Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #129945 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-30 02:10 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-05-01 13:46 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 208 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
The case AGAINST C Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2018-04-30 02:10 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2018-04-30 03:14 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-04-30 05:48 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-30 14:58 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Davs <johndemeert0@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 04:18 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 05:26 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2018-05-07 11:21 -0400
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 09:21 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-07 12:13 -0500
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 10:24 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2018-05-07 13:27 -0400
Re: The case AGAINST C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-07 17:33 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2018-05-07 13:50 -0400
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 10:56 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-08 09:26 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-08 09:19 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 00:42 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-08 06:54 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 07:24 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-08 17:15 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-08 09:31 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-08 18:48 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-08 10:33 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-08 23:36 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-08 15:08 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-09 00:56 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-08 16:17 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2018-05-08 11:09 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-08 23:43 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-08 15:24 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-09 00:58 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-09 08:11 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 08:51 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 11:45 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 13:03 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-09 23:40 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-09 15:48 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-10 13:48 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-10 08:28 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-11 10:06 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 02:22 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 05:29 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-11 13:31 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-11 15:47 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-11 09:16 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-12 17:43 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-12 14:06 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 00:13 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 01:31 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-11 18:01 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2018-05-10 08:30 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-09 09:29 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2018-05-10 08:41 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 04:43 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-05-08 21:24 -0400
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-09 09:10 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-05-08 19:52 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-08 23:48 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-04-29 22:07 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-30 12:22 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-04-30 12:08 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-30 13:38 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 06:05 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-04-30 07:39 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Ed Kellett <e@kellett.im> - 2018-04-30 15:53 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-04-30 08:14 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 21:26 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 09:00 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 04:58 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-30 18:07 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 05:33 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 05:58 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 06:27 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-01 14:37 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-05-01 13:41 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-01 16:48 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 10:11 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 11:00 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-01 19:26 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-01 11:40 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 12:53 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-01 22:03 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-02 09:10 +1200
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-01 14:21 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-02 09:26 +1200
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-01 15:23 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-02 14:07 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-05-03 06:28 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-01 23:03 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 04:52 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 05:12 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 05:34 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-02 14:08 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 07:39 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-02 17:13 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 11:01 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-02 21:51 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-03 08:52 +1200
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-02 22:42 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-03 09:57 +1200
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-02 23:22 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-03 10:29 +1200
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 00:14 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 03:59 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 04:15 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 12:50 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 13:36 -0700
Of course I get it... (Was: The case AGAINST C) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-05-03 08:44 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-05-03 12:42 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 05:52 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-05-03 12:56 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 05:58 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 14:36 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-03 13:27 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 22:43 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-03 15:17 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 00:50 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 15:41 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 11:36 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-04 08:52 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-04 17:28 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-04 12:06 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-05 18:45 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-06 18:43 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 23:35 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-07 13:23 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 06:30 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-07 16:25 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 07:32 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-04 09:09 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 18:12 +0100
Global variables bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-06 14:07 +0100
Re: Global variables David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 20:03 +0200
Re: Global variables Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2018-05-06 15:21 -0400
Re: Global variables Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-06 13:07 -0700
Re: Global variables Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2018-05-06 16:13 -0400
Re: Global variables David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 23:39 +0200
Re: Global variables Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-05-06 17:50 -0400
Re: Global variables David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 23:57 +0200
Re: Global variables Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-05-06 19:56 -0400
Re: Global variables Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-05-07 03:21 +0100
Re: Global variables David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-07 09:09 +0200
Re: Global variables Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-07 08:49 -0700
Re: Global variables bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-06 20:55 +0100
Re: Global variables David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 23:51 +0200
Re: Global variables Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-06 15:40 -0700
Re: Global variables bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-06 23:54 +0100
Re: Global variables Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-07 15:12 +1200
Re: Global variables David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-07 09:03 +0200
Re: Global variables Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-05-18 20:23 -0700
Re: Global variables Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 20:44 -0700
Re: Global variables David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-19 17:22 +0200
Re: Global variables supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-19 11:56 -0700
Re: Global variables supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-06 16:28 -0700
Re: Global variables Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2018-05-06 14:19 -0400
Re: Global variables bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-06 20:16 +0100
Re: Global variables David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 23:09 +0200
Re: Global variables bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-06 23:41 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-03 09:13 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-05-03 17:29 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-05-03 19:24 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-05-04 05:46 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-05-04 10:55 +0000
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 04:03 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 12:31 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-04 05:10 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 13:24 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 06:26 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 06:35 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 07:06 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 07:19 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 06:37 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 08:19 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 12:07 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 16:31 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 08:41 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 09:50 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 10:04 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 13:51 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 14:30 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 15:14 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-04 11:18 -0500
Re: The case AGAINST C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-04 09:05 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 17:55 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-04 10:54 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 19:18 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-04 11:24 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 16:45 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu - 2018-05-04 11:51 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-04 12:15 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 21:56 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 17:01 +0200
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-06 17:54 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-06 13:38 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-06 21:49 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-05-06 17:19 -0400
Re: The case AGAINST C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-06 15:24 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-06 15:16 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 23:55 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 11:59 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 14:51 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 04:46 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 11:45 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 06:10 -0700
Re: The case AGAINST C C W Rose <cwr@seckford.org> - 2018-05-02 15:23 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-02 17:36 +0100
Re: The case AGAINST C "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 22:03 +0800
Re: The case AGAINST C Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2018-05-01 13:46 +0000
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 12:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <66d56564-0b72-44b5-aba9-783e62eeed97@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #130005 |
W dniu wtorek, 1 maja 2018 20:26:34 UTC+2 użytkownik Bart napisał: > On 01/05/2018 19:00, fir wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 1 maja 2018 15:37:14 UTC+2 użytkownik Bart napisał: > >> On 01/05/2018 14:27, fir wrote: > >>> W dniu wtorek, 1 maja 2018 14:58:46 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał: > >>>> 2) youre like maniacal repeater of '2+2=4' > >>> > >>> besides if you want to find that all your preaching that build systems today are bad > >>> as a value and 'glory' (good work of propagation of the idea) as for to me > >>> you may take it (some doubts there hovever > >>> 1) i think people in fact know it 2) repeating is annoying as hell > >> > >> What's annoying is being unable to build open source software. > >> > > > > sorry but > > annoying is your proces of repeating it - its like repeating "2+2=4".. its right > > Thanks. Someone agrees with me at least. > dont think so (imo people mostly disagree on 'attachements' not on 'core thesis') even if some disagre so what, many people disagree with me and i dont make 1000 post long repaatings based on that dont make me wrong i odnt even say that it is not usefull to you (helps to kill time for sure ) but i only share some critical (but potentially also very helpfull) notes (or hypothesis) (sadly it gets bpring as you seem dont get it )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 22:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vC4GC.78554$GV1.76009@fx32.am4> |
| In reply to | #130013 |
On 01/05/2018 20:53, fir wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 1 maja 2018 20:26:34 UTC+2 użytkownik Bart napisał: > even if some disagre so what, many people disagree with me and i dont make 1000 post long repaatings based on that > > dont make me wrong i odnt even say that it is not usefull to you (helps to kill time for sure ) but i only share some critical (but potentially also very helpfull) notes (or hypothesis) (sadly it gets bpring as you seem dont get it ) You're quite right. If I add up the people who've been abusive to me in this group, it comes to a sizeable number. And arguing with them has been a massive waste of time as they are hardly going to change their minds about anything. I can see that I'm not wanted (how many people have been hounded out of a public discussion group?). So I give up: you win. I guess I'll leave you guys to your crappy language. (It was actually becoming embarrassing recently as C was clearly being outclassed even by my own modest language efforts.) And it's not as though I still need advice about C any more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-02 09:10 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <fks3f3Ffpt3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #130017 |
On 05/02/2018 09:03 AM, bartc wrote: > > So I give up: you win. > > I guess I'll leave you guys to your crappy language. (It was actually > becoming embarrassing recently as C was clearly being outclassed even > by my own modest language efforts.) So, how may OS kernels or, on a more modest scale, device drivers have been written with your modest language efforts? How many operating systems do they run or and how many microprocessors can they cross compile code for? -- Ian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 14:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0670a865-ea7c-4297-bbaf-669d40585848@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #130019 |
On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 4:11:09 PM UTC-5, Ian Collins wrote: > On 05/02/2018 09:03 AM, bartc wrote: > > I guess I'll leave you guys to your crappy language. (It was actually > > becoming embarrassing recently as C was clearly being outclassed even > > by my own modest language efforts.) > > So, how may OS kernels or, on a more modest scale, device drivers have > been written with your modest language efforts? How many operating > systems do they run or and how many microprocessors can they cross > compile code for? How many operating systems are written in the dialect of C which the authors of gcc seem to favor (-O2 or -O3 without things like -fno-strict-aliasing)?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-02 09:26 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <fks4bdFfpt3U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #130021 |
On 05/02/2018 09:21 AM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 4:11:09 PM UTC-5, Ian Collins wrote: >> On 05/02/2018 09:03 AM, bartc wrote: >>> I guess I'll leave you guys to your crappy language. (It was actually >>> becoming embarrassing recently as C was clearly being outclassed even >>> by my own modest language efforts.) >> >> So, how may OS kernels or, on a more modest scale, device drivers have >> been written with your modest language efforts? How many operating >> systems do they run or and how many microprocessors can they cross >> compile code for? > > How many operating systems are written in the dialect of C which > the authors of gcc seem to favor (-O2 or -O3 without things like > -fno-strict-aliasing)? Probably most Unix systems (definitely Solaris), most of which built with their own compilers. -- Ian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 15:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <923f4406-946c-4959-b3b4-ceb9dff7391f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #130022 |
On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 4:26:15 PM UTC-5, Ian Collins wrote: > On 05/02/2018 09:21 AM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > > How many operating systems are written in the dialect of C which > > the authors of gcc seem to favor (-O2 or -O3 without things like > > -fno-strict-aliasing)? > > Probably most Unix systems (definitely Solaris), most of which built > with their own compilers. The gcc dialect without "-fno-strict-aliasing" does not allow memory to be recycled as different types, nor does it allow members of a common initial sequence [such as exist in some structures for things like network addresses] to be safely inspected in type-agnostic fashion. To be sure, it would be unlikely that a compiler would identify situations where a "free" followed by a "malloc" would yield a pointer to the same storage, or identify places where it should make incorrect assumptions about how writes to the CIS of one network-address structure might affect reads of another, but the fact that gcc isn't yet sophisticated enough to break such code today doesn't mean that won't change tomorrow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-02 14:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <_CjGC.43143$o43.36592@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #130021 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes: >On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 4:11:09 PM UTC-5, Ian Collins wrote: >> On 05/02/2018 09:03 AM, bartc wrote: >> > I guess I'll leave you guys to your crappy language. (It was actually >> > becoming embarrassing recently as C was clearly being outclassed even >> > by my own modest language efforts.) >> >> So, how may OS kernels or, on a more modest scale, device drivers have >> been written with your modest language efforts? How many operating >> systems do they run or and how many microprocessors can they cross >> compile code for? > >How many operating systems are written in the dialect of C which >the authors of gcc seem to favor (-O2 or -O3 without things like >-fno-strict-aliasing)? Who cares? C is used to build pretty much every major operating system on x86, mips, powerpc and arm processors. If that means using compiler flags, who gives a flying fig? GCCFLAGS += -fPIC # Position Independent Code GCCFLAGS += -mno-red-zone # Don't use stack redzone GCCFLAGS += -fno-strict-aliasing # Compiler can't assume no aliases GCCFLAGS += -nostdlib # Don't use /lib GCCFLAGS += -nostartfiles # Don't use crt0.o GCCFLAGS += -Wall # Turn on all warning conditions GCCFLAGS += -Werror # Make warnings fatal GCCFLAGS += -g
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-03 06:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnpelb1b.31ka.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #130035 |
On Wed, 2018-05-02, Scott Lurndal wrote: > supercat@casperkitty.com writes: >>On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 4:11:09 PM UTC-5, Ian Collins wrote: >>> On 05/02/2018 09:03 AM, bartc wrote: >>> > I guess I'll leave you guys to your crappy language. (It was actually >>> > becoming embarrassing recently as C was clearly being outclassed even >>> > by my own modest language efforts.) >>> >>> So, how may OS kernels or, on a more modest scale, device drivers have >>> been written with your modest language efforts? How many operating >>> systems do they run or and how many microprocessors can they cross >>> compile code for? >> >>How many operating systems are written in the dialect of C which >>the authors of gcc seem to favor (-O2 or -O3 without things like >>-fno-strict-aliasing)? > > Who cares? C is used to build pretty much every major > operating system on x86, mips, powerpc and arm processors. > > If that means using compiler flags, who gives a flying fig? I think supercat insinuates that people who write kernels use compiler options to make them compile a C dialect that's closer to what he wants C to be. > GCCFLAGS += -fPIC # Position Independent Code > GCCFLAGS += -mno-red-zone # Don't use stack redzone > GCCFLAGS += -fno-strict-aliasing # Compiler can't assume no aliases > GCCFLAGS += -nostdlib # Don't use /lib > GCCFLAGS += -nostartfiles # Don't use crt0.o > GCCFLAGS += -Wall # Turn on all warning conditions > GCCFLAGS += -Werror # Make warnings fatal > GCCFLAGS += -g /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 23:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tu5GC.34633$ga6.7485@fx24.am4> |
| In reply to | #130019 |
On 01/05/2018 22:10, Ian Collins wrote: > On 05/02/2018 09:03 AM, bartc wrote: >> >> So I give up: you win. >> >> I guess I'll leave you guys to your crappy language. (It was actually >> becoming embarrassing recently as C was clearly being outclassed even >> by my own modest language efforts.) > > So, how may OS kernels or, on a more modest scale, device drivers have > been written with your modest language efforts? How many operating > systems do they run or and how many microprocessors can they cross > compile code for? The C language /is/ crappy. That it can still be used to do useful programming doesn't change that. Those tasks can also be written in assembly, and most will agree that that would be far from satisfactory. My language was developed in-house specifically to work on hardware projects, and often it did comprise 100% of the running software. Until Windows came along, it would typically run most of the software, including video and printer drivers, other than the DOS. That 1980s/90s version was still rather backwards compared to more recently developments (and I'm working on more) where comparisons to C start becoming meaningless as it outclasses it, even though the language is still low-level. Take pretty much any feature of C, and my language will have bettered it. It's not hard when the bar is so low. The advantages of C is that it is mainstream, there are compilers everywhere for it including optimising ones, there large numbers of people experienced in using it, and there are myriad tools available to help getting around its various problems. But the language is still rubbish, IMO. Its rubbishness may have helped spawn an industry of software tools to get around the problems, yet another advantage for those who benefit from that. Mine on the other hand never progressed beyond an in-house language and were never intended to. But it still outranks C, even with one compiler and one target. Quality versus quantity. My language isn't the one using 'void(*)(void)' for a function pointer. And the language itself is just one thing. When you delve into actual implementations, compilers, options, system header files, all those special macros, attributes, pragmas, make systems, linkers ... -- bart
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-02 04:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7b382c60-98af-4c87-98fd-f7361eeba79f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #130024 |
W dniu środa, 2 maja 2018 00:03:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Bart napisał: > On 01/05/2018 22:10, Ian Collins wrote: > > On 05/02/2018 09:03 AM, bartc wrote: > >> > >> So I give up: you win. > >> > >> I guess I'll leave you guys to your crappy language. (It was actually > >> becoming embarrassing recently as C was clearly being outclassed even > >> by my own modest language efforts.) > > > > So, how may OS kernels or, on a more modest scale, device drivers have > > been written with your modest language efforts? How many operating > > systems do they run or and how many microprocessors can they cross > > compile code for? > > The C language /is/ crappy. That it can still be used to do useful > programming doesn't change that. Those tasks can also be written in > assembly, and most will agree that that would be far from satisfactory. > > My language was developed in-house specifically to work on hardware > projects, and often it did comprise 100% of the running software. Until > Windows came along, it would typically run most of the software, > including video and printer drivers, other than the DOS. > > That 1980s/90s version was still rather backwards compared to more > recently developments (and I'm working on more) where comparisons to C > start becoming meaningless as it outclasses it, even though the language > is still low-level. > > Take pretty much any feature of C, and my language will have bettered > it. It's not hard when the bar is so low. > > The advantages of C is that it is mainstream, there are compilers > everywhere for it including optimising ones, there large numbers of > people experienced in using it, and there are myriad tools available to > help getting around its various problems. > > But the language is still rubbish, IMO. Its rubbishness may have helped > spawn an industry of software tools to get around the problems, yet > another advantage for those who benefit from that. > > Mine on the other hand never progressed beyond an in-house language and > were never intended to. But it still outranks C, even with one compiler > and one target. Quality versus quantity. My language isn't the one using > 'void(*)(void)' for a function pointer. > > And the language itself is just one thing. When you delve into actual > implementations, compilers, options, system header files, all those > special macros, attributes, pragmas, make systems, linkers ... > besides you take it to much seriusly or tio much to yourself.. yre not bad user imo though you lead this group also in deepnes of topics or attitudes that imo are maybe not much fortunate - thich group needs change as to projects it maybe could be worth rethinking on what generally such projects to compile should depend on... the best would be to not depend on nothing, but in present situation procects depend minimally on specific compiler (COMPILER) projects also depends on some libraries (static or dinamic) thus they minimally depend on some headers (HEADERS) (like mine depends on stdclib headers and windows headers (they are part of my compiler/mingw so this is not much upsetting dependency though in general such library headers are not part or compiler and probably just lay in a folder with library you use you alse may and probabl;y will depend on libraries (STATIC) (DYNSAMIC) you may also depend on sources (SOURCES) and you probably also may dependon assets (ASSETS) is this all? (all posoble dependencies?) so as far as i understood when you distribute your project there is and option if to 1) redistribute dependency libraries fully in a form of subfolders 2) redistribute nothing except info you need such libraries 3) redistribute headers (as a part of your projects) [this is interesting option as imo headers are like client code, i mean headers for sure should be open source, headers are client code] 4) redistribute also static libs as a part of your projrct (but stripped to stricltly binaries, not full folders of libs) 5) redistribute dependency libraries as dlls the question: - what form of distributation is the best? - what form of distribitation you most often see? (the question is to all that can answer it)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-02 05:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d83d4959-62d2-4dac-ad7e-068be57d21ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #130031 |
ow yes i forgot you may also dependant on side tools (and weird crap like manifests or some com shit i dont know etc) and on build scripts... you may in pathological cases depend on way (order) of runing some scripts (now that is a hell if you need guess it - but this is programming pathology, even sorry to mention that as it spoild the moderate clearnes of situation in previous post ;c) anyway you need to depend of this build system and have at least one build script, if this build system is a strict part of compiler this is also not much upsetting dependency (unles you want to compile that projects with other compiler) what is 'natural' build system for mingw? is it this cmake i dont know and odnt use? (i use bats as i said this stylistically better fits to me, from some points bats beats make i think) yet once again it is worth emphasizing how standarisation in those realms is needed, c comitee drop your silly work on C and standarize those things, standarize c building scripts to work across all c compilers wit no change (and be designed well) tis is needed work
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-02 05:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <74b3f489-5f54-42d9-87c9-076ff7aa277d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #130031 |
On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 4:52:50 AM UTC-7, fir wrote:
> W dniu środa, 2 maja 2018 00:03:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Bart napisał:
> > On 01/05/2018 22:10, Ian Collins wrote:
> > > On 05/02/2018 09:03 AM, bartc wrote:
> > >>
> > >> So I give up: you win.
> > >>
> > >> I guess I'll leave you guys to your crappy language. (It was actually
> > >> becoming embarrassing recently as C was clearly being outclassed even
> > >> by my own modest language efforts.)
> > >
> > > So, how may OS kernels or, on a more modest scale, device drivers have
> > > been written with your modest language efforts? How many operating
> > > systems do they run or and how many microprocessors can they cross
> > > compile code for?
> >
> > The C language /is/ crappy. That it can still be used to do useful
> > programming doesn't change that. Those tasks can also be written in
> > assembly, and most will agree that that would be far from satisfactory.
> >
> > My language was developed in-house specifically to work on hardware
> > projects, and often it did comprise 100% of the running software. Until
> > Windows came along, it would typically run most of the software,
> > including video and printer drivers, other than the DOS.
> >
> > That 1980s/90s version was still rather backwards compared to more
> > recently developments (and I'm working on more) where comparisons to C
> > start becoming meaningless as it outclasses it, even though the language
> > is still low-level.
> >
> > Take pretty much any feature of C, and my language will have bettered
> > it. It's not hard when the bar is so low.
> >
> > The advantages of C is that it is mainstream, there are compilers
> > everywhere for it including optimising ones, there large numbers of
> > people experienced in using it, and there are myriad tools available to
> > help getting around its various problems.
> >
> > But the language is still rubbish, IMO. Its rubbishness may have helped
> > spawn an industry of software tools to get around the problems, yet
> > another advantage for those who benefit from that.
> >
> > Mine on the other hand never progressed beyond an in-house language and
> > were never intended to. But it still outranks C, even with one compiler
> > and one target. Quality versus quantity. My language isn't the one using
> > 'void(*)(void)' for a function pointer.
> >
> > And the language itself is just one thing. When you delve into actual
> > implementations, compilers, options, system header files, all those
> > special macros, attributes, pragmas, make systems, linkers ...
> >
> besides you take it to much seriusly or tio much to yourself.. yre not bad user imo though you lead this group also in deepnes of topics or attitudes that imo are maybe not much fortunate - thich group needs change
>
> as to projects it maybe could be worth rethinking on what generally such projects to compile should depend on...
>
> the best would be to not depend on nothing, but in present situation procects depend minimally on specific compiler (COMPILER)
>
> projects also depends on some libraries (static or dinamic) thus they minimally depend on some headers (HEADERS) (like mine
> depends on stdclib headers and windows headers (they are part of my compiler/mingw so this is not much upsetting dependency though in general such library headers are not part or compiler and probably just lay
> in a folder with library you use
>
> you alse may and probabl;y will depend on libraries (STATIC) (DYNSAMIC) you may also depend on sources (SOURCES) and you probably also may dependon assets (ASSETS)
>
> is this all? (all posoble dependencies?)
>
>
> so as far as i understood when you distribute your project there is and
> option if to 1) redistribute dependency libraries fully in a form of subfolders
> 2) redistribute nothing except info you need such libraries 3) redistribute headers (as a part of your projects) [this is interesting option as imo headers are like
> client code, i mean headers for sure should be open source, headers are client code]
> 4) redistribute also static libs as a part of your projrct (but stripped to stricltly binaries, not full folders of libs) 5) redistribute dependency libraries as dlls
>
> the question:
> - what form of distributation is the best?
> - what form of distribitation you most often see?
> (the question is to all that can answer it)
Carroll, 4/10/2015 4:04 PM:
-----
Cute trick... To the guy who hacked my Google account.
-----
No details. Seems to treat it as a joke.
Carroll, 4/10/2015 5:02 PM, <https://goo.gl/51rsmZ>:
-----
Email Hacking Is A Serious Crime
-----
No longer "cute"... now it is a serious crime. OK.
Carroll, 4/10/2015 5:07 PM:
By now he is posting more links to how serious this crime against him is.
Carroll, 4/10/2015 7:25 PM:
-----
I didn't write that.
-----
Now he is denying the posts from his own account. OK, he was "hacked". Someone else posted this. Hard to hack a gmail account given how they use two-step authentication and someone would need access to his phone or the like... but at least POSSIBLE.
Even then, though, if someone tries to guess your password Google alerts you and lets you know what IP address and other info. I know because someone in a Denver internet cafe has tried mine on several occasions.
Google even forces you to change your password when this happens. Very hard to hack these days.
So already Carroll's story is unlikely.
But let us accept it... someone somehow hacked his account bypassing the two step verification. This person did not, however, change his password and Carroll posted within an hour of the "hacker". Before that, unless he is an idiot, he changed his password and the "hacker" was locked out. The "hacker" got one post in.
But Carroll could not leave his story there.
Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:36 PM, <https://goo.gl/NJ2bMH>:
-----
Someone hacked my fretwizzer gmail acct so, for the time being,
don't trust anything from it.
-----
Wait. What? Even after Carroll figured out this "hacker" who was too stupid to change his password had broken into his account and Carroll *surely* must have changed his own password, he is saying the "hacker" might still have access. Might be able to break Google's two-step verification process *again*.
This is *very* unlikely... to the point of being unbelievable.
Even worse for him: he notes which of his accounts he is claiming was hacked - but in the past he has denied even using the other accounts! LOL! He screwed up and made it very clear he has multiple accounts and felt the need to note which one. He made the same mistake in the next quote where he speaks of WHICH of his gmail accounts he is claiming was hacked. Oops! If he only posts with one there would be no need to specify which one!
He has completely screwed up in his game to pretend he posts with only one gmail account. Completely idiotic of him, too!
Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:38 PM, <https://goo.gl/YA7gMO>:
-----
Some mentally deficient child hacked my 'fretwizzer' gmail account
so I may have to kill it. For the time being, don't assume
anything that's coming from it was written by me.
-----
He is still saying that he may have to kill the account instead of just changing the password which anyone with half a brain would have already done (and Google *forces* you to do when someone even tries to hack your account... I know because someone in the Denver area has tried to hack mine multiple times... likely Carroll but I have no proof of this). And he specifies WHICH of his accounts! He is directly admitting he uses more than one account! His claim of being "forged" with his second account is a lie. Proved.
Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:40 PM, <https://goo.gl/j6yCuV>:
-----
Looks like it's still being hacked despite me taking precautions,
I may have to kill the account.
-----
What makes it look like its still being hacked? And what precautions other than changing the two-step verification options does he need? And how would someone bypass this... is he really on the NSA watch list? Seems you would need someone at that level to be doing this. He watches too much TV where they computer hackers spend thirty seconds and bypass all security.
Just nonsense.
Carroll, 4/11/2015 12:05 PM:
-----
Apparently Google is having issues with their accounts to the
point where they're ready to undertake some additional measures.
-----
But, of course, no evidence of this... and what measures? They already alert users if someone else tries to guess your password and use two-step authentication and even force you to make a new password if it seems someone is trying to hack you.
-----
They're now involving several federal agencies in things they
didn't bother with previously in an effort to deal with people who
hack into accounts. They've asked me to leave the account open.
-----
So now Google is letting Carroll know how they are handling these things - and asking him to leave a *hacked* account open... one someone can be using to steal his identity. No. This does not pass the sniff test in any way. Even if they were doing this for some bizarre sting operation, which is in itself far fetched, they would have told Carroll to not make it public information so the hacker would not know.
Just insanity. His own story is so idiotic and full of idiotic claims it simply cannot be true. Carroll uses his secondary Google account - the one he accesses via Tor and is referred to as his Tor account - to have plausible deniability for things he says there. Now he is working to do the same thing with his main account. Maybe Carroll read a report like this: <http://cnnmon.ie/111QeT8> [money.com]. If so he missed the part where they note if you are *really* hacked, which is rare, the hackers change your password and lock you out. Why would they not?
-----
There's some new legislation that will help them deal with this
issue... which probably means more BS for us ;)
-----
Yes, new legislation to make sure Carroll does not have to deal with "hackers" and "forgers" which do not even exist.
The funny part is, this happened shortly after someone in the Denver area, likely Carroll, tried to guess *my* passwords and they did it from an Internet café (Google tells you the IP and that can be used to trace back).
My guess: Carroll is the one who was working to guess my password and figured this new lie of his was a good way to deny his own words even more than he does with his Tor account *and* a way to make it so if I had talked about him trying to hack my account he could say I was just copying his comments. "Proving" I read his posts... which for now I am to see how absurd his lies are. :)
Carroll, 4/11/2015 12:25 PM:
-----
The person who hacked into my Gmail acct. changed the wording on
this post. I've removed the others but Google asked me to leave
one standing for some odd reason.
-----
Here Carroll claims the hacker changed the wording on a post of his from *before* he had even claimed he was hacked. So this hacker not only can *post* for him but edit his old Usenet posts.
I call utter bullshit on this. Out and out lie from Carroll. And then Carroll says Google asked him to not delete these "hacked" posts... this is nonsense. Why would Google want him to leave forged posts in the public and why would Google not just keep their own copy? Even Carroll notes it is for "some odd reason" - yeah, because Carroll is telling stories that make *no* sense at all.
Carroll is lying. Maybe there is some kernel of truth to his stories? Even if so - and frankly it is unlikely he will ever show any evidence to back his claims - the details he is posting are absurd.
Carroll, 4/11/2015 2:10 PM:
-----
And he's so high he thinks people still have to manually enter all
their passwords in whenever they want to use anything that's been
password protected ;)
-----
Nobody had suggested, hinted, implied, or said anything like what Carroll says they did.
Maybe his story will be someone stole his laptop (or mobile device) and he had his passwords saved? If so why not have the device deactivated remotely? Why has he not said anything about this?
My guess: he realizes he screwed up when trying to guess my passwords and is now building a story so he can say his computer was stolen and it was not him. Or, LOL, maybe someone broke into his house and did it.
This unknown hacker knew he was obsessed with me and carried on acting like him. Makes complete sense, eh?
Carroll, 4/12/2015 8:45 AM, <https://goo.gl/KMf4pa>:
-----
The first one, that has since been deleted. My bad for having such
a feeble password on this account.
-----
Now he suggests it was merely from someone guessing his password - which contradicts his above insinuations that it could have been from a saved password on a device he had.
His story changes with the telling.
But as noted, when someone tries to guess your password Google has ways to deal with it. I know - Carroll or someone in his neck of the woods recently tried it with me.
Carroll, 4/12/2015 9:29 AM:
-----
The account in question here is a gmail account. Contrary to
Snit's delusions, I have no idea what a TOR account looks like but
it's a good bet it doesn't bear much of a resemblance to a gmail
account.
-----
Here Carroll plays stupid and pretends that if when he or anyone uses the Tor browser *Carroll* pointed to this somehow changes the way the gmail interface looks. Um, no. Worse it might do is make Google think you are in another country and you would have to set it back to English. But the basic look stays the same.
He is playing stupid and pretending to not know how the Tor browser he pointed to works. Just idiotic of him.
-----
That idiocy aside, I love how Snit has repeatedly, for years,
feigned ignorance about gmail accounts, yet, he keeps disclosing
info that proves he knows about them. Some fools do stuff like
this when they believe people are as stupid as the fool needs them
to be ;)
-----
I do not think Google would allow you to edit your Usenet / groups posts but I do not use it much and do not know for sure. Seems absurd that they would... and others have now said they do not. But given how I do not use Google Groups for posting why would I know the details of their system for certain?
Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:47 PM:
-----
Your obsession with me is insane. Working with Google I now have
proof you and ebot worked together to hack me. Clever. If I press
charges against you I have to also include her so you remain safe
for now.
Do not think this is over.
-----
No evidence of working with Google on this (and all out and out lies). Carroll is making public threats based on lies.
Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:50 PM:
-----
I promised COLA your trolling days were over so you contacted ebot
and worked with her to hack my account. I might not be able to get
your ass handed to you in court over this but wait until your boss
at Yavapai College contacts you.
Maybe you should make that call first. Ask about your comments on
incest.
See if those can not be quoted.
-----
Direct lies and threats by Carroll.
Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:51 PM:
-----
You went too far this time Snit. We have trolled each other for
years but to contact ebot and get her to help you hack my account
was over a line.
-----
A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:52 PM:
-----
The above post is Snit hacking my account.
-----
A complete and utter lie... more false accusations from him.
Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:53 PM:
-----
You edited those posts when you hacked my account. Do not trust
anything from my fretwizzer account now that Snit and ebot have
access to it.
-----
More unsupported claims and attacks by Carroll.
Carroll, 4/16/2015 8:56 PM:
-----
Working with Google I now have proof Snit and ebot hacked the
account. Many of the older posts were edited. You can see evidence
of this by Snit pointing to "old" posts which have been modified to
say I claimed I was his "personal newsgroup rapist", a phrase I
have never used.
-----
No evidence of Carroll working with Google. No evidence of any older posts being edited.
--
Live on Kickstarter!
https://youtu.be/lF8yk7ul4Mw
Jonas Eklundh Communication
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-02 14:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qDjGC.43146$o43.39682@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #130024 |
bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 01/05/2018 22:10, Ian Collins wrote: >> On 05/02/2018 09:03 AM, bartc wrote: >>> >>> So I give up: you win. >>> >>> I guess I'll leave you guys to your crappy language. (It was actually >>> becoming embarrassing recently as C was clearly being outclassed even >>> by my own modest language efforts.) >> >> So, how may OS kernels or, on a more modest scale, device drivers have >> been written with your modest language efforts? How many operating >> systems do they run or and how many microprocessors can they cross >> compile code for? > >The C language /is/ crappy. Proof by assertion noted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-02 07:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b323b757-3c8a-4f66-b8d4-7d7da5e73d9b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #130037 |
On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 7:08:31 AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote: > bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >On 01/05/2018 22:10, Ian Collins wrote: > >> On 05/02/2018 09:03 AM, bartc wrote: > >>> > >>> So I give up: you win. > >>> > >>> I guess I'll leave you guys to your crappy language. (It was actually > >>> becoming embarrassing recently as C was clearly being outclassed even > >>> by my own modest language efforts.) > >> > >> So, how may OS kernels or, on a more modest scale, device drivers have > >> been written with your modest language efforts? How many operating > >> systems do they run or and how many microprocessors can they cross > >> compile code for? > > > >The C language /is/ crappy. > > Proof by assertion noted. You're clueless! No no hell no. Donny Karcie never agreed to stop accusing good people of being like him. He lied about his trolling just as you would expect. With no reason at all, as is the norm for Donny Karcie. Autumn Nissen of Prescott Valley created at least 20 virtual systems in the last year or so. I am sure he and the herd are proud. Autumn Nissen of Prescott Valley just wiped his ass with Donny Karcie. Are people still debating this? Was that meant to be clever? -- This broke the Internet! http://tinyurl.com/proof-about-ebot https://youtu.be/HHT9SJgYsH4 Jonas Eklundh Communication
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-02 17:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <SslGC.160031$Cd3.94316@fx33.am4> |
| In reply to | #130037 |
On 02/05/2018 15:08, Scott Lurndal wrote: > bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 01/05/2018 22:10, Ian Collins wrote: >>> On 05/02/2018 09:03 AM, bartc wrote: >>>> >>>> So I give up: you win. >>>> >>>> I guess I'll leave you guys to your crappy language. (It was actually >>>> becoming embarrassing recently as C was clearly being outclassed even >>>> by my own modest language efforts.) >>> >>> So, how may OS kernels or, on a more modest scale, device drivers have >>> been written with your modest language efforts? How many operating >>> systems do they run or and how many microprocessors can they cross >>> compile code for? >> >> The C language /is/ crappy. > > Proof by assertion noted. Decent C implementations have been free downloads for many years. With the benefits of optimising compilers for a wide range of targets, and ready-made header files for innumerable libraries. /And/ C is widely supported by various tools notably syntax highlighted editors and viewers so even its ugly syntax can be made to look pretty. Yet I still prefer to use my language for any task for which others would use C. That should tell you how much I value the qualities of the language above those other advantages.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-02 11:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <80233963-e314-41bf-a542-bd457af65302@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #130043 |
On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 9:13:50 AM UTC-7, Bart wrote: > On 02/05/2018 15:08, Scott Lurndal wrote: > > bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> On 01/05/2018 22:10, Ian Collins wrote: > >>> On 05/02/2018 09:03 AM, bartc wrote: > >>>> > >>>> So I give up: you win. > >>>> > >>>> I guess I'll leave you guys to your crappy language. (It was actually > >>>> becoming embarrassing recently as C was clearly being outclassed even > >>>> by my own modest language efforts.) > >>> > >>> So, how may OS kernels or, on a more modest scale, device drivers have > >>> been written with your modest language efforts? How many operating > >>> systems do they run or and how many microprocessors can they cross > >>> compile code for? > >> > >> The C language /is/ crappy. > > > > Proof by assertion noted. > > Decent C implementations have been free downloads for many years. With > the benefits of optimising compilers for a wide range of targets, and > ready-made header files for innumerable libraries. > > /And/ C is widely supported by various tools notably syntax highlighted > editors and viewers so even its ugly syntax can be made to look pretty. > > Yet I still prefer to use my language for any task for which others > would use C. That should tell you how much I value the qualities of the > language above those other advantages. Ending support for command line holdovers is needed for progress. Already moved on from that. You are too slow! So many morons are now posting about the GNU/Linux "ecosystem" as if it truly could happen. -- What Every Entrepreneur Must Know!! http://www.5z8.info/hateminorities_t7l3gt_linked-in-of-sex http://www.5z8.info/hateminorities_t7l3gt_linked-in-of-sex Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-02 21:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lxpGC.63394$ny5.3482@fx17.am4> |
| In reply to | #130043 |
On 02/05/2018 17:13, bartc wrote: > On 02/05/2018 15:08, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> The C language /is/ crappy. >> >> Proof by assertion noted. > > Decent C implementations have been free downloads for many years. With > the benefits of optimising compilers for a wide range of targets, and > ready-made header files for innumerable libraries. > > /And/ C is widely supported by various tools notably syntax highlighted > editors and viewers so even its ugly syntax can be made to look pretty. > > Yet I still prefer to use my language for any task for which others > would use C. That should tell you how much I value the qualities of the > language above those other advantages. A feature comparison here, in no particular order: https://github.com/bartg/langs/blob/master/compare.md While many are minor, a few like the import system enable it to wipe the floor with C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-03 08:52 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <fkumo1Fl1fsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #130043 |
On 05/03/2018 04:13 AM, bartc wrote: > On 02/05/2018 15:08, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> On 01/05/2018 22:10, Ian Collins wrote: >>>> On 05/02/2018 09:03 AM, bartc wrote: >>>>> >>>>> So I give up: you win. >>>>> >>>>> I guess I'll leave you guys to your crappy language. (It was actually >>>>> becoming embarrassing recently as C was clearly being outclassed even >>>>> by my own modest language efforts.) >>>> >>>> So, how may OS kernels or, on a more modest scale, device drivers have >>>> been written with your modest language efforts? How many operating >>>> systems do they run or and how many microprocessors can they cross >>>> compile code for? >>> >>> The C language /is/ crappy. >> >> Proof by assertion noted. > > Decent C implementations have been free downloads for many years. With > the benefits of optimising compilers for a wide range of targets, and > ready-made header files for innumerable libraries. > > /And/ C is widely supported by various tools notably syntax highlighted > editors and viewers so even its ugly syntax can be made to look pretty. > > Yet I still prefer to use my language for any task for which others > would use C. That should tell you how much I value the qualities of the > language above those other advantages. Let's see, when would I used C? Working on an existing C project (Linux/Illumos kernel). For a small embedded system. For a loadable kernel module. For a device driver. How well would your language work for any of those tasks? -- Ian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-02 22:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <khqGC.223876$5v7.65642@fx02.am4> |
| In reply to | #130053 |
On 02/05/2018 21:52, Ian Collins wrote: > On 05/03/2018 04:13 AM, bartc wrote: >> On 02/05/2018 15:08, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>> bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>> On 01/05/2018 22:10, Ian Collins wrote: >>>>> On 05/02/2018 09:03 AM, bartc wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> So I give up: you win. >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess I'll leave you guys to your crappy language. (It was actually >>>>>> becoming embarrassing recently as C was clearly being outclassed even >>>>>> by my own modest language efforts.) >>>>> >>>>> So, how may OS kernels or, on a more modest scale, device drivers have >>>>> been written with your modest language efforts? How many operating >>>>> systems do they run or and how many microprocessors can they cross >>>>> compile code for? >>>> >>>> The C language /is/ crappy. >>> >>> Proof by assertion noted. >> >> Decent C implementations have been free downloads for many years. With >> the benefits of optimising compilers for a wide range of targets, and >> ready-made header files for innumerable libraries. >> >> /And/ C is widely supported by various tools notably syntax highlighted >> editors and viewers so even its ugly syntax can be made to look pretty. >> >> Yet I still prefer to use my language for any task for which others >> would use C. That should tell you how much I value the qualities of the >> language above those other advantages. > > Let's see, when would I used C? > > Working on an existing C project (Linux/Illumos kernel). > For a small embedded system. > For a loadable kernel module. > For a device driver. > > How well would your language work for any of those tasks? > You mean the language by itself, or with one of a myriad implementations that other people may have created? Don't confuse the language with implementations. That lack of native working versions means it would not currently be practical to use the language for most people for a randomly picked machine. And I'm not saying anyone should. (If I wanted people to use it, I'd have retained the intermediate C target format. Then it would work for any machine with a C compiler. In theory.) If C /has/ to be used because there's no practical, mainstream alternative, it's hardly my fault that no one else has come up with something better over the last 45 years. Or sometimes they have, but they've taken it much further (C++, Go etc). The lack of competition doesn't mean a blind eye can be turned to all its problems. > How well would your language work for any of those tasks? What makes you think it wouldn't? I've already said the original version was created for the 8-bit Z80 and was designed for low level hardware control. The current version is targetted at applications that run under Windows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-03 09:57 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <fkuqilFl1fsU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #130055 |
On 05/03/2018 09:42 AM, bartc wrote: > > The current version is targetted at applications that run under Windows. That says it all really, doesn't it? -- Ian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web