Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #399792 > unrolled thread

this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network)

Started byfir <profesor.fir@gmail.com>
First post2026-06-08 17:49 +0200
Last post2026-06-14 14:44 +0200
Articles 20 on this page of 194 — 17 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 17:49 +0200
    Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 18:16 +0200
      Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 18:24 +0200
      Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-09 00:28 +0000
        Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 08:56 +0200
          Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 10:26 +0200
          Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-09 09:10 +0000
            Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 11:34 +0200
              Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-09 12:25 +0200
                Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 12:31 +0200
                  Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 13:43 +0200
                    Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 13:53 +0200
                      Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-10 00:02 +0000
                        Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 08:55 +0200
              Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-10 00:00 +0000
                Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 09:06 +0200
                  Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 00:34 -0700
                    Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 12:37 +0200
                      Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 11:40 -0700
                      Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-11 00:01 +0000
                        Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 13:42 -0700
                          Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-22 22:38 +0000
                            Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 14:40 -0700
                              Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-24 02:04 +0000
                                Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 04:42 -0700
            Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-09 06:02 -0400
              Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 12:18 +0200
              Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-09 23:45 +0000
            Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 13:55 -0700
              Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-09 23:56 +0000
                Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 21:52 -0700
                  Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 21:55 -0700
                  Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 22:05 -0700
                  Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-10 06:03 +0000
                    Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 00:24 -0700
                      Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-11 00:07 +0000
                        Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 16:47 -0700
                          Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-20 02:49 +0000
                            Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 19:52 -0700
                              Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-20 03:57 +0000
                              Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-20 15:49 +0000
                                Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 16:30 -0700
                                  Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-22 14:56 +0000
                                    Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 12:23 -0700
                Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-10 14:56 +0000
        Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 13:54 -0700
          Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-09 23:47 +0000
            Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 21:42 -0700
              Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-10 06:21 +0000
                Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 00:14 -0700
                  Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 00:31 -0700
                    Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-11 00:15 +0000
                      Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-11 21:08 -0700
                        Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-13 00:10 +0000
            Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 23:01 -0700
              Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-10 06:47 +0000
                Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-11 13:27 -0700
                  Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-12 01:35 +0000
                    Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-13 14:26 -0700
                      Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-13 14:32 -0700
                        Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-14 00:45 +0000
                          Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-14 13:55 -0700
                            Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-16 04:36 +0000
                              Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-16 13:08 -0700
                                Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-16 13:11 -0700
                                Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-17 03:11 +0000
                                  Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-17 12:13 -0700
                                    Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-17 23:47 +0000
                                      Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-17 20:26 -0700
                                        Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-18 07:30 +0000
                                          Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-18 04:36 -0700
                                            Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-18 04:38 -0700
                                            Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-18 23:03 +0000
                                              Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 13:42 -0700
                                                Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-19 22:40 +0000
                                                  Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 16:40 -0700
                                                    Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-20 02:50 +0000
                                                      Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 19:53 -0700
                                                        Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-20 03:59 +0000
                                                          Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 16:31 -0700
                                                            Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-22 00:59 +0000
                                                              Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 14:06 -0700
                                                                Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-22 22:40 +0000
                                                                  Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 14:41 -0700
                                                                    Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-24 02:05 +0000
                                                                      Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 04:36 -0700
                                                                        Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-24 12:19 +0000
                                                                        Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-24 21:47 +0000
                                                                          Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 12:44 -0700
        Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 12:02 -0700
          Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-11 00:16 +0000
      Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-06-17 18:41 -0500
        Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-18 07:30 +0000
          Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-06-18 03:49 -0500
            Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-18 23:06 +0000
              Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 01:20 -0500
                Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-19 08:56 +0200
                  Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-19 10:42 +0100
                    Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-19 10:18 +0000
                      Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-19 15:29 +0100
                        Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-19 16:18 +0000
                          Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-19 18:07 +0100
                            Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-19 18:51 +0000
                              Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-19 21:04 +0100
                            Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-19 19:55 +0000
                              [OT] Google AI - behavioral analysis (was: [something else]) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-20 01:52 +0200
                            Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-20 03:03 +0000
                          Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-19 18:50 +0000
                    Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-19 13:46 +0200
                      Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-19 15:49 +0100
                        Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-19 17:25 +0200
                          Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-21 01:42 +0300
                            Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-21 12:18 +0200
                              Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-21 23:15 +0300
                                Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-22 04:33 +0000
                                Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-22 10:01 +0200
                                Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-22 14:56 +0000
                                  Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-23 07:25 +0200
                                    Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-23 15:35 +0000
                                      Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-23 18:07 +0200
                                        Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-23 17:12 +0000
                                          Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-23 21:07 +0200
                                            Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-23 23:00 +0300
                                              Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-24 08:32 +0200
                                                Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-24 21:54 +0300
                                                  Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-24 21:09 +0200
                                              Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-24 10:48 +0000
                                            Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-24 10:47 +0000
                                              Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-24 15:02 +0200
                                                Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-25 11:29 +0000
                                                  NIC interrupt rates (was UART discussion; previously was Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-25 15:31 +0000
                                                  Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-25 19:15 +0200
                                                    Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-25 18:29 +0000
                                                      Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-25 20:52 +0200
                                                        Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-26 14:58 +0000
                                                          Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 11:46 -0700
                                                        Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-27 01:57 +0000
                                                      Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-25 22:53 +0300
                                                    Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-27 01:52 +0000
                                                      Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-27 19:46 +0200
                                                        Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-07-01 13:16 +0000
                                                          Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-07-03 17:00 +0200
                                                      Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-27 20:49 +0300
                                                        Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-07-01 13:17 +0000
                                                      UARTs (was Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network)) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-27 18:50 +0000
                                        Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-23 17:39 +0000
                                          Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-23 21:11 +0200
                                            Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-24 11:04 +0000
                                              Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-24 15:27 +0200
                                                Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-25 11:56 +0000
                                                  Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-25 21:30 +0200
                                                    Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-27 02:22 +0000
                                                      Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-28 18:59 +0200
                                                        Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-07-07 23:19 +0000
                                                          Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-07-08 14:52 +0000
                                                          Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-07-08 20:56 +0200
                                              Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-24 15:51 +0000
                                          Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 14:44 -0700
                                      Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-23 22:30 +0300
                                    Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-23 22:48 +0300
                                      Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-24 12:18 +0000
                                        Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-24 22:00 +0300
                                          Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-24 20:09 +0000
                                            Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-25 00:25 +0300
                                          Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-25 12:00 +0000
                                            Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-25 15:37 +0000
                                      Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) pa@see.signature.invalid (Pierre Asselin) - 2026-06-24 21:21 +0000
                                        Time from official time-services (was Re: ...some arbitrary subject...) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-28 00:15 +0200
                        Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-19 16:31 +0000
                          Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-19 17:50 +0100
                            Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-19 18:54 +0000
                            Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-19 19:58 +0000
                              Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-19 21:15 +0100
                                Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-19 22:09 +0000
                        Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-20 03:00 +0000
                    Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 10:33 -0700
                      Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-19 19:04 +0100
                        Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-19 18:55 +0000
                          Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-19 21:07 +0100
                          Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-20 13:53 +0200
                        Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-06-20 19:25 -0400
                    Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-19 22:49 +0000
                  Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 18:06 -0500
                Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-19 06:59 +0000
                  Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 14:47 -0500
                    Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-19 22:47 +0000
                      Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-20 14:02 +0200
                Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 02:21 -0700
                  Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-19 09:59 +0000
    Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-09 00:26 +0000
    Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-06-09 21:21 +0000
      Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-10 12:28 +0000
    Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-06-11 07:24 +0200
    Re: this guy talks about fopen (and im thinking about fopen for network) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-06-14 14:44 +0200

Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10  Next page →

#400179

FromLawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date2026-06-22 00:59 +0000
Message-ID<111a1eb$165ja$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#400178
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 16:31:03 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> On 6/19/2026 8:59 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2026 19:53:15 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/19/2026 7:50 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2026 16:40:07 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am talking about highly scalable servers under heavy load.
>>>>
>>>> So am I.
>>>>
>>>>> What is the analog of ConnectEx/AcceptEx on Linux?
>>>>
>>>> Doesn’t need one. It can whip Windows’ arse quite nicely without
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> But it seems to have one? io_uring_enter... IORING_OP_ACCEPT and
>>> IORING_OP_CONNECT ?
>>
>> I can’t find anything that uses it.
>
> So what does that mean? They are there, right?

It just reinforces my point, that Linux servers, particularly
network-intensive ones, can run rings around their Windows competitors
without needing to resort to such extreme-performance tricks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400199

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2026-06-22 14:06 -0700
Message-ID<111c85i$1qlp4$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#400179
On 6/21/2026 5:59 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 16:31:03 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> 
>> On 6/19/2026 8:59 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2026 19:53:15 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/19/2026 7:50 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2026 16:40:07 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am talking about highly scalable servers under heavy load.
>>>>>
>>>>> So am I.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the analog of ConnectEx/AcceptEx on Linux?
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn’t need one. It can whip Windows’ arse quite nicely without
>>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> But it seems to have one? io_uring_enter... IORING_OP_ACCEPT and
>>>> IORING_OP_CONNECT ?
>>>
>>> I can’t find anything that uses it.
>>
>> So what does that mean? They are there, right?
> 
> It just reinforces my point, that Linux servers, particularly
> network-intensive ones, can run rings around their Windows competitors
> without needing to resort to such extreme-performance tricks.

So, why did they even create io_uring?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400202

FromLawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date2026-06-22 22:40 +0000
Message-ID<111cdkv$1rqcg$6@dont-email.me>
In reply to#400199
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 14:06:58 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> On 6/21/2026 5:59 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> It just reinforces my point, that Linux servers, particularly
>> network-intensive ones, can run rings around their Windows
>> competitors without needing to resort to such extreme-performance
>> tricks.
>
> So, why did they even create io_uring?

Obviously, it has its specialized uses, in rarefied realms beyond the
imaginings of those only familiar with Dave-Cutler-type operating
systems ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400216

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2026-06-23 14:41 -0700
Message-ID<111eui8$2isl7$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#400202
On 6/22/2026 3:40 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 14:06:58 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> 
>> On 6/21/2026 5:59 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>> It just reinforces my point, that Linux servers, particularly
>>> network-intensive ones, can run rings around their Windows
>>> competitors without needing to resort to such extreme-performance
>>> tricks.
>>
>> So, why did they even create io_uring?
> 
> Obviously, it has its specialized uses, in rarefied realms beyond the
> imaginings of those only familiar with Dave-Cutler-type operating
> systems ...

I think its a rather low level way to make high end servers/clients akin 
to dx12/vulkan vs modern opengl?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400219

FromLawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date2026-06-24 02:05 +0000
Message-ID<111fe0r$2mel4$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to#400216
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 14:41:28 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> I think its a rather low level way to make high end servers/clients
> akin to dx12/vulkan vs modern opengl?

No. Async I/O is all about performance. Whereas a programmable
shader pipeline is all about versatility.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400224

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2026-06-24 04:36 -0700
Message-ID<111gffk$2vmup$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#400219
On 6/23/2026 7:05 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 14:41:28 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> 
>> I think its a rather low level way to make high end servers/clients
>> akin to dx12/vulkan vs modern opengl?
> 
> No. Async I/O is all about performance. Whereas a programmable
> shader pipeline is all about versatility.

But take a look on how to have to use io_uring? You have to mmap your 
ring buffers and tell the kernel about them. Its more low-level, like 
dx12 is more low level than modern opengl?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400227

Fromcross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Date2026-06-24 12:19 +0000
Message-ID<111gi18$ic$1@reader1.panix.com>
In reply to#400224
In article <111gffk$2vmup$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/23/2026 7:05 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 14:41:28 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> 
>>> I think its a rather low level way to make high end servers/clients
>>> akin to dx12/vulkan vs modern opengl?
>> 
>> No. Async I/O is all about performance. Whereas a programmable
>> shader pipeline is all about versatility.
>
>But take a look on how to have to use io_uring? You have to mmap your 
>ring buffers and tell the kernel about them. Its more low-level, like 
>dx12 is more low level than modern opengl?

Perhaps you and Lawrence can take this to comp.unix.programmer
or a similar group.

        - Dan C.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400240

FromLawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date2026-06-24 21:47 +0000
Message-ID<111hja1$3b77h$4@dont-email.me>
In reply to#400224
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 04:36:20 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> On 6/23/2026 7:05 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 14:41:28 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>
>>> I think its a rather low level way to make high end
>>> servers/clients akin to dx12/vulkan vs modern opengl?
>>
>> No. Async I/O is all about performance. Whereas a programmable
>> shader pipeline is all about versatility.
>
> But take a look on how to have to use io_uring?

Except you don’t (usually) have to use io_uring, as I already showed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400250

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2026-06-25 12:44 -0700
Message-ID<111k0fr$1aja$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to#400240
On 6/24/2026 2:47 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 04:36:20 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> 
>> On 6/23/2026 7:05 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 14:41:28 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think its a rather low level way to make high end
>>>> servers/clients akin to dx12/vulkan vs modern opengl?
>>>
>>> No. Async I/O is all about performance. Whereas a programmable
>>> shader pipeline is all about versatility.
>>
>> But take a look on how to have to use io_uring?
> 
> Except you don’t (usually) have to use io_uring, as I already showed.

Use only when you need it. Fair enough? ;^)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#399868

From"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Date2026-06-10 12:02 -0700
Message-ID<110ccd4$v7af$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#399802
On 6/8/2026 5:28 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 18:16:10 +0200, fir wrote:
> 
>>       Sleep(100); //wait 100 ms
> 
> That’s usually a dumb thing to do.

More ignorant than dumb wrt to fir?


> It’s either too slow if something
> comes in/goes out more quickly, or too much overhead if communication
> is slower than that. And it just gets worse if you’re trying to juggle
> multiple connections (as a server commonly does).
> 
> Try using this <https://manpages.debian.org/poll(2)>, at least ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#399879

FromLawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date2026-06-11 00:16 +0000
Message-ID<110cup5$13kte$6@dont-email.me>
In reply to#399868
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 12:02:59 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> On 6/8/2026 5:28 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 18:16:10 +0200, fir wrote:
>>
>>>       Sleep(100); //wait 100 ms
>>
>> That’s usually a dumb thing to do.
>
> More ignorant than dumb wrt to fir?

Ignorance should go away with enlightenment.

If they persist in sticking to it, then it becomes wilful ignorance.

Which is just ... dumb.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400095

FromBGB <cr88192@gmail.com>
Date2026-06-17 18:41 -0500
Message-ID<110vbcb$27voq$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#399793
On 6/8/2026 11:16 AM, fir wrote:
> fir pisze:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAzUoizwnXM
>>
>> i dint watched it whole but it comes to my mind that those socket 
>> communication indeed should be probably made using fopen/fread/fwrite/ 
>> fgetc/fputc
>>
>> i was doing only basics of socket programming anver liked it and 
>> remember almost nothing - it is becouse i dont liek stupid things
>> and those sockets looks stupid
>>
>> i guess using this fopen it would be much better..
>>
>> whot would you need i assume you need to fopen connection to distant
>> machine..not sure if it should be one the same for read write or two
>> one for read and one for write..then i think the network card should
>> have buffer whete there is stacked incoming data, same for outcoming 
>> data,a nd thats all as to basics probably..no hanging controll no 
>> additional threads..just like working with files
>>
>> whough additional soft could be written too, based on thai but it 
>> should be sane thing something based like with working with files 
>> (knowing those files are ram files and are contents of incoming and 
>> outcoming buffer
>>
>> thise sockets todajy i dont remember but in my vague mameory it feels 
>> like shit
>>
>> feel free to comment on this topic if you want
>>
> maybe someone who has some experience with socked programming know how 
> the basic communication would look like using this fopen scheme
> 
> main()
> 
> {
>     FILE* f = fopen("1.2.3.4:555");
> 
>    fprintf(f, "hello there\n"); fflush(f);
> 
>    for(int i=0; i<100; i++)
>    {
>      static char buf[4096];
>      if(fgets(buf, sizeof(buf), f))
>         printf("incoming: %s", buf);
> 
>      Sleep(100); //wait 100 ms
> 
> 
> 
>    }
> 
> 
> }
> something like that?


You would probably want it as a URI at least...

Say:
   tcp://1.2.3.4:555
   tcp://[1492:0069::1]:1234
   ...


I had considered something like this for my makeshift TestKern OS, but:
Thus far no proper networking support;
For an FPGA, would need to implement Ethernet, which is a big ask;
For the emulator, would need to implement a full network stack on both 
ends to have fake Ethernet;
...

Within the VFS, URI like notation is supported, and can behave in a 
similar way to mount points (could almost go as far as to mimic Windows 
drive letters, but I had gone with a a Unix style single-root filesystem 
for the main VFS, with directories as mount points).


Given I had already tried and failed to implement working USB support on 
the FPGA, not particularly inclined to face off with Ethernet. A project 
from long ago had used PPP and a Modem, which I could emulate again, or 
use a virtual Null-Modem connection, but, ...

In the project, IIRC there is an (internal only) network stack which 
mostly assumes IPv6 as the baseline, but then maps both IPv4 and 
Unix-domain-sockets through this (and would also support GUID/UUID 
through the same mechanism). Had briefly considered routing X11 over 
this, but then noted that this would be far higher hassle and overhead 
than routing Window/GUI stuff over COM.

You can mostly use the same 128-bit space for nearly all of them, but 
with some level of mutual-exclusivity:
SIXTEENCC and GUIDs are mutually exclusive at the encoding level;
Heuristic means can be used to separate IPv6 addresses from the others;
Though, for IPv6 is it weaker as there are fewer rules the IPv6 
addresses are required to follow, so one can prove that an IPv6 address 
is not a valid SIXTEENCC or a GUID, but can't prove that one of these is 
not a valid IPv6 address (unless by assuming that if it hits as one of 
these, it is probably not an IPv6).

Though, can use different internal protocol numbers for address strength 
(while possibly fudging it for the internal routing).

For Unix sockets, had used SIXTEENCC if the name was short (typical), or 
a hashed ID if longer...



Well, and theoretically could support non-local GUI (if not implementing 
X11) by routing COM over either TCP or UDP (on a LAN setting, UDP would 
likely make more sense).

Well, and/or eventually implement an X11 server as a wrapper.

...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400105

FromLawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date2026-06-18 07:30 +0000
Message-ID<11106rf$2e9gl$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to#400095
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 18:41:57 -0500, BGB wrote:

> (could almost go as far as to mimic Windows drive letters ...

Oh gods, no ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400106

FromBGB <cr88192@gmail.com>
Date2026-06-18 03:49 -0500
Message-ID<1110bfn$2eumg$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#400105
On 6/18/2026 2:30 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 18:41:57 -0500, BGB wrote:
> 
>> (could almost go as far as to mimic Windows drive letters ...
> 
> Oh gods, no ...
> 

Not that there is any plan to do so...

Just that it is also not a huge leap from:
   tcp://whatever
   udp://whatever
   http://whatever
   ftp://whatever
   ...
To:
   c:/whatever...


But, as noted, I was already mostly going with a Unix-like directory 
tree and mount system.

So:
   /usr
   /usr/bin
   /usr/etc
   /dev/...
   ...

Though, in this case, "/boot" is the actual mounted boot device 
(typically a FAT32 drive);
With '/' as a small ramdisk, and "/dev" as a special "devfs";
And, '/usr' was typically a prebuilt read-only VFS image.


Some parts of the design inspired by Unix and Linux, some by Windows, 
and other parts by things like the Doom and Quake engines and similar.

And, then some oddities, like despite nominally FAT being 
case-insensitive, TestKern treats it as case-sensitive.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400115

FromLawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date2026-06-18 23:06 +0000
Message-ID<1111tm9$2uj2s$7@dont-email.me>
In reply to#400106
On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 03:49:55 -0500, BGB wrote:

> Just that it is also not a huge leap from:
>    tcp://whatever
>    udp://whatever
>    http://whatever
>    ftp://whatever
>    ...
> To:
>    c:/whatever...

Yes it is.

In the former, that part before the colon is a protocol. In the
latter, it is now down to just indicating a filesystem drive. And not
even in a unique fashion, like with a volume UUID or something, but
with an arbitarily-assigned “drive letter” which cannot be guaranteed
to be unique or persistent.

Remember, we already have

    file://whatever

for denoting files on the local filesystem. That allows the “whatever”
part to span the entire filesystem, not just one volume/drive.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400116

FromBGB <cr88192@gmail.com>
Date2026-06-19 01:20 -0500
Message-ID<1112n33$34f2d$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#400115
On 6/18/2026 6:06 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 03:49:55 -0500, BGB wrote:
> 
>> Just that it is also not a huge leap from:
>>     tcp://whatever
>>     udp://whatever
>>     http://whatever
>>     ftp://whatever
>>     ...
>> To:
>>     c:/whatever...
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> In the former, that part before the colon is a protocol. In the
> latter, it is now down to just indicating a filesystem drive. And not
> even in a unique fashion, like with a volume UUID or something, but
> with an arbitarily-assigned “drive letter” which cannot be guaranteed
> to be unique or persistent.
> 

Well, on older Windows.

On newer systems, the OS remembers and will assign the same drives to 
the same letter on each boot.


But, yeah, probably wouldn't do it the Windows way. Either they could be 
specified as mounts (in mtab or such), or possibly treated as aliases, say:
   c:/ aliases to /mnt/c


Though, granted, not much particular reason to do this...




> Remember, we already have
> 
>      file://whatever
> 
> for denoting files on the local filesystem. That allows the “whatever”
> part to span the entire filesystem, not just one volume/drive.

Maybe, but you wouldn't need "file://" for "fopen()" or similar, since 
it is sort of an implied default in this case.


Then again, going into the weeds on this:
Would, say:
   cd ftp://foo.org/pub/
   ls
Even really make sense?...

Or, would it be better to ask people to at least mount it into the VFS 
or similar?...



Well, or other mysteries, like, say:
Should usermode applications be allowed to export COM-like interfaces 
that could then be mounted into the VFS?...

Say, for example, an application exports an IFileSystem or IMount 
interface to the VFS, and then one can issue a "mount" on it. Would need 
some way for the VFS do deal gracefully if the application becomes 
unresponsive or crashes though (preferably without nuking the whole OS 
in the process).

Vs, say, assuming programs that export interfaces (as services) to be at 
least semi trsusted / stable...

Though, TODO here would still be to come up with a general mechanism for 
applications to export COM-like interfaces (and tag the interface, and 
have at some way to verify whether both sides agree as to the interface 
layout). Though, there is the trick that was used for versioning in 
BITMAPINFOHEADER and WAVEFORMATEX:
Pass the sizeof the object and vtable, and use this as an informal 
version key (crap strategy, but kinda works...).


In most other contexts, you know in advance which type of interface is 
expected.

But, for some cases, could make sense to have some way for an 
application to just be like "Hey, I want to export an instance of this 
particular interface...".

Say, something sorta like:
   HANDLE tkObjExportInterface(
     GUID uidClz, GUID uidIface,
     IObjectPVoid pVt,
     SIZE szVt, SIZE szDat);


Well, which could likely spawn a new service-handler thread for this and 
return the handle (well, at least in TestKern, every sort of listener 
object essentially needs a thread whose sole purpose is to dispatch 
method calls that come in for that object; in effect the thread goes to 
sleep in a special state where it wakes every time a new method-call 
comes in, and goes back to sleep as soon as it returns to the caller).

Where, say, uidClz gives a GUID or similar identifying the object 
interface type, and uidIface giving an "assumed unique" ID for the 
specific interface being exported.

Could use strings, with a special hashing algorithm to map strings to 
GUID-like form (otherwise, they are either magic numbers; or "assumed 
unique" values generated with a random number generator, and some 
special tag-pattern bits). Note that (like ASLR), the GUID generation 
needs access to a moderately strong random number generator.


May seem like a waste to burn a thread on each object listener, but no 
real better option at present.

Though, another option could be something like, say:
    clz_someobj *obj;
    HANDLE hPub;

    obj=tkObjCreatePublicInstance(
      clz_uid_clz, &clz_someobj_iface,
      sizeof(clz_someobj_iface), sizeof(clz_someobj));
    hPub=tkObjExportInstance(obj, uid_interface);

But, implicitly this is what "tkObjExportInterface()" could likely do 
internally.


Though, generally, this sort of thing is more done for kernel-space 
stuff, not so much for userland. Userland is more often in the role as a 
consumer of interfaces.


Then again, I guess one could argue:
Maybe if userland exports an object, and the handler dies somehow, all 
the method calls simply become no ops?... (well, either this or 
terminate the caller, or do the equivalent of a kernel panic).

Well, may need to sort this stuff out eventually.


Note that generally the interface exported on one side is not the same 
as what the client sees. Generally the client merely sees a dummy object 
with a dummy vtable (method calls then perform system calls that route 
control to the target object).



Well, can note that this is one area where my efforts differ somewhat 
from Linux (which mostly doesn't go here; or would more likely just use 
a sockets).

...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400117

FromDavid Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Date2026-06-19 08:56 +0200
Message-ID<1112p70$34nec$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#400116
On 19/06/2026 08:20, BGB wrote:
> On 6/18/2026 6:06 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 03:49:55 -0500, BGB wrote:
>>
>>> Just that it is also not a huge leap from:
>>>     tcp://whatever
>>>     udp://whatever
>>>     http://whatever
>>>     ftp://whatever
>>>     ...
>>> To:
>>>     c:/whatever...
>>
>> Yes it is.
>>
>> In the former, that part before the colon is a protocol. In the
>> latter, it is now down to just indicating a filesystem drive. And not
>> even in a unique fashion, like with a volume UUID or something, but
>> with an arbitarily-assigned “drive letter” which cannot be guaranteed
>> to be unique or persistent.
>>
> 
> Well, on older Windows.
> 
> On newer systems, the OS remembers and will assign the same drives to 
> the same letter on each boot.
> 

I am not sure what you call "newer", but IIRC Windows has done that 
since Windows 3.1.  The only letters you could assign yourself were for 
network drives, and they were persistent if you choose "persistent=yes".

Later versions of Windows (maybe NT4 or W2K?  I can't remember the 
details) let you choose the letter to use for other drives, such as 
additional harddrives, CD-ROMs and later still, USB drives.  Those 
choices were persistent.

Automatically chosen drive letters were, of course, inconsistent.  And 
when you have a lot of drives and network shares, they run out.

> 
> But, yeah, probably wouldn't do it the Windows way. Either they could be 
> specified as mounts (in mtab or such), or possibly treated as aliases, say:
>    c:/ aliases to /mnt/c

Drive letters make sense when users wanted to distinguish between their 
3.5" floppy "A:" and their 5.25" floppy "B:".  They were still usable 
when you had a hard drive with one partition.  Once it was realistic to 
have two drives in the one PC, and more than one partition on a disk, 
they were outdated and too restrictive for comfort.

They were a product of their time, but offer nothing going forward. 
Copying the concept in any way for a new system is a daft idea.

> 
> 
> Though, granted, not much particular reason to do this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Remember, we already have
>>
>>      file://whatever
>>
>> for denoting files on the local filesystem. That allows the “whatever”
>> part to span the entire filesystem, not just one volume/drive.
> 
> Maybe, but you wouldn't need "file://" for "fopen()" or similar, since 
> it is sort of an implied default in this case.
> 
> 
> Then again, going into the weeds on this:
> Would, say:
>    cd ftp://foo.org/pub/
>    ls
> Even really make sense?...
> 

That could be nice, at least for things that support a file and 
directory model.  It all depends on how you want to treat user 
convenience, security, reliability, etc.

> Or, would it be better to ask people to at least mount it into the VFS 
> or similar?...

You are likely to need a user name and password here somewhere.

> 
> 
> 
> Well, or other mysteries, like, say:
> Should usermode applications be allowed to export COM-like interfaces 
> that could then be mounted into the VFS?...
> 
> Say, for example, an application exports an IFileSystem or IMount 
> interface to the VFS, and then one can issue a "mount" on it. Would need 
> some way for the VFS do deal gracefully if the application becomes 
> unresponsive or crashes though (preferably without nuking the whole OS 
> in the process).

Like "fuse" on Linux (and similar things on other systems) ?  Usermode 
is the way to go for anything that is not speed critical.

> 
> Vs, say, assuming programs that export interfaces (as services) to be at 
> least semi trsusted / stable...
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400120

FromBart <bc@freeuk.com>
Date2026-06-19 10:42 +0100
Message-ID<11132u8$37hrh$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#400117
On 19/06/2026 07:56, David Brown wrote:
> On 19/06/2026 08:20, BGB wrote:
>> On 6/18/2026 6:06 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 03:49:55 -0500, BGB wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just that it is also not a huge leap from:
>>>>     tcp://whatever
>>>>     udp://whatever
>>>>     http://whatever
>>>>     ftp://whatever
>>>>     ...
>>>> To:
>>>>     c:/whatever...
>>>
>>> Yes it is.
>>>
>>> In the former, that part before the colon is a protocol. In the
>>> latter, it is now down to just indicating a filesystem drive. And not
>>> even in a unique fashion, like with a volume UUID or something, but
>>> with an arbitarily-assigned “drive letter” which cannot be guaranteed
>>> to be unique or persistent.
>>>
>>
>> Well, on older Windows.
>>
>> On newer systems, the OS remembers and will assign the same drives to 
>> the same letter on each boot.
>>
> 
> I am not sure what you call "newer", but IIRC Windows has done that 
> since Windows 3.1.  The only letters you could assign yourself were for 
> network drives, and they were persistent if you choose "persistent=yes".
> 
> Later versions of Windows (maybe NT4 or W2K?  I can't remember the 
> details) let you choose the letter to use for other drives, such as 
> additional harddrives, CD-ROMs and later still, USB drives.  Those 
> choices were persistent.
> 
> Automatically chosen drive letters were, of course, inconsistent.  And 
> when you have a lot of drives and network shares, they run out.
> 
>>
>> But, yeah, probably wouldn't do it the Windows way. Either they could 
>> be specified as mounts (in mtab or such), or possibly treated as 
>> aliases, say:
>>    c:/ aliases to /mnt/c
> 
> Drive letters make sense when users wanted to distinguish between their 
> 3.5" floppy "A:" and their 5.25" floppy "B:".  They were still usable 
> when you had a hard drive with one partition.  Once it was realistic to 
> have two drives in the one PC, and more than one partition on a disk, 
> they were outdated and too restrictive for comfort.

How would you distinguish between two floppy drives on a Unix-like file 
system?

If writing a common shell script for other people to use on their own 
machines, would you be able to use the same designations?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400121

Fromcross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Date2026-06-19 10:18 +0000
Message-ID<1113515$ib4$1@reader1.panix.com>
In reply to#400120
In article <11132u8$37hrh$1@dont-email.me>, Bart  <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>On 19/06/2026 07:56, David Brown wrote:
>> On 19/06/2026 08:20, BGB wrote:
>>> On 6/18/2026 6:06 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 03:49:55 -0500, BGB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just that it is also not a huge leap from:
>>>>>     tcp://whatever
>>>>>     udp://whatever
>>>>>     http://whatever
>>>>>     ftp://whatever
>>>>>     ...
>>>>> To:
>>>>>     c:/whatever...
>>>>
>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>
>>>> In the former, that part before the colon is a protocol. In the
>>>> latter, it is now down to just indicating a filesystem drive. And not
>>>> even in a unique fashion, like with a volume UUID or something, but
>>>> with an arbitarily-assigned “drive letter” which cannot be guaranteed
>>>> to be unique or persistent.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, on older Windows.
>>>
>>> On newer systems, the OS remembers and will assign the same drives to 
>>> the same letter on each boot.
>>>
>> 
>> I am not sure what you call "newer", but IIRC Windows has done that 
>> since Windows 3.1.  The only letters you could assign yourself were for 
>> network drives, and they were persistent if you choose "persistent=yes".
>> 
>> Later versions of Windows (maybe NT4 or W2K?  I can't remember the 
>> details) let you choose the letter to use for other drives, such as 
>> additional harddrives, CD-ROMs and later still, USB drives.  Those 
>> choices were persistent.
>> 
>> Automatically chosen drive letters were, of course, inconsistent.  And 
>> when you have a lot of drives and network shares, they run out.
>> 
>>>
>>> But, yeah, probably wouldn't do it the Windows way. Either they could 
>>> be specified as mounts (in mtab or such), or possibly treated as 
>>> aliases, say:
>>>    c:/ aliases to /mnt/c
>> 
>> Drive letters make sense when users wanted to distinguish between their 
>> 3.5" floppy "A:" and their 5.25" floppy "B:".  They were still usable 
>> when you had a hard drive with one partition.  Once it was realistic to 
>> have two drives in the one PC, and more than one partition on a disk, 
>> they were outdated and too restrictive for comfort.
>
>How would you distinguish between two floppy drives on a Unix-like file 
>system?

Based on the directory name where you mount them.

>If writing a common shell script for other people to use on their own 
>machines, would you be able to use the same designations?

You don't.  You parameterize it.  Why would I want to restrict a
shell script to only working with the contents of floppy disks?

Obligatory plan 9 example:

    cpu% grep floppy /dev/drivers
    #f floppy
    cpu% ls '#f'
    '#f/fd0ctl'
    '#f/fd0disk'
    '#f/fd1ctl'
    '#f/fd1disk'
    cpu% bind -a '#f' /dev
    cpu% ls -l /dev/fd0disk
    --rw-rw---- f 0 bootes bootes 1474560 Sep 20  2021 /dev/fd0disk
    cpu% dossrv
    dossrv: serving #s/dos
    cpu% mount -c /srv/dos /n/floppy0 /dev/fd0disk
    cpu% mount -c /srv/dos /n/floppy1 /dev/fd1disk
    cpu% 

This was all wrapped up into a shell script:

    cpu% cat /bin/a:
    #!/bin/rc
    rfork e
    flop=/dev/fd0disk
    if(! test -r $flop)
    	flop='#f'/fd0disk
    if(! test -f /srv/dos)
    	dossrv >/dev/null </dev/null >[2]/dev/null
    unmount /n/a:>[2]/dev/null
    mount -c /srv/dos /n/a: $flop
    unmount /n/a >[2]/dev/null
    mount -c /srv/dos /n/a $flop
    cpu% 

The floppy device is built into the kernel.  The names relative
to `/n` are arbitrary; the contents of both floppies are now
available on /n/floppy0 and /n/floppy1 respectively.  `dossrv`
is a program that implements a few variations of FAT
filesystems.

The key observation is that shoehorning everything into `open`
is the wrong model; instead, conceptually splitting into
separate `mount` and access operations simplifies and permits
composition.  Making `mount` unprivileged and allowing the user
to control their view of the file namespace makes all of this
natural.

        - Dan C.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400123

FromBart <bc@freeuk.com>
Date2026-06-19 15:29 +0100
Message-ID<1113jni$3cklj$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#400121
On 19/06/2026 11:18, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <11132u8$37hrh$1@dont-email.me>, Bart  <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> On 19/06/2026 07:56, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 19/06/2026 08:20, BGB wrote:
>>>> On 6/18/2026 6:06 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 03:49:55 -0500, BGB wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just that it is also not a huge leap from:
>>>>>>      tcp://whatever
>>>>>>      udp://whatever
>>>>>>      http://whatever
>>>>>>      ftp://whatever
>>>>>>      ...
>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>      c:/whatever...
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the former, that part before the colon is a protocol. In the
>>>>> latter, it is now down to just indicating a filesystem drive. And not
>>>>> even in a unique fashion, like with a volume UUID or something, but
>>>>> with an arbitarily-assigned “drive letter” which cannot be guaranteed
>>>>> to be unique or persistent.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, on older Windows.
>>>>
>>>> On newer systems, the OS remembers and will assign the same drives to
>>>> the same letter on each boot.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am not sure what you call "newer", but IIRC Windows has done that
>>> since Windows 3.1.  The only letters you could assign yourself were for
>>> network drives, and they were persistent if you choose "persistent=yes".
>>>
>>> Later versions of Windows (maybe NT4 or W2K?  I can't remember the
>>> details) let you choose the letter to use for other drives, such as
>>> additional harddrives, CD-ROMs and later still, USB drives.  Those
>>> choices were persistent.
>>>
>>> Automatically chosen drive letters were, of course, inconsistent.  And
>>> when you have a lot of drives and network shares, they run out.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But, yeah, probably wouldn't do it the Windows way. Either they could
>>>> be specified as mounts (in mtab or such), or possibly treated as
>>>> aliases, say:
>>>>     c:/ aliases to /mnt/c
>>>
>>> Drive letters make sense when users wanted to distinguish between their
>>> 3.5" floppy "A:" and their 5.25" floppy "B:".  They were still usable
>>> when you had a hard drive with one partition.  Once it was realistic to
>>> have two drives in the one PC, and more than one partition on a disk,
>>> they were outdated and too restrictive for comfort.
>>
>> How would you distinguish between two floppy drives on a Unix-like file
>> system?
> 
> Based on the directory name where you mount them.
> 
>> If writing a common shell script for other people to use on their own
>> machines, would you be able to use the same designations?
> 
> You don't.  You parameterize it.  Why would I want to restrict a
> shell script to only working with the contents of floppy disks?
> 
> Obligatory plan 9 example:
> 
>      cpu% grep floppy /dev/drivers
>      #f floppy
>      cpu% ls '#f'
>      '#f/fd0ctl'
>      '#f/fd0disk'
>      '#f/fd1ctl'
>      '#f/fd1disk'
>      cpu% bind -a '#f' /dev
>      cpu% ls -l /dev/fd0disk
>      --rw-rw---- f 0 bootes bootes 1474560 Sep 20  2021 /dev/fd0disk
>      cpu% dossrv
>      dossrv: serving #s/dos
>      cpu% mount -c /srv/dos /n/floppy0 /dev/fd0disk
>      cpu% mount -c /srv/dos /n/floppy1 /dev/fd1disk
>      cpu%
> 
> This was all wrapped up into a shell script:
> 
>      cpu% cat /bin/a:
>      #!/bin/rc
>      rfork e
>      flop=/dev/fd0disk
>      if(! test -r $flop)
>      	flop='#f'/fd0disk
>      if(! test -f /srv/dos)
>      	dossrv >/dev/null </dev/null >[2]/dev/null
>      unmount /n/a:>[2]/dev/null
>      mount -c /srv/dos /n/a: $flop
>      unmount /n/a >[2]/dev/null
>      mount -c /srv/dos /n/a $flop
>      cpu%
> 
> The floppy device is built into the kernel.  The names relative
> to `/n` are arbitrary; the contents of both floppies are now
> available on /n/floppy0 and /n/floppy1 respectively.  `dossrv`
> is a program that implements a few variations of FAT
> filesystems.

Machines that used floppy disks with drive letters tended to be used by 
non-technical members of the public.

If I was doing technical support on the phone (which I actually did), 
what would I tell someone to type in to refer to say the leftmost of 
their two floppy drives:

Would it actually be "/n/floppy0", or would that depend on what had been 
set up the client's specific machine? I assume it would have to be all 
in the right case too?

The beauty of letter designations is that you just say 'type A colon'; 
it doesn't matter if they do A: or a: either as those OSes tended to be 
case-insensitive.

This was also long before Windows, in my case on a CP/M clone.




> The key observation is that shoehorning everything into `open`
> is the wrong model; instead, conceptually splitting into
> separate `mount` and access operations simplifies and permits
> composition.  Making `mount` unprivileged and allowing the user
> to control their view of the file namespace makes all of this
> natural.

'Mount' wasn't a thing on those machines. It was usually plug-and-play.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web