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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #23892 > unrolled thread

Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C

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

Contents

  Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-07-29 16:11 +0100
    Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-07-29 11:18 -0400
      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-07-29 16:24 +0100
      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C "China Blue [Tor], Meersburg" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-29 08:34 -0700
        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-29 12:05 -0700
          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C "China Blue [Tor], Meersburg" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-29 14:00 -0700
            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-29 15:19 -0700
            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-07-30 00:35 +0100
              Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-07-30 14:54 +0000
                Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-07-30 17:15 +0100
                Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-07-30 12:44 -0400
                  Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-02 13:51 +0000
            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-07-30 11:13 +0200
            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-07-30 01:59 -0700
      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-07-29 17:10 +0000
        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-07-31 14:55 -0700
          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-01 00:24 +0200
            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-08-02 06:12 -0700
    Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C "Heinrich Wolf" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2012-07-29 17:20 +0200
      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-07-29 16:24 +0100
      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2012-07-29 21:41 +0000
        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C "Heinrich Wolf" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2012-07-30 06:46 +0200
      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C "Heinrich Wolf" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2012-07-30 06:49 +0200
    Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C "China Blue [Tor], Meersburg" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-29 08:31 -0700
      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2012-07-29 21:46 +0000
    Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-07-29 11:57 -0500
      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2012-07-30 12:13 +0100
        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-07-30 13:26 +0200
          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-07-30 12:39 +0100
            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Mark Bluemel <mark_bluemel@pobox.com> - 2012-07-30 13:16 +0100
              Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-07-30 12:39 -0500
            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-07-30 15:02 +0000
          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-07-30 15:18 +0000
          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2012-07-31 14:53 +0100
          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-08-02 06:21 -0700
      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-07-30 18:10 +0100
        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2012-07-30 13:30 -0400
        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-07-30 13:34 -0400
          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-15 21:21 +0000
            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-15 17:17 -0500
        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-07-30 13:18 -0500
        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Cal Dershowitz <cal@example.invalid> - 2012-08-01 21:08 -0600
          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-02 12:20 +0000
            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-08-02 06:15 -0700
              Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-02 14:16 +0000
                Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-02 11:33 -0400
                Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-08-02 11:51 -0700
                  Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-02 15:03 -0700
                    Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-08-02 18:46 -0700
                      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-03 02:18 +0000
                      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-02 21:07 -0700
                        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-08-04 10:40 +0100
                          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-04 03:22 -0700
                          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C "Heinrich Wolf" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2012-08-04 12:34 +0200
                            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-04 13:25 +0000
                              Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-15 13:52 -0400
                            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-04 16:26 -0700
                            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-05 03:27 -0700
                              Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-08-06 01:50 -0700
                                Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-06 07:15 -0400
                                  Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-08-06 04:25 -0700
                                    Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-06 09:14 -0400
                                      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-06 14:14 +0000
                                      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-08-06 07:43 -0700
                                        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-06 11:52 -0400
                                        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-06 11:37 -0700
                                    Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-06 11:34 -0700
                                      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-06 11:53 -0700
                                      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-08-07 00:33 -0700
                                        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-07 06:44 -0400
                                          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-08-07 05:15 -0700
                                            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-07 08:37 -0400
                                            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2012-08-07 13:04 +0000
                                            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-07 12:57 -0700
                                              Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-07 21:24 +0000
                                                Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-08 00:58 -0700
                                Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-06 18:04 +0100
                                  Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-06 18:24 +0000
                                    Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2012-08-22 17:08 +0000
                                  Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-06 14:46 -0400
                                    Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-06 11:55 -0700
                                      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-06 19:13 -0400
                                  Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-06 11:50 -0700
                                    Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-06 20:28 +0100
                                      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-06 15:44 -0400
                                        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Robert Miles <milesrf@Usenet-News.net> - 2012-09-09 22:46 -0500
                                          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-10 04:29 +0000
                                          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-09 22:42 -0700
                                            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-10 19:15 +0000
                                              Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-09-10 22:25 -0400
                                          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-09-10 03:10 -0700
                                          Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-10 08:01 -0400
                                      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-08-07 10:22 +0200
                                    Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C "China Blue [Tor], Meersburg" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-07 01:55 -0700
                                    Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-07 21:26 +0000
                                      Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-08 08:47 +0100
                                        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-10 21:58 -0600
                                Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-07 00:07 -0700
            Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-02 11:27 -0400
        Re: Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-16 09:43 +0100

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

#23974

On 30-Jul-12 12:10, Chicken McNuggets wrote:
> On 29/07/2012 17:57, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> If you've already decided to limit portability to POSIX systems, pipes
>> are the general solution for what you're trying to do, but may not be
>> the optimal solution.  For instance, in the case of "ls", why not just
>> call the functions in <dirent.h> yourself rather than opening a pipe to
>> a program that calls them for you and then writing an enormous amount of
>> code to parse its output to extract the same data?
> 
> Because the "ls" command was an example. I really want to process the
> output of things like "iostat", "/proc/loadavg", "sar" and "tcpdump".

As I said, pipes are the general solution.

The source for all of those should be available, so you'd have to
figure out whether it'd be more optimal (for your specific needs) to
crib the logic and API calls to get the data you need directly rather
than using pipes and parsing the output.  Maybe, maybe not.

> dirent.h would be great if I needed to analyse information about
> directories but since I don't need that functionality (and I have
> already used it in the past) it is a rather pointless suggestion.

Obviously, I could only respond to the specific example you gave.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

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

#24109

On 07/30/2012 11:10 AM, Chicken McNuggets wrote:
> On 29/07/2012 17:57, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
>> If you've already decided to limit portability to POSIX systems, pipes
>> are the general solution for what you're trying to do, but may not be
>> the optimal solution. For instance, in the case of "ls", why not just
>> call the functions in <dirent.h> yourself rather than opening a pipe to
>> a program that calls them for you and then writing an enormous amount of
>> code to parse its output to extract the same data?
>>
>> S
>>
>
> Because the "ls" command was an example. I really want to process the
> output of things like "iostat", "/proc/loadavg", "sar" and "tcpdump".
>
> dirent.h would be great if I needed to analyse information about
> directories but since I don't need that functionality (and I have
> already used it in the past) it is a rather pointless suggestion.

The book that made any of this comprehensible to me was _Advanced 
Programming in the Unix Environment_.  Stevens and Rago.  They go over 
ls exhaustively.

I just looked at one of the files (good books and good authors always 
have the software available for those who purchase the book).

#include "apue.h"

#define	BUFFSIZE	4096

int
main(void)
{
	int		n;
	char	buf[BUFFSIZE];

	while ((n = read(STDIN_FILENO, buf, BUFFSIZE)) > 0)
		if (write(STDOUT_FILENO, buf, n) != n)
			err_sys("write error");

	if (n < 0)
		err_sys("read error");

	exit(0);
}

So you've got the proprietary yet available header as the only thing in 
the source that is non-standard.  Eric's a little bit of a zealot about 
that, but he's totally right that your answer is over in 
comp.unix.programmer .
-- 
Cal

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

#24127

In article <dfGdnUOdz5OycoTNnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@supernews.com>,
Cal Dershowitz  <cal@example.invalid> wrote:
...
>So you've got the proprietary yet available header as the only thing in 
>the source that is non-standard.  Eric's a little bit of a zealot about 
>that, but he's totally right that your answer is over in 
>comp.unix.programmer .

As I said before, every other newsgroup and online forum (IME) has a simple
ethic of "If you can't (or won't) answer the question, then STFU!".  If you
violate this norm, you are pretty much politely ignored.  But (obviously),
here in CLC, no such norm exists (hence this post [the post I am writing
right now] is unassailably correct in context).

But the real, underlying, problem is that the current rulers of CLC have
usurped the name.  That is, a newsgroup named comp.lang.c should be about C,
but they have changed it into comp.religion.c - but forgot to change the
name.  It is as if someone (back around 1991) had been assigned the task of
filing the paperwork to setup (charter, whatever terminology you prefer) a
new newsgroup, but forgot to do so (maybe they went on vacation that week,
maybe they got sick - who can say?).  So, in desperation, they (the
religious zealots) just setup shop (for their new idea of what a newsgroup
about C should be like) here in comp.lang.c.

-- 
(This discussion group is about C, ...)

Wrong.  It is only OCCASIONALLY a discussion group
about C; mostly, like most "discussion" groups, it is
off-topic Rorsharch [sic] revelations of the childhood
traumas of the participants...

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

#24130

On Aug 2, 8:20 am, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
> But the real, underlying, problem is that the current rulers of CLC have
> usurped the name.  That is, a newsgroup named comp.lang.c should be about C,
> but they have changed it into comp.religion.c - but forgot to change the
> name.  It is as if someone (back around 1991) had been assigned the task of
> filing the paperwork to setup (charter, whatever terminology you prefer) a
> new newsgroup, but forgot to do so (maybe they went on vacation that week,
> maybe they got sick - who can say?).  So, in desperation, they (the
> religious zealots) just setup shop (for their new idea of what a newsgroup
> about C should be like) here in comp.lang.c.

Why is it such a hard concept that clc is about the C language and
comp.unix.programmer is about programming applications in unix?

If you want to chat about the finer points of POSIX functionality/etc
then move on over to comp.unix.programmer.

In the real world this would be like you showing up at a football game
and complaining that there are no hockey fans around.

Tom

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

#24135

In article <02eb160b-1884-4c72-b3ef-8febdfcd5830@c25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
tom st denis  <tom@iahu.ca> wrote:
...
>In the real world this would be like you showing up at a football game
>and complaining that there are no hockey fans around.

Wrong, as usual.

A closer analogy would be as if I showed up at a football game and was told
that I (and all the other hockey fans) had to go home, because we aren't
true, blue, football fans (because we happen to be fans of both sports).

-- 
"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]

#24137

On 8/2/2012 10:16 AM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <02eb160b-1884-4c72-b3ef-8febdfcd5830@c25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> tom st denis  <tom@iahu.ca> wrote:
> ....
>> In the real world this would be like you showing up at a football game
>> and complaining that there are no hockey fans around.
>
> Wrong, as usual.
>
> A closer analogy would be as if I showed up at a football game and was told
> that I (and all the other hockey fans) had to go home, because we aren't
> true, blue, football fans (because we happen to be fans of both sports).

No, since no one has a problem with anyone just "sitting around" and reading 
this group.  It's not until you start asking questions (at that football 
game) about the finer points of soccer (which, I understand, is called 
"football" in some part of the world), and then start complaining that 
people tell you to leave them alone and let them enjoy the game.

At least no one's complaining that they have a "First Amendment right" to 
post whatever they want.  :-)

-- 
Kenneth Brody

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

#24143

On Aug 2, 10:16 am, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
wrote:
> In article <02eb160b-1884-4c72-b3ef-8febdfcd5...@c25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> tom st denis  <t...@iahu.ca> wrote:
> ...
>
> >In the real world this would be like you showing up at a football game
> >and complaining that there are no hockey fans around.
>
> Wrong, as usual.
>
> A closer analogy would be as if I showed up at a football game and was told
> that I (and all the other hockey fans) had to go home, because we aren't
> true, blue, football fans (because we happen to be fans of both sports).

Nobody is questioning your devotion to the C language.  They're
questioning if you know the name on the door you walked through.

There is actually an entire usenet group devoted to programming
challenges with *NIX and it's not clc.

That's the thing I don't get about you.  It's not like there is NO
PLACE for those sorts of questions you just choose to refuse to accept
the reality that you're in the wrong spot and then you post [regularly
I might add] over the course of YEARS about the great travesty that is
topicality.

And it's not even like the other [helpful] regulars are being
particularly rude or unhelpful they're just telling the posters that
there are better places to ask the questions which will likely get
more appropriate responses.

Tom

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

#24155

tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> writes:
> On Aug 2, 10:16 am, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
> wrote:
[snip]
> Nobody is questioning your devotion to the C language.  They're
> questioning if you know the name on the door you walked through.

Please don't feed the troll.

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

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

#24157

On Aug 2, 6:03 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> tom st denis <t...@iahu.ca> writes:
>
> > On Aug 2, 10:16 am, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
> > wrote:
> [snip]
> > Nobody is questioning your devotion to the C language.  They're
> > questioning if you know the name on the door you walked through.
>
> Please don't feed the troll.

Never hurts to check in once in a while and see if there is any
humanity behind the account.

Tom

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

#24158

In article <e533e089-7456-42e5-af24-83c0cc888b47@a4g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
tom st denis  <tom@iahu.ca> wrote:
>On Aug 2, 6:03 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>> tom st denis <t...@iahu.ca> writes:
>>
>> > On Aug 2, 10:16 am, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
>> > wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > Nobody is questioning your devotion to the C language.  They're
>> > questioning if you know the name on the door you walked through.
>>
>> Please don't feed the troll.
>
>Never hurts to check in once in a while and see if there is any
>humanity behind the account.

Leader Kiki is not going to be happy with your attitude, sir!

-- 
Windows 95 n. (Win-doze): A 32 bit extension to a 16 bit user interface for
an 8 bit operating system based on a 4 bit architecture from a 2 bit company
that can't stand 1 bit of competition.

Modern day upgrade --> Windows XP Professional x64: Windows is now a 64 bit
tweak of a 32 bit extension to a 16 bit user interface for an 8 bit
operating system based on a 4 bit architecture from a 2 bit company that
can't stand 1 bit of competition.

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

#24159

tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> writes:
> On Aug 2, 6:03 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>> tom st denis <t...@iahu.ca> writes:
>>
>> > On Aug 2, 10:16 am, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
>> > wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > Nobody is questioning your devotion to the C language.  They're
>> > questioning if you know the name on the door you walked through.
>>
>> Please don't feed the troll.
>
> Never hurts to check in once in a while and see if there is any
> humanity behind the account.

Can't you do that without giving him public attention?

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

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

#24193

On 03/08/2012 05:07, Keith Thompson wrote:

> Can't you do that without giving him public attention?

Wow. It seems like I have really pissed off the regulars here with my 
question. In the future I'll know to ask in comp.unix.programmers with 
any POSIX related questions I might have.

I really didn't mean to start a huge flame war I was simply asking for 
some help and originally thought that this was the best place to ask for 
said help. I'm sorry that this thread got out of hand.

Having said that I did receive an answer to my question which I am 
grateful for.

So you have made your point and as I said in future I'll know to keep to 
standard C when asking questions here.

Thank you all.

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

#24194

Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> writes:
> On 03/08/2012 05:07, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Can't you do that without giving him public attention?
>
> Wow. It seems like I have really pissed off the regulars here with my 
> question. In the future I'll know to ask in comp.unix.programmers with 
> any POSIX related questions I might have.

No, you really haven't.  You made a minor mistake, and you've
acknowledged it.  No harm done.  The flame war had nothing to do
with you, and is in no way your fault.  In particular, my remark
upthread about not feeding the troll was *not* in reference to you.

[snip]

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

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

#24196

Hi,

I do not mind your question. And I do not restrict a C forum to only Windows 
OS. I still believe, that C covers both Linux, Windows and more. So I am 
glad that I could point you to popen. I neither interpreted your question 
for only using ls. For me it was clearly readable that this was just an 
example. It may be hard to code all in C, maybe especially when you need a 
suid bit for running it. Why bother with security issues, when reading a 
pipe does the job.

Heiner

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

#24201

In article <jvits4$1u2$1@news.m-online.net>,
Heinrich Wolf <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I do not mind your question. And I do not restrict a C forum to only Windows 
>OS. I still believe, that C covers both Linux, Windows and more. So I am 
>glad that I could point you to popen. I neither interpreted your question 
>for only using ls. For me it was clearly readable that this was just an 
>example. It may be hard to code all in C, maybe especially when you need a 
>suid bit for running it. Why bother with security issues, when reading a 
>pipe does the job.
>
>Heiner
>

Yes, I totally agree that C should not be seen as limited to Windows.

In fact, it runs on, and has been ported to, many non-Windows OSes.  This is
a Good Thing.

-- 
The motto of the GOP "base": You can't be a billionaire, but at least you
can vote like one.

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

#24523

On 8/4/2012 9:25 AM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
[...]
> Yes, I totally agree that C should not be seen as limited to Windows.
>
> In fact, it runs on, and has been ported to, many non-Windows OSes.  This is
> a Good Thing.

ITYM:

In fact, it runs on, and has been ported to, many non-Unix OSes (including 
Windows).  This is a Good Thing.

-- 
Kenneth Brody

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

#24226

"Heinrich Wolf" <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
> I do not mind your question. And I do not restrict a C forum to only Windows 
> OS. I still believe, that C covers both Linux, Windows and more. So I am 
> glad that I could point you to popen. I neither interpreted your question 
> for only using ls. For me it was clearly readable that this was just an 
> example. It may be hard to code all in C, maybe especially when you need a 
> suid bit for running it. Why bother with security issues, when reading a 
> pipe does the job.

Yes, but there's an entire newsgroup, comp.unix.programmer, dedicated
to programming under Unix and Unix-like operating systems.

The C language doesn't mention popen().  Unix does, and
comp.unix.programmer is full of people who know more about it than
even a C expert is likely to know.

My point is simply that comp.unix.programmer is a better place
for such questions than comp.lang.c, for at least two reasons.
First, you're more likely to get knowledgeable answers in c.u.p.,
which will be read by other experts who are going to be able to
point out any errors.  And second, it lets clc focus on what it's
best at: discussing the C language as defined by the standard;
there isn't a better newsgroup for that.

And yet some people (I'm not referring either to you or to the OP)
take great offense at that, or pretend to.

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

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

#24256

On Aug 4, 11:34 am, "Heinrich Wolf" <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> I do not mind your question. And I do not restrict a C forum to only Windows
> OS.

nor does anyone else. The point is *both* Unix and Windows specific
questions are off-topic.


> I still believe, that C covers both Linux, Windows and more. So I am
> glad that I could point you to popen. I neither interpreted your question
> for only using ls. For me it was clearly readable that this was just an
> example. It may be hard to code all in C, maybe especially when you need a
> suid bit for running it. Why bother with security issues, when reading a
> pipe does the job.

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

#24296

On Aug 5, 11:27 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Aug 4, 11:34 am, "Heinrich Wolf" <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > I do not mind your question. And I do not restrict a C forum to only Windows
> > OS.
>
> nor does anyone else. The point is *both* Unix and Windows specific
> questions are off-topic.

So it is repeatedly claimed.  Such repitition aside, I don't see any
evidence that that is actually the case.

All that is clear (to me, at least) is that a significant minority of
regular posters are happy to answer such questions, while a separate
minority are vociferous that they not even be asked.

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

#24298

On 08/06/2012 04:50 AM, gwowen wrote:
> On Aug 5, 11:27�am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
...
>> nor does anyone else. The point is *both* Unix and Windows specific
>> questions are off-topic.
> 
> So it is repeatedly claimed.  Such repitition aside, I don't see any
> evidence that that is actually the case.

Questions of topicality are hard to resolve for a newsgroup first
created before it became conventional for newsgroups to have charters.
That's why I normally phrase my comments on such subjects in terms of
where the best place is to get answers to such questions. I hope you
would not seriously argue against the proposition that a forum specific
to a given operating system is generally a better place to go to than
clc for answers to questions that are specific to that operating system?

> All that is clear (to me, at least) is that a significant minority of
> regular posters are happy to answer such questions, while a separate
> minority are vociferous that they not even be asked.

There's a key word missing from that last sentence. We believe that such
questions should not be asked HERE. We think it would be a great idea to
ask such questions in a different forum where they're more likely to be
answered promptly and correctly.

My personal judgment is that the number of people who answer such
questions is significantly smaller than the number of people who
vociferously object to telling anyone that there's better forums to go
to for answers to those kinds of questions. Those people almost never
provide an actual answer to the question being asked, they just, for
some reason, want the existence of such forums to be kept a secret.
-- 
James Kuyper

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

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

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

csiph-web