why TF? (Was: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-29 21:45 +0100
                Re: Why TF? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-29 23:01 +0000
                Re: Why TF? (Was: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-30 09:35 +0000
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-29 13:07 +0000
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-29 14:09 +0000
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-12-29 16:41 -0500
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Eric Pozharski <apple.universe@posteo.net> - 2024-12-29 17:56 +0000
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-29 18:59 +0000
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2024-12-29 22:19 -0300
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-30 19:31 +0000
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2024-12-30 18:10 -0300
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-30 23:11 +0000
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-02 03:40 -0500
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-02 16:29 +0000
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-02 19:36 -0500
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-03 02:55 +0000
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-03 18:15 +0000
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-01-04 10:12 +0000
                OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-01-04 08:31 -0300
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-01-04 11:40 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-04 22:13 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-01-04 19:17 -0300
                Re: OT: Windows Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-05 00:47 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-01-09 22:27 -0300
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-01-05 16:40 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-05 17:14 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-05 21:09 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-06 08:36 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-06 14:08 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-06 14:21 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-06 15:05 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-06 15:55 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-06 16:46 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-01-06 12:42 -0500
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-06 18:16 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2025-01-06 18:24 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-06 18:52 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-07 08:36 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-07 13:18 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-07 14:05 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-07 14:14 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-07 15:13 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-07 15:35 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-07 15:53 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-07 16:10 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-07 17:01 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-07 17:23 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-08 08:23 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-08 12:19 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-08 13:36 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-01-07 17:16 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-07 17:40 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2025-01-06 17:53 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-06 20:28 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-06 20:36 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-01-06 20:38 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> - 2025-01-07 00:49 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-07 02:14 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> - 2025-01-07 08:59 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-07 14:59 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-08 02:36 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-08 03:23 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> - 2025-01-08 07:52 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-08 12:21 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> - 2025-01-08 14:01 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-08 14:41 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-08 15:05 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-07 13:59 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> - 2025-01-07 15:54 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-07 15:56 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-08 02:36 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-08 08:27 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-07 16:17 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2025-01-07 16:13 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-07 17:01 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-07 08:37 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-06 15:22 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-06 16:00 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-06 16:39 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-07 08:34 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-07 14:13 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-07 15:11 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-07 16:02 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-07 16:56 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-07 17:19 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-08 08:20 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-08 13:00 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-08 13:40 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-08 16:05 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-01-08 09:55 -0800
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-08 18:38 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-15 16:46 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-01-15 20:20 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-16 09:40 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> - 2025-01-16 15:01 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-01-08 20:27 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-15 16:47 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-01-15 20:27 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-15 22:55 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-16 09:43 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-16 14:51 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-16 15:47 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-01-16 17:34 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-16 15:56 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-16 16:53 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-07 15:24 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-07 17:31 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-07 19:09 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-08 08:26 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-09 04:39 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-06 20:27 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-06 20:36 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-06 20:26 +0000
                Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-06 15:02 +0000
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-28 19:27 +0100
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-28 23:03 +0000
                Re: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-28 02:07 +0000
                Re: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-28 19:40 +0100
                Re: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-28 23:00 +0000
                Re: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-28 23:32 +0000
                Re: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2024-12-28 19:02 -0600
                Re: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-12-28 21:12 -0500
                Re: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-29 09:54 +0000
                Re: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-12-29 07:39 -0500
                A herd of elephants (Was: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-12-29 14:32 +0000
                Re: A herd of elephants (Was: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-29 22:03 +0100
                Re: A herd of elephants (Was: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able) Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-12-29 19:49 -0500
                Re: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-29 21:55 +0100
                Re: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-29 22:07 +0100
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-12-28 14:26 -0500
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-29 21:10 +0100
                Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-12-27 13:11 -0500
                Re: Open Source does mean easily re-compile-able Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-27 23:11 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-27 14:56 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2024-12-27 23:22 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2024-12-27 07:43 -0800
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-12-27 17:39 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-12-27 13:15 -0500
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-12-27 19:14 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-28 00:38 +0100
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-22 12:14 +0100
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-22 11:56 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-22 20:33 +0100
          Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-11-21 19:12 +0000
            Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-22 10:09 +0000
              Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-11-22 18:18 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-11-23 11:40 +0000
            Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-22 12:17 +0100
              Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-11-22 18:19 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-22 20:20 +0100
        Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Ed Morton <mortonspam@gmail.com> - 2024-11-20 05:46 -0600
          Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-20 12:27 +0000
            Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-20 21:43 +0000
              Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-11-21 08:15 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-21 22:05 +0000
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-22 12:47 +0100
                Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-22 20:41 +0000
          Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-11-20 16:53 +0100
            Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Ed Morton <mortonspam@gmail.com> - 2024-11-23 18:17 -0600
        Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-20 12:21 +0000
          Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) - 2024-11-21 05:38 -0800
            Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2024-11-21 17:01 +0000

csiph-web