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 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]

#24318

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
[...]
> The closest you could get would be lcc-win32, which for some reason is
> discussed here fairly frequently, rather than on comp.lang.lcc.
[...]

You mean comp.compilers.lcc, which discusses both lcc-win32 and the
lcc compiler on which it was based.

-- 
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]

#24330

On 08/06/2012 02:55 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
> [...]
>> The closest you could get would be lcc-win32, which for some reason is
>> discussed here fairly frequently, rather than on comp.lang.lcc.
> [...]
> 
> You mean comp.compilers.lcc, which discusses both lcc-win32 and the
> lcc compiler on which it was based.

I should have checked, rather than relying upon my memory. Sorry!
-- 
James Kuyper

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

#24316

"BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> "gwowen" <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:90326476-cbc2-49ea-b55e-9cd794727529@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
>> 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.
>
> C is a funny language in that it pervades everywhere and people having 
> issues with it may not be aware of the strict partitioning into standard 
> language / extensions / compilers / implementations / platform / libraries / 
> applications / hardware / etc that some try to enforce here. As far as the 
> latter are concerned, only the standard language is on-topic (plus anything 
> to do with topicality!)
>
> But the standard language would be quite a narrow topic, unless you are 
> interested in C Standard minutiae, while most questions seem to be covered 
> by the FAQ. Since traffic on the group is quite low, and many of the more 
> relevant groups are pretty much dead, I can't see the problems. Just put 
> "OT" in front of the subject to stop anyone complaining.

The standard C language is not a narrow topic.  This newsgroup still has
a decent level of traffic, even if you consider only the articles that
you and I would both agree are topical.  And comp.unix.programmer is
also still active.  I think some relevant Windows groups are as well;
comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32 is the one I tend to refer people
to.

And the fact remains that if you have a question about some
POSIX-specific C function, comp.unix.programmer has a higher density
than comp.lang.c of people who can answer and discuss it intelligently.
(Some of them happen to be the same people).  

Standard C happens to be an interest of mine.  I *like* having a forum
to discuss it in.

As for putting "OT" in the subject, how about

    Subject: OT: How do I repair my bicycle chain?

-- 
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]

#24319

"Keith Thompson" <kst-u@mib.org> wrote in message
news:lnehnjyhvs.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org...
> "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

>> by the FAQ. Since traffic on the group is quite low, and many of the more
>> relevant groups are pretty much dead, I can't see the problems.

>  And comp.unix.programmer is
> also still active.  I think some relevant Windows groups are as well;
> comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32 is the one I tend to refer people
> to.

That one is not so bad. But microsoft.public.win32.programmer.gdi for
example, last had a question posted 8 months ago (and hasn't had any
replies). And someone who thinks gnu.gcc might help with their gcc-specific
C problems, will see it apparently hasn't had any posts - ever!

> As for putting "OT" in the subject, how about
>
>    Subject: OT: How do I repair my bicycle chain?

(Actually they could well have a better chance of getting help here, than
somewhere like uk.rec.cycling, which is very active, but highly political.)

The OT prefix ought to be used sensibly, not used an excuse to discuss 
anything under the sun.

-- 
Bartc 

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

#24320

On 08/06/2012 03:28 PM, BartC wrote:
...
> The OT prefix ought to be used sensibly, not used an excuse to discuss 
> anything under the sun.

That begs the question - IMO it is almost never "sensible" to post the
first message of a thread using "OT" - if you need "OT", you've chosen
the wrong forum for your message. Thread drift often makes it
appropriate to add it to an existing thread's subject line, but that's a
different issue.

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

#26182

On 8/6/2012 2:44 PM, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 08/06/2012 03:28 PM, BartC wrote:
> ....
>> The OT prefix ought to be used sensibly, not used an excuse to discuss
>> anything under the sun.
>
> That begs the question - IMO it is almost never "sensible" to post the
> first message of a thread using "OT" - if you need "OT", you've chosen
> the wrong forum for your message. Thread drift often makes it
> appropriate to add it to an existing thread's subject line, but that's a
> different issue.

Where is it sensible to post the first message of your thread if it
is mainly a question about what the proper forum is, since you haven't 
been able to find any forum that looks suitable?

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

#26184

On 2012-09-10, Robert Miles <milesrf@Usenet-News.net> wrote:
> Where is it sensible to post the first message of your thread if it
> is mainly a question about what the proper forum is, since you haven't 
> been able to find any forum that looks suitable?

news.newusers.questions, perhaps.

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

#26185

Robert Miles <milesrf@Usenet-News.net> writes:
[...]
> Where is it sensible to post the first message of your thread if it
> is mainly a question about what the proper forum is, since you haven't 
> been able to find any forum that looks suitable?

By convention, discussions about topicality are considered topical.

-- 
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]

#26202

On 2012-09-10, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> Robert Miles <milesrf@Usenet-News.net> writes:
> [...]
>> Where is it sensible to post the first message of your thread if it
>> is mainly a question about what the proper forum is, since you haven't 
>> been able to find any forum that looks suitable?
>
> By convention, discussions about topicality are considered topical.

You didn't think this one through, Kiki.

"Where might it be topical to ask a question about hair spray for rats?"

What if that topicality being discussed has nothing even remotely to do with
the topicality of the newsgroup?

This new-fangled "topicality is topical" is not a convention, but only an
excuse for some regulars to feel they have "immunity" when engaging in extended
debates about why something or someone is off topic. This view is overdue
for being laid to rest.

I've been here longer than most regulars, and all I remember is that at
the height of the topicality policing, there had been kind of agreement that
it's okay to ask about where a question can be posted, if that question is
related to the use of some C dialect in some way (e.g. platform-specific
programming with some C based toolchain). 

But I have come to believe that if the question is related to the use of some C
dialect, even to do something platform-specific, then it is actually just fine
in comp.lang.c. Part of why I think this now is the lessening of the traffic,
compared to the "heyday". Lower traffic newsgroups can tolerate more topic
diversity.  (As an extreme example. if all of Usenet consisted of only five
people, they would best use only one newsgroup to discuss anything whatsoever,
rather than chasing each other across 10,000 newsgroups in order to maintain a
topicality charade.)

We have come full circle, because if you look at very old archives of
comp.lang.c (or net.lang.c), you will see that once upon a time it was  also
more relaxed. The strict topic policing kicked in sometime around the mid to
late 1990's when the daily volume became quite high. (And, furthermore, C had
then been standardized for a number of years, giving some people the excuse
that only what is written up in ISO 9899:1990 is C and nothing else.)

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

#26211

Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> 
> On 2012-09-10, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> > Robert Miles <milesrf@Usenet-News.net> writes:
> > [...]
> >> Where is it sensible to post the first message of your thread if it
> >> is mainly a question about what the proper forum is,
> >> since you haven't
> >> been able to find any forum that looks suitable?
> >
> > By convention, discussions about topicality are considered topical.
> 
> You didn't think this one through, Kiki.
> 
> "Where might it be topical
> to ask a question about hair spray for rats?"
> 
> What if that topicality being discussed
> has nothing even remotely to do with
> the topicality of the newsgroup?
> 
> This new-fangled "topicality is topical" is not a convention,
> but only an excuse for some regulars 
> to feel they have "immunity" when engaging in extended
> debates about why something or someone is off topic.
> This view is overdue for being laid to rest.

You're off topic.

Oops!

-- 
pete

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

#26190

On Monday, September 10, 2012 6:46:23 AM UTC+3, Robert Miles wrote:
> On 8/6/2012 2:44 PM, James Kuyper wrote:
> > On 08/06/2012 03:28 PM, BartC wrote:
> > ....
> >> The OT prefix ought to be used sensibly, not used an excuse to discuss
> >> anything under the sun.
> >
> > That begs the question - IMO it is almost never "sensible" to post the
> > first message of a thread using "OT" - if you need "OT", you've chosen
> > the wrong forum for your message. Thread drift often makes it
> > appropriate to add it to an existing thread's subject line, but that's a
> > different issue.
> 
> Where is it sensible to post the first message of your thread if it
> is mainly a question about what the proper forum is, since you haven't 
> been able to find any forum that looks suitable?

People in c.l.c are so friendly that you can ask whatever you want.
They have so broad minds that someone eventually knows correct 
answer ... even if the question is about something really exotic
like UNIX or Windows. The people who do not know the answer
contribute by friendly humming and nudging each other and original
poster to pump the thread until someone answers. Traditional topic
in such humm-pump remarks is topicality.

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

#26191

On 09/09/2012 11:46 PM, Robert Miles wrote:
> On 8/6/2012 2:44 PM, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 08/06/2012 03:28 PM, BartC wrote:
>> ....
>>> The OT prefix ought to be used sensibly, not used an excuse to discuss
>>> anything under the sun.
>>
>> That begs the question - IMO it is almost never "sensible" to post the
>> first message of a thread using "OT" - if you need "OT", you've chosen
>> the wrong forum for your message. Thread drift often makes it
>> appropriate to add it to an existing thread's subject line, but that's a
>> different issue.
> 
> Where is it sensible to post the first message of your thread if it
> is mainly a question about what the proper forum is, since you haven't 
> been able to find any forum that looks suitable?

I did say "almost" - reasonable accommodation should be made for
reasonable levels of uncertainty. Post such a message on one of the
forums (with a reasonable activity level) that comes closest to looking
suitable. In such a place you're more likely to find someone who knows
what an appropriate forum is for your question. Just don't go posting
such a question at random.
-- 
James Kuyper

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

#24341

"BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:jvp62e$vnn$1@dont-email.me...
> "Keith Thompson" <kst-u@mib.org> wrote in message
> news:lnehnjyhvs.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org...
>> "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> The OT prefix ought to be used sensibly, not used an excuse to discuss
> anything under the sun.

why not "discuss anything under the sun"? if it is one time/year...

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

#24343

Geeze, are you still arguing about how much it wastes bandwidth to tell people 
about popen/pclose? The question was asked and answerred days ago, and you 
people still have a pinecone shoved up where it's rather uncomfortable.

-- 
My name Indigo Montoya.      |            Die, Robbie Ferrier! Die!
You flamed my father.        |       I'm whoever you want me to be.
Prepare to be spanked.       |  Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Stop posting that!           |    At least I can stay in character.

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

#24359

In article <lnehnjyhvs.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson  <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
...
>The standard C language is not a narrow topic.

Yes.  It is.  Moreover, although it seems to be a subject of great interest
to obessives like you, it really is of no interest to the typical newbie.

So, make no mistake, by making this newsgroup be about religious C (Chapter
& verse), you are excluding the newbies who might otherwise benefit from a
more diverse group.  Believe me, this standards-only stuff is only of
interest to folks like Kiki (and a few other "regulars" here).

-- 
But the Bush apologists hope that you won't remember all that. And they
also have a theory, which I've been hearing more and more - namely,
that President Obama, though not yet in office or even elected, caused the
2008 slump. You see, people were worried in advance about his future
policies, and that's what caused the economy to tank. Seriously.

    (Paul Krugman - Addicted to Bush)

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

#24365

Kenny McCormack wrote:

>>The standard C language is not a narrow topic.
> 
> Yes.  It is.  Moreover, although it seems to be a subject of great
> interest to obessives like you, it really is of no interest to the typical
> newbie.
> 
> So, make no mistake, by making this newsgroup be about religious C
> (Chapter & verse), you are excluding the newbies who might otherwise
> benefit from a more diverse group.  Believe me, this standards-only stuff
> is only of interest to folks like Kiki (and a few other "regulars" here).

This newsgroup tends to receive an average of about 900 posts per month 
while focusing on the C programming language.  I don't believe this would 
happen if the C programming language was, as you claim, a narrow topic.

In addition, no newbie is excluded if a newsgroup dedicated to the C 
programming language hosts discussions on the C programming language.  If a 
newbie wishes to discuss any issue regarding the use of the C programming 
language then this is the place to go.  If, instead, a newbie wishes to 
discuss any issue which goes beyond the C programming language, such as unix 
programming, then there are other places which are expected to serve him 
better.  The reason for that is that those topics tend to be "only of 
interest to folks" who follow those newsgroups.

Finally, these people whose interests and focus you criticise so much are 
actually those who are in a position to help out and give meaningful answers 
to newbies, which they actually do.  In other words, they are essentially 
the reason why newbies go here to begin with. So, if you actually had any 
concern regarding their best interests then you wouldn't be launching these 
personal attacks on the people who spend their personal time helping them 
out when they can.


Rui Maciel

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

#24427

Rui Maciel wrote:

> This newsgroup tends to receive an average of about 900 posts per
> month while focusing on the C programming language.

What is wrong with that "picture"? 

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

#24338

On Aug 6, 9:50 am, gwowen <gwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I was correcting the impression he'd formed that people thought this
was
a Windows only ng.

I see little point in reiterating previously iterated positions

> 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]

#24136

On 8/2/2012 8:20 AM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> 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).

So, if I were to go over to comp.unix.programmer, and ask a question about 
reading the Windows registry to find out how to print a PDF file, the 
response would be either (1) dead silence, or (2) an answer to my question? 
  No one would say "ask in $NEWSGROUP_X"?  No one would tell me it's off-topic?

What about asking a question on getting a list of tables from a MySQL 
database in rec.food.borscht?

Perhaps asking how to recover data from a crashed hard drive in 
alt.sysadmin.recovery?

Or asking for help on an error message while installing Linux in 
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy?

Or ...?

I find it hard to believe that "every other newsgroup" tolerates off-topic 
postings.  Perhaps some tolerate it more than others, but the whole purpose 
of different newsgroups is to have a place to concentrate on one particular 
topic.  Otherwise, why not just have a single group called "usenet"?

> 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.

You seem to think that anything that compiles a file ending with a ".c" 
extension is "C", regardless of how many platform-specific things are in it. 
  Yes, you can call popen() or WaitForMultipleObjects() from a C program, 
but what those functions do, and the proper way to call and use them, are 
not part of the C language.

Do you fell that comp.lang.c needs to support every platform-specific 
extension and function every conceived, as long as there is some way to call 
it from a C (plus platform-specific extensions) program?  Wouldn't a 
question about CreateProcessEx() be better answered in a Windows group than 
here?  Wouldn't a question about how to plot a conic section be better off 
being asked in a math and/or algorithm group?  (Though, if you have the 
necessary algorithms, and need help implementing them in C, this would be 
the place to go.)  Wouldn't a question about how to call a FORTRAN library 
function from your C code be better asked in a compiler-specific group?

> 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.


-- 
Kenneth Brody

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

#24533

Chicken McNuggets wrote:

> Because the "ls" command was an example. I really want to process the
> output of things like "iostat", "/proc/loadavg", "sar" and "tcpdump".

It appears that /proc/loadavg is one of those "everything is a file" that 
unix is known for.  So, in this case instead of relying on wrapping unix 
commands in C you only need to open the file, read it, parse the content, 
and finally close it.


Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]

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

csiph-web