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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #9053 > unrolled thread

Too bad this group is gone

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

Contents

  Too bad this group is gone "BarryG" <barryg2@peoplepc.com> - 2011-08-06 23:55 -0500
    Re: Too bad this group is gone Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-08-06 23:44 -0600
    Re: Too bad this group is gone cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-08-07 20:38 +0000
      Re: Too bad this group is gone "osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2011-08-07 16:13 -0500
        Re: Too bad this group is gone James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-07 18:28 -0400
        Re: Too bad this group is gone Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-08-08 09:53 -0400
    Re: Too bad this group is gone jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-08-08 00:16 +0200
      Re: Too bad this group is gone August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-08-08 00:40 +0200
        Re: Too bad this group is gone jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-08-08 10:05 +0200
          Re: Too bad this group is gone Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-08-08 12:51 +0100
    Re: Too bad this group is gone Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-08-08 10:17 +0200
      Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-08 14:25 +0100
        Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-08 14:22 +0000
          Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-08 17:30 +0100
            Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-08 17:04 +0000
              Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-08 19:10 +0100
                Re: Too bad this group is gone Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-08-08 18:38 +0000
                Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-08 20:38 +0000
                  Re: Too bad this group is gone Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-08-08 20:43 +0000
                  Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-09 16:02 +0100
                Re: Too bad this group is gone Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-08-09 00:15 +0200
                  Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-09 15:44 +0100
                    Re: Too bad this group is gone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-09 08:07 -0700
                      Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-09 20:20 +0100
                        Re: Too bad this group is gone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-09 12:42 -0700
            Re: Too bad this group is gone Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-08-08 23:50 +0200
              Re: Too bad this group is gone Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-09 10:08 +1200
                Re: Too bad this group is gone James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-08 18:18 -0400
                  Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-09 15:33 +0100
                Re: Too bad this group is gone blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-08-08 15:23 -0700
                  Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-09 15:20 +0100
              Re: Too bad this group is gone jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2011-08-08 23:18 +0000
                Re: Too bad this group is gone Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-08-09 05:06 +0000
                Re: Too bad this group is gone Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-08-09 11:11 +0200
              Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-09 15:01 +0100
                Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-09 14:23 +0000
                  Re: Too bad this group is gone gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-08-09 14:53 +0000
                    Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-09 17:45 +0000
                      Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-09 20:51 +0100
                        Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-09 20:23 +0000
                          Re: Too bad this group is gone Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-08-10 07:27 -0700
                          Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-12 22:02 +0100
                            Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-12 22:28 +0000
                      Re: Too bad this group is gone Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-08-10 11:16 +0000
                        Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-10 14:59 +0000
                          Re: Too bad this group is gone James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-10 11:30 -0400
                            Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-10 16:20 +0000
                              Re: Too bad this group is gone James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-10 13:14 -0400
                                Re: Too bad this group is gone James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-11 08:00 -0400
                                  Re: Too bad this group is gone gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-08-11 12:13 +0000
                                    Re: Too bad this group is gone James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-12 00:06 -0400
                                      Re: Too bad this group is gone James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-12 00:39 -0400
                              Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-10 17:32 +0000
                                Re: Too bad this group is gone gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-08-10 23:14 +0000
                                Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-11 14:02 +0000
                                  Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-12 21:49 +0100
                                    Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-12 21:14 +0000
                                      Re: Too bad this group is gone James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-12 17:49 -0400
                                        Re: Too bad this group is gone Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-08-13 01:46 +0100
                                          Re: Too bad this group is gone Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-08-13 09:19 +0000
                                      Re: Too bad this group is gone James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-13 08:39 -0400
                                      Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-13 16:34 +0000
                                        Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-13 20:18 +0000
                                          Re: Too bad this group is gone Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-08-18 06:34 +0000
                                            Re: Too bad this group is gone Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-18 12:20 +0300
                                              Re: Too bad this group is gone BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-18 17:36 +0000
                                            Re: Too bad this group is gone James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-18 07:10 -0400
                                      Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-13 16:39 +0000
                                        Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-13 20:15 +0000
                                        Re: Too bad this group is gone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-13 18:21 -0700
                                Re: Too bad this group is gone "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-08-12 04:36 +0100
                                  Re: Too bad this group is gone James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-12 00:03 -0400
                                    Re: Too bad this group is gone James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-13 15:29 -0400
                                      Re: Too bad this group is gone Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-14 04:26 -0700
                                    Re: Too bad this group is gone Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-08-13 20:51 +0000
                                    Re: Too bad this group is gone "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-08-14 03:15 +0100
                                      Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-14 02:29 +0000
                                        Re: Too bad this group is gone Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-08-14 05:48 +0000
                                          Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-14 06:24 +0000
                                          Re: Too bad this group is gone Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-08-14 08:12 +0000
                                            Re: Too bad this group is gone Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-14 04:39 -0700
                                              Re: Too bad this group is gone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-14 11:36 -0700
                        Re: Too bad this group is gone Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-08-10 17:55 +0000
                  Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-09 16:43 +0100
                    Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-09 17:47 +0000
                      Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-09 18:26 +0000
                        Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-12 21:13 +0100
                      Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-09 20:42 +0100
                        Re: Too bad this group is gone Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-08-09 19:54 +0000
                          Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-12 21:11 +0100
                            Re: Too bad this group is gone Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-08-12 20:25 +0000
                              Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-12 22:41 +0100
                    Re: Too bad this group is gone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-09 11:28 -0700
                      Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-09 20:38 +0100
                        Re: Too bad this group is gone Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-08-09 19:59 +0000
                        Re: Too bad this group is gone Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-08-09 20:01 +0000
                          Re: Too bad this group is gone gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-08-09 22:42 +0000
                        Re: Too bad this group is gone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-09 13:16 -0700
                          Re: Too bad this group is gone jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-08-10 12:12 +0200
                            Re: Too bad this group is gone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-10 08:44 -0700
                              Re: Too bad this group is gone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-10 11:36 -0700
                                Re: Too bad this group is gone lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2011-08-10 23:11 -0700
                                  Re: Too bad this group is gone jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-08-11 15:05 +0200
                                Re: Too bad this group is gone James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-11 08:43 -0400
                              Re: Too bad this group is gone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-11 08:02 -0700
                            Re: Too bad this group is gone Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-08-10 10:39 -0600
                              Re: Too bad this group is gone gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-08-11 03:47 +0000
                            Re: Too bad this group is gone Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-08-11 00:33 +0200
                              Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-12 20:57 +0100
                          Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-12 20:40 +0100
                            Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-12 20:14 +0000
                            Re: Too bad this group is gone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-12 13:51 -0700
                              Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-12 22:12 +0100
                                Re: Too bad this group is gone Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-08-13 01:42 +0100
                                  Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-13 23:52 +0100
                                    Re: Too bad this group is gone Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-08-14 00:35 +0100
                                    Re: Too bad this group is gone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-13 18:23 -0700
                      Re: Too bad this group is gone gordonb.mbkym@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-08-10 20:50 -0500
                        Re: Too bad this group is gone gordonb.6v878@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-08-11 03:34 -0500
                          Re: Too bad this group is gone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-11 08:23 -0700
                  Re: Too bad this group is gone Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-10 03:16 -0700
            Re: Too bad this group is gone John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2011-08-11 11:12 -0700
              Re: Too bad this group is gone Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-08-12 20:15 +0100
                Re: Too bad this group is gone John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-12 20:07 +0000
                Re: Too bad this group is gone Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-08-12 20:39 +0000
                Re: Too bad this group is gone John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2011-08-15 08:00 -0700
                  Re: Too bad this group is gone gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-08-15 17:03 +0000

Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7  Next page →

#9167

"Jed" <jehdiah@orbitway.net> writes:
> "Keith Thompson" <kst-u@mib.org> wrote in message 
> news:lnhb5p9sq8.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org...
>> jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> writes:
>>> Le 09/08/11 22:16, Keith Thompson a écrit :
>>>> Whatever the relative merits, I suggest that users are better served 
>>>> by
>>>> a service that they actually use.  If you have any suggestions for
>>>> encouraging people to use Usenet, feel free to share them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well a suggestion would be that you disappear from this group. It 
>>> would
>>> vastly improve it.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance
>>
>> I've responded to this by e-mail.  Let's not have this argument,
>> whatever it may be about, in public.
>
> Why does he dislike you? 

I honestly don't know, but let's not discuss it here.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#9192

On Aug 11, 1:12?pm, "Jed" <jehd...@orbitway.net> wrote:
> "Keith Thompson" <ks...@mib.org> wrote in message
> news:lnd3gd9kr1.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org...
> > "Jed" <jehd...@orbitway.net> writes:
> >> "Keith Thompson" <ks...@mib.org> wrote in message
> >>news:lnhb5p9sq8.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org...
> >>> jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> writes:
> >>>> Le 09/08/11 22:16, Keith Thompson a ?f??crit :
> >>>>> Whatever the relative merits, I suggest that users are better
> >>>>> served
> >>>>> by
> >>>>> a service that they actually use. ?If you have any suggestions for
> >>>>> encouraging people to use Usenet, feel free to share them.
>
> >>>> Well a suggestion would be that you disappear from this group. It
> >>>> would
> >>>> vastly improve it.
>
> >>>> Thanks in advance
>
> >>> I've responded to this by e-mail. ?Let's not have this argument,
> >>> whatever it may be about, in public.
>
> >> Why does he dislike you?
>
> > I honestly don't know, but let's not discuss it here.
>
> Perhaps he just forgot to add the ;-) emoticon. It happens a lot to the
> inebriated. ;-)

Maybe Jacob dislikes Richard Healthfield too:)

Maybe because Keith and others wrote some comments on the free license
(and maybe quality:)) of Jacob's C implementation in posts which Jocob
didn't like. I tried free C compilers like GCC, and Bellard's TCC. I
hope I had the chance to try Jacob's C Compiler one day if it is as
good as those I just mentioned.

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

#9208

Le 11/08/11 14:39, James Kuyper a écrit :
>
> I've seen no such comments about the freeness of his license from
> others. Only jacob himself has made an issue of that, suggesting that
> the fact that his licenses for his compiler are free (for some people -
> others have to pay for them) qualifies as an excuse for promoting his
> compiler in this newsgroup.

You (and k.thompson) are always complaining about what I do. My compiler
is not free, you say. And if I give it for free it is because "I have
nobody that will buy the license". And if I develop an entirely free
containers library you always ignore it, probably because you are unable 
to say anything about some piece of code (like thompson, that
is unable to do that either)

Obviously you ARE able to say:

int main(void)

and "do not cast the result of malloc"

but you go not much further.


> Others have occasionally talked about such
> things as the responsibilities he bears toward his paying customers - to
> which he has responded by vehemently denying having any paying
> customers.

I work for a living. Incredible isn't it? And I do have customers.

> Since there's only certain groups that qualify for his free
> license, then if he has no paying customers, that implies that he's
> never had anyone outside of those groups who was actually willing to pay
> for the license.
>

Bullshit.

> Others may have disparaged the quality of jacob's compiler. I personally
> have pointed out that certain specific mistakes he's made cast doubt on
> the quality of the entire compiler, by suggesting poor craftsmanship and
> a bad attitude towards conformance with the standard.
>

I worked for 10 years implementing alone the C99 standard.

But that HUGE effort doesn't count at all.

Mr kuyper, that hasn't developed anything
can say: "poor craftsmanship and a bad attitude towards conformance with 
the standard"

What can I say about this bunch of people?

They aren't even worth an insult.

> However, I believe that Keith has very carefully avoided making any such
> generalizations.

thompson will never assert something, he is too hypocrite to have a
stated opinion.

> Rather than suggesting that the compiler has low
> quality overall, he has restricted his comments to discussing specific
> features of the compiler that might be considered defective. Often,
> whether or not they are defective depends upon whether or not jacob
> cares about conformance to the C90 or C99 standards, and Keith has been
> always been among the first to point out that if jacob wants to give
> standards conformance a low priority, jacob has every right to do so.
>

Sure. I have the right to be non conforming you say, after that I have
implemented most of the standard and the standard library, YEARS of
efforts. But then it was a "low priority" effort you say...

> jacob has made it quite clear (by his actions, if not so clearly by his
> words) that his extensions to C have a much higher priority for him than
> full conformance with the C standard. Most of those extensions were
> already in place long before he ever announced full conformance with
> either C90 or C99.

I have proposed and implemented extensions to the standard. I have 
defended those extensions in this group, to be insulted by the clique of
thompson, heathfield, and you with "off topic" complaints, or whatever


The new people coming to this group do not have the context, and afer
all this years of efforts (and expenses) I have no money and energy left
to go on.

People like kuyper or thompson, that have NEVER contributed a single
line of code can say anything they want. My compiler remains popular,
and each day I have thousand downloads or more since YEARS. My compiler
system has gone beyond the million downloads years ago.

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

#9207

On 08/11/2011 01:12 AM, Jed wrote:
> "Keith Thompson" <kst-u@mib.org> wrote in message 
> news:lnd3gd9kr1.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org...
>> "Jed" <jehdiah@orbitway.net> writes:
>>> "Keith Thompson" <kst-u@mib.org> wrote in message
>>> news:lnhb5p9sq8.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org...
>>>> jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> writes:
...
>>>>> Well a suggestion would be that you disappear from this group. It
>>>>> would
>>>>> vastly improve it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks in advance
>>>>
>>>> I've responded to this by e-mail.  Let's not have this argument,
>>>> whatever it may be about, in public.
>>>
>>> Why does he dislike you?
>>
>> I honestly don't know, but let's not discuss it here.
>>
> 
> Perhaps he just forgot to add the ;-) emoticon. ...

That's highly implausible, given the history of his previous discussions
with Keith (and others).
-- 
James Kuyper

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

#9215

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> writes:
>> Le 09/08/11 22:16, Keith Thompson a écrit :
>>> Whatever the relative merits, I suggest that users are better served by
>>> a service that they actually use.  If you have any suggestions for
>>> encouraging people to use Usenet, feel free to share them.
>>
>> Well a suggestion would be that you disappear from this group. It would
>> vastly improve it.
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>
> I've responded to this by e-mail.  Let's not have this argument,
> whatever it may be about, in public.

jacob, did you receive the e-mail I sent you yesterday?  Do you intend
to reply to it?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#9151

jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> writes:

> Le 09/08/11 22:16, Keith Thompson a écrit :
>>
>> Whatever the relative merits, I suggest that users are better served by
>> a service that they actually use.  If you have any suggestions for
>> encouraging people to use Usenet, feel free to share them.
>>
>
> Well a suggestion would be that you disappear from this group. It would
> vastly improve it.
>
> Thanks in advance

You've got to be joking.  Keith is one of the most knowledgeable,
helpful people in this group.

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

#9185

In article <1bliv1i5kc.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net>,
Joe Pfeiffer  <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> writes:
>
>> Le 09/08/11 22:16, Keith Thompson a écrit :
>>>
>>> Whatever the relative merits, I suggest that users are better served by
>>> a service that they actually use.  If you have any suggestions for
>>> encouraging people to use Usenet, feel free to share them.
>>>
>>
>> Well a suggestion would be that you disappear from this group. It would
>> vastly improve it.
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>
>You've got to be joking.  Keith is one of the most knowledgeable,
>helpful people in this group.

I doubt that.  But he's certainly the most entertaining.  I read everything
he writes.

-- 
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy  of the church so decides." 

    - Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order -

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

#9177

Am 08/10/2011 12:12 PM, schrieb jacob navia:
> Le 09/08/11 22:16, Keith Thompson a écrit :
>>
>> Whatever the relative merits, I suggest that users are better served by
>> a service that they actually use.  If you have any suggestions for
>> encouraging people to use Usenet, feel free to share them.
>>
> 
> Well a suggestion would be that you disappear from this group. It would
> vastly improve it.

wow, again

what a good advocate for newsgroups you are

to summarize the discussion

- somebody asks why this group is declining
- somebody else answers that he finds the tone sometimes too rude and that
  there are sites that provide better service for some kind of
  question
- yet another one simplifies the rules of that other site to its
  voting system (obviously without knowing much how that functions for
  real) and suggest that people that use this site are morons
- someone tries to be constructive and asks for suggestions that could
  make usenet more attractive, again
- this is really too much, and some final worrier ask that person to
  fuck off

well, anybody interested to know why this newsgroup is declining?

Jens

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

#9283

Jens Gustedt wrote:

> wow, again
> 
> what a good advocate for newsgroups you are
> 
> to summarize the discussion
> 
> - somebody asks why this group is declining
> - somebody else answers that he finds the tone sometimes too rude and that
> there are sites that provide better service for some kind of
> question
> - yet another one simplifies the rules of that other site to its
> voting system (obviously without knowing much how that functions for
> real) and suggest that people that use this site are morons

If you are able to overcome your passive-aggressiveness, you can try to 
point out exactly what assertions regarding that voting system weren't valid 
and which of it's faults actually aren't faults.


> - someone tries to be constructive and asks for suggestions that could
> make usenet more attractive, again
> - this is really too much, and some final worrier ask that person to
> fuck off
> 
> well, anybody interested to know why this newsgroup is declining?

If you believe that a single unpleasant post is the cause of any decline 
then every single internet forum would be in decline right from their 
inception.  Heck, even in the real world, where people interact face-to-
face, this is a given.

Moreover, usenet's decline spans for decades, and the idea that this decline 
is due to the natural way some users interact (and which isn't exclusive of 
usenet) is both nieve and, in this case, self-serving.


Rui Maciel

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

#9282

Keith Thompson wrote:

> In other words, no.  (I asked whether you have actual data, not whether
> it can lead to false results.)

If you are unable to state what you want then you can't complain that others 
don't give it to you.


> Whatever the relative merits, I suggest that users are better served by
> a service that they actually use.  If you have any suggestions for
> encouraging people to use Usenet, feel free to share them.

This reminds me of the following quote from that old BBC series "Yes 
Minister":

"Something must be done. This is something, therefore we must do it."


The thing is, if a specific service represents a disservice then people 
aren't better served by using it.  In this case, we have a service whose 
only added value, when compared to any other internet forum, is that it 
provides a way to vote up some answers.  Yet, this vote count is meaningless 
and irrelevant.  As it has already been seen, some users actually believe 
that these votes are directly correlated with aspects such as technical 
correctness, validity and even truth, which is absurd.  Therefore, if some 
clueless user happens to "actually use" that service expecting that the 
highest rated answers are the right ones, no matter how wrong they might be, 
then he isn't actually benefiting from using it.  That user is just being 
led into a series of problems which otherwise he wouldn't need to face.


Rui Maciel

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

#9285

In <4e4584c7$0$31413$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes:

> As it has already been seen, some users actually believe that these votes
> are directly correlated with aspects such as technical correctness,
> validity and even truth, which is absurd.

Certainly there's no guarantee of correctness, but I believe that a high
vote count does tend to indicate a correct answer.

-- 
John Gordon                   A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
gordon@panix.com              B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
                                -- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"

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

#9292

Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>> In other words, no.  (I asked whether you have actual data, not whether
>> it can lead to false results.)
>
> If you are unable to state what you want then you can't complain that others 
> don't give it to you.

The phrase "actual data" was in my question, which you've snipped along
with the rest of the context.  I don't see how I could have been
clearer.  But I've pretty much stopped caring about the answer, so I'm
happy to drop it.

[...]

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#9297

Keith Thompson wrote:

> Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes:
>> Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> In other words, no.  (I asked whether you have actual data, not whether
>>> it can lead to false results.)
>>
>> If you are unable to state what you want then you can't complain that
>> others don't give it to you.
> 
> The phrase "actual data" was in my question, which you've snipped along
> with the rest of the context.  I don't see how I could have been
> clearer.  But I've pretty much stopped caring about the answer, so I'm
> happy to drop it.

You've "snipped along" a fundamental part, which you aren't accounting for.  
To freshen the memory, you are referring to this quote:

<quote>
Keith Thompson wrote:

> Do you have actual data that indicates stackoverflow.com doesn't work
> well for its intended purpose?

It really depends on what you define as what the site's intended purpose or 
what can be seen as working well.
</quote>


You didn't defined what you perceived as being the site's intended purpose.  
As you haven't provided any definition then you can't complain that others 
didn't provided you with actual data that indicate anything at all.  So, 
unless you actually specify what you belive to be the site's intended then 
you can't seriously expect (or are seriously expecting) to access any 
information.  You are effectively calling for a wild-goose chase whose only 
purpose is to waste time and does nothing to advance this discussion.



Rui Maciel

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

#9310

Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes:

> Keith Thompson wrote:
>
>> Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> In other words, no.  (I asked whether you have actual data, not whether
>>>> it can lead to false results.)
>>>
>>> If you are unable to state what you want then you can't complain that
>>> others don't give it to you.
>> 
>> The phrase "actual data" was in my question, which you've snipped along
>> with the rest of the context.  I don't see how I could have been
>> clearer.  But I've pretty much stopped caring about the answer, so I'm
>> happy to drop it.
>
> You've "snipped along" a fundamental part, which you aren't accounting for.  
> To freshen the memory, you are referring to this quote:
>
> <quote>
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>
>> Do you have actual data that indicates stackoverflow.com doesn't work
>> well for its intended purpose?
>
> It really depends on what you define as what the site's intended purpose or 
> what can be seen as working well.
> </quote>
>
> You didn't defined what you perceived as being the site's intended purpose.  
> As you haven't provided any definition then you can't complain that others 
> didn't provided you with actual data that indicate anything at all.

Why is that a matter for Keith Thompson?  You made a claim and a request
for supporting data was made.  You are free to define both terms how you
like -- provided the effect is close to the original criticisms you made
of stackoverflow.com (i.e. you can't now say that the site's purpose is
making ice cream so it's clearly not working well).

It was my understanding that you thought sites like stackoverflow.com
don't work well.  I'd also like to know if this is just your feeling
about them or if you have some data about that.  However, I'm not going
to define what *you* mean by not working well.  Tell us along with the
data.

Equally, just say it's your opinion or you've had bad experiences with
such sites.  There's no shame in having an opinion and no data.

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

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

#9373

Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> Why is that a matter for Keith Thompson?  

Obviously, because he was the one who made the request.  If a person is 
honestly interested in accessing data then the very least that person is 
able to do is exactly specify which criterias they would like that data to 
match.  If that person claims that he would li


> You made a claim and a request
> for supporting data was made.  

If the person who made the request is unable to provide any definition on 
what that data might be and is unwilling to provide it then the request 
obviously wasn't seriours.  After all, if it was then that would be the very 
least that person would do, and would have done it automatically.  
Meanwhile, the unwillingness to specity anything has been clearly made 
aware.


> You are free to define both terms how you
> like

I would agree with you, if Keith Thompson hadn't been reacting to this sort 
of action by accusing those who do it of "cherry-picking words".  So, as 
this appears to be turned into one of those cases where "damned if you do 
and damned if yo don't", then I expect others to do a bit of legwork of 
their own.


> -- provided the effect is close to the original criticisms you made
> of stackoverflow.com (i.e. you can't now say that the site's purpose is
> making ice cream so it's clearly not working well).

The problem is that is expectable that any definition which I could provide, 
no matter what it could be, would receive the same empty criticism that has 
been thrown before.  And the unwillingless to provide any definition that 
has been demonstrated does point to this.


> It was my understanding that you thought sites like stackoverflow.com
> don't work well.  

As I've repeatedly pointed out (and I'm not aware of anyone contradicting 
it), their voting system is irrelevant and meaningless, and that's basically 
the only difference that that site has with other incantations of internet 
forums.  Therefore, claiming that that site is so much better than other 
internet forums, usenet in particular, because it provides a voting system 
that is irrelevant and meaningless is a silly claim to make.


> I'd also like to know if this is just your feeling
> about them or if you have some data about that.  However, I'm not going
> to define what you mean by not working well.  Tell us along with the
> data.
> 
> Equally, just say it's your opinion or you've had bad experiences with
> such sites.  There's no shame in having an opinion and no data.


Again, if you are unwilling to provide any definition on what constitutes 
"working well" then I also doubt that you have any serious interest in 
getting your doubt answered.  Adding to this, I've already posted multiple 
times in this thread the issues regarding how that site's content is 
presented to the users, and how the perceived indicators for validity and 
correctness are meaningless and irrelevant.  So, if there is any honest 
curiosity in learning this and if this has already been mentioned multiple 
times in this very thread, why is it necessary to keep repeating it?


Rui Maciel

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

#9374

Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes:

> Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>
>> Why is that a matter for Keith Thompson?  
>
> Obviously, because he was the one who made the request.  If a person is 
> honestly interested in accessing data then the very least that person is 
> able to do is exactly specify which criterias they would like that data to 
> match.  If that person claims that he would li
>
>> You made a claim and a request
>> for supporting data was made.  
>
> If the person who made the request is unable to provide any definition on 
> what that data might be and is unwilling to provide it then the request 
> obviously wasn't seriours.  After all, if it was then that would be the very 
> least that person would do, and would have done it automatically.  
> Meanwhile, the unwillingness to specity anything has been clearly made 
> aware.

This is such a strange point of view that I don't think there is any
value in taking the matter further.  Only in the looking glass world of
Usenet would this exchange make any sense.

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

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

#9380

Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes:
> Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Why is that a matter for Keith Thompson?  
>
> Obviously, because he was the one who made the request.
[...]

I withdraw the request, because I no longer care.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#9182

The intended purpose of a website, with the possible exception of
personal web pages set up for vanity reasons, is almost always
MONEY.  It may be:

- advertising revenue e.g. via Google Ads
- selling stuff
- advertising stuff the company has for sale elsewhere
- saving money on tech support costs for the company's products
- selling the attention of the users to the advertisers

It usually is only vaguely related to what users of the site think
it's for, whether it's discussing C or racking up credit for
answering questions with the best-received answers.

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

#9194

 
> The above is a typical example and not meant to single-out AT&T (but it 
> is one of the worst ones I have read). The sites seem to be evolving this 
> M.O. Talk about stacking the deck in one's favor, or somthing like that.

AT&T is a particularly nasty example that deserves singling out.
They want me to use their internet service.  An old AT&T commercial
told me to "get it in writing" (referring to switching long distance
service, probably in the early '90s) so I'm using it against their
telephone solicitors.  What I really want is an internet service
that lets me run servers, and I want them to point out where it
says that in writing (which for the moment includes a web site)
BEFORE I agree to it.  They tell me to look at their site, with no
indication where to find it, or more importantly, where to find *all*
of it.

During subsequent conversation, they claimed:

- I can threaten the life of the President of the United States using
my internet connection, and while I might go to jail, they won't shut
off my service.  [False, according to their TOS]
- I can download all the pirated movies I want limited only by the
download rate I'm paying for. [False, according to their TOS]
- I can SPAM all I want.  [False, according to their TOS]
- I can SPAM *their customer service* at the full data rate allowed.
  [False, according to their TOS]
- The cost of the service is $14.95/month. [It's a promotional rate good
for only one year, plus, it's a phone company, so they load it up with
lots of odd taxes my current provider doesn't charge.
- There is no data cap on DSL [False, according to their TOS]
- Cellular customers only get capped or cancelled for jailbreaking their
  phones and tethering.  [Some phones do not require "jailbreaking" to tether,
  and there's plenty of other ways to get capped.]

Essentially, they can shut off my service for just about any reason,
which they won't explain.  And nowhere does it say that running servers
isn't one of those reasons.


> People should read "the fine print" first and think about it before they 
> sign up, for some/most websites appear to be "societal leeches" evolving 
> their "blood-sucking" capabilities. 

I didn't see it in the portion you quoted, but I also make the
assumption that if AT&T makes rules that say you cant say that AT&T
steals and eats babies (your example talks about what you can do
on *their site*, not *over the Internet*, but I believe the worst
example in their TOS for something (since changed) said you couldn't
even criticize them using USPS or car flyers), then it must be because
they *DO* steal and eat babies.  Whatever they think I might say,
I guarantee I'll think its for a reason 1,000 times worse.

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

#9217

gordonb.6v878@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) writes:
>> The above is a typical example and not meant to single-out AT&T (but it 
>> is one of the worst ones I have read). The sites seem to be evolving this 
>> M.O. Talk about stacking the deck in one's favor, or somthing like that.
>
> AT&T is a particularly nasty example that deserves singling out.
[...]

C was developed at AT&T Bell Labs, so obviously this discussion is
topical, right?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7  Next page →

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

csiph-web