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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #130054 > unrolled thread

"C Is Not a Low-level Language"

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

Contents

  "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 16:21 -0500
    "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 16:35 -0700
    Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 02:07 +0100
      Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" 1alvinalbrecht1@gmail.com - 2018-05-02 21:48 -0700
        Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 02:14 -0700
          Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 10:45 +0200
            Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 02:15 -0700
        Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 10:14 +0200
          Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-04 08:12 -0700
            Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 21:18 +0200
              Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-06 15:44 -0700
                Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-05-06 19:45 -0400
                  Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-07 09:47 -0700
                    Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 13:15 -0700
                    Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-05-07 22:03 -0400
                      Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-08 06:46 -0700
                        Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-05-08 20:59 -0400
                          Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-09 10:03 -0700
                            Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 10:57 -0700
                      Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-08 07:58 -0700
                      Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-05-18 20:18 -0700
                        Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-19 15:49 -0700
                Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 05:58 -0700
      Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 10:58 +0100
        Some course material (was Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language") Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-05-03 14:41 +0000
          Re: Some course material (was Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language") bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 16:02 +0100
          Re: Some course material (was Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language") Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 10:25 -0700
        Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 09:17 -0700
          Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 17:39 +0100
            Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-04 11:40 +0200
              Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 10:59 +0100
                Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 03:18 -0700
                  Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-04 14:59 +0000
                    Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-04 08:57 -0700
                      Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 23:24 +0200
                        Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-07 12:27 -0500
                    Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-04 11:15 -0500
                    Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-04 18:13 +0200
                      Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-04 11:45 -0500
                      Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-04 17:31 +0000
                        Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-05 11:10 -0700
                        Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-05 11:48 +0200
                          Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 17:57 -0700
                          Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 00:11 -0700
                      Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 23:28 +0200
                        Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-06 15:48 -0700
                          Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-05-08 20:01 +0000
                            Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-08 13:20 -0700
                              Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-08 20:34 +0000
                              Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 06:15 -0700
                        Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-08 02:12 +0200
                Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-05-04 10:42 +0000
                Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 13:44 +0200
                Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-04 18:11 +0200
                  Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 17:47 +0100
                  Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-04 10:57 -0700
                    Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-05 14:57 +0200
        Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-04 15:05 +1200
          Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 10:01 +0100
            Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 13:51 +0200
              Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 13:14 +0100
                Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 15:19 +0200
                  Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 14:38 +0100
                    Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-05-04 13:56 +0000
                    Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 16:24 +0200
                  Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-04 07:36 -0700
              Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-04 06:01 -0700
            Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-04 14:57 +0000
            Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-05 06:49 +1200
              Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-05 10:55 -0700
      Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 10:10 +0200
        Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-04 04:51 -0700
          Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 14:37 +0200

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

#130245

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 8:31:40 PM UTC+3, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> writes:
> >On 04-05-18 16:59, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> >>> On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 10:59:31 AM UTC+1, Bart wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> It's just reinforcing the prejudice against Windows and perpetuating the 
> >>>> myth that C can only properly be developed and run on Linux or 
> >>>> compatible machines.
> >>>>
> >>>> He could have toned down his comments and stated that, wherever the 
> >>>> program was developed and tested, assessment would be done on a Linux 
> >>>> machine, instead of making anyone thinking of using Windows feel like a 
> >>>> pariah.
> >>>>
> >>> There was a time when academics and big company employees tended to use
> >>> Unix, whereas the general public had Windows machines. So that created
> >>> a sense of social superiority amongst the Unix users. There was also
> >>> a certain amount of envy of Microsoft, and jokes that some people made
> >>> at Microsoft's expense weren't always understood to be really just jokes.
> >> 
> >> 100% nonsense.   Even today, you can do many things on unix/linux that
> >> you just can't do on Windows.   Like run headless, for example.
> >
> >Bullshit. Windows Server 2016 defaults to running headless, and you have
> >to explicitly select the "no, please don't do that" option if you want
> >to avoid it.
> 
> Actually, it's not headless, since you need a windows PC to control it.
> 

I suppose there is no consensus definition of what is "headless" and whether machine  with no keyboard and monitor attached is not "headless" just because it's managed via RDP.
BTW, RDP client does not have to be Windows PC. In fact, if you are masochist, then it does not have to be PC.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.microsoft.rdc.android&hl=en
  

> You cannot manage it using ssh (or a serial port) and just a command line.

You can manage it with telnet and just command line. Painful, but possible.
Of course, using telnet in today's world is a *very* bad idea from security perspective.
May be, by now, ssh is also available? Last time I looked, it wasn't, but that was back on WS2003R2.

But I really don't see a difference between ssh and RDP in context of the question of "what's considered headless".

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

#130334

On 04-05-18 19:31, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Actually, it's not headless, since you need a windows PC to control it.
> 
> You cannot manage it using ssh (or a serial port) and just a command line.

That's splitting hairs, and you know it. "headless" has nothing to
dowith ssh or a command line. Headless has everything to do with "no
monitor or local console". That is true.

(I'm not a big fan of Windows myself; but I do think it's important and
necessary to get your facts right in this kind of discussion)

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

#130337

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 4:57:58 PM UTC-7, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On 04-05-18 19:31, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > Actually, it's not headless, since you need a windows PC to control it.
> > 
> > You cannot manage it using ssh (or a serial port) and just a command line.
> 
> That's splitting hairs, and you know it. "headless" has nothing to
> dowith ssh or a command line. Headless has everything to do with "no
> monitor or local console". That is true.
> 
> (I'm not a big fan of Windows myself; but I do think it's important and
> necessary to get your facts right in this kind of discussion)



You've proven that it is vallor. 

Once Bill Cunningham understood how effective vallor is at playing 'target' he sees this isn't quite as insane as it sounded. 

I am not going to play like Bill Cunningham didn't help me on image editing and I acknowledge his guidance. vallor has this thread as an example and might learn to sound like he has a clue from here on... as always he screwed up when it mattered ;) 

How is failing potential gray matter tied to flatlining brain waves in any way going to lead to enlightened group dialog? It was vallor who was publicly asking how better to obscure his flooding. That lame duck update system failed over and over again. Sandman lies. Here is a list of names Jonas Eklundh has admitted he attributes to vallor "Cactus Pete", "Donald", "Donald Miller", "Horace McSwain", "Hymen", "meat", "Mike Weaver", "Modena IV Drid", "Omar Murad Asfour", "Rhino Plastee", "Soapy", "SopwithCamel", "Sunny Day", "Takuya Saitoh", "The Letter Q", "tmelmosfire", "zevon". What is your evidence? 



-- 
Puppy Videos
https://youtu.be/dNhvVfD4zu4
https://www.facebook.com/jenny.eklund
Jonas Eklundh Communication AB

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

#130339

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 4:57:58 PM UTC-7, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On 04-05-18 19:31, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > Actually, it's not headless, since you need a windows PC to control it.
> > 
> > You cannot manage it using ssh (or a serial port) and just a command line.
> 
> That's splitting hairs, and you know it. "headless" has nothing to
> dowith ssh or a command line. Headless has everything to do with "no
> monitor or local console". That is true.
> 
> (I'm not a big fan of Windows myself; but I do think it's important and
> necessary to get your facts right in this kind of discussion)



James Kuyper can create a virtual machine. Makes jacobnavia cry because he can not. 

I'm not going to pretend James Kuyper didn't save my bacon when I needed it and I am indebted to him for his service. jacobnavia has my example to follow and could learn to appear like he has a clue from here on ;) 

This is what arises when really low self-respect takes over jacobnavia's life. You can say I am jacobnavia for all I care. jacobnavia only thinks about James Kuyper, James Kuyper, James Kuyper! Undeniably, the sole thought that matters to jacobnavia is being "accurate", and if he can't have that he will create socks to effectively shout "others" down, which only serves to push the group off topic. Calls it "attacking" him, even though he proceeds to trigger that selfsame reaction. 

--
Puppy Videos
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/RSikBcWxBLo
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.advocacy/tzMH39QmAmU
Jonas Eklundh Communication AB

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

#130279

On 04/05/18 18:13, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On 04-05-18 16:59, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 10:59:31 AM UTC+1, Bart wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's just reinforcing the prejudice against Windows and perpetuating the
>>>> myth that C can only properly be developed and run on Linux or
>>>> compatible machines.
>>>>
>>>> He could have toned down his comments and stated that, wherever the
>>>> program was developed and tested, assessment would be done on a Linux
>>>> machine, instead of making anyone thinking of using Windows feel like a
>>>> pariah.
>>>>
>>> There was a time when academics and big company employees tended to use
>>> Unix, whereas the general public had Windows machines. So that created
>>> a sense of social superiority amongst the Unix users. There was also
>>> a certain amount of envy of Microsoft, and jokes that some people made
>>> at Microsoft's expense weren't always understood to be really just jokes.
>>
>> 100% nonsense.   Even today, you can do many things on unix/linux that
>> you just can't do on Windows.   Like run headless, for example.
> 
> Bullshit. Windows Server 2016 defaults to running headless, and you have
> to explicitly select the "no, please don't do that" option if you want
> to avoid it.

Can it run on a system without any graphics card at all?

(Still, it is good progress if it doesn't need a desktop gui.  It is 
only 40 years or so behind *nix, but I am happy to see it.  I have 
little use for Windows servers, and don't keep up with the latest 
changes, but I glad to hear it has improved in this area.)

> 
> You can't do it with their desktop operating systems, that's true.
> 

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

#130291

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 12:28:40 AM UTC+3, David Brown wrote:
> On 04/05/18 18:13, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On 04-05-18 16:59, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> >>> On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 10:59:31 AM UTC+1, Bart wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> It's just reinforcing the prejudice against Windows and perpetuating the
> >>>> myth that C can only properly be developed and run on Linux or
> >>>> compatible machines.
> >>>>
> >>>> He could have toned down his comments and stated that, wherever the
> >>>> program was developed and tested, assessment would be done on a Linux
> >>>> machine, instead of making anyone thinking of using Windows feel like a
> >>>> pariah.
> >>>>
> >>> There was a time when academics and big company employees tended to use
> >>> Unix, whereas the general public had Windows machines. So that created
> >>> a sense of social superiority amongst the Unix users. There was also
> >>> a certain amount of envy of Microsoft, and jokes that some people made
> >>> at Microsoft's expense weren't always understood to be really just jokes.
> >>
> >> 100% nonsense.   Even today, you can do many things on unix/linux that
> >> you just can't do on Windows.   Like run headless, for example.
> > 
> > Bullshit. Windows Server 2016 defaults to running headless, and you have
> > to explicitly select the "no, please don't do that" option if you want
> > to avoid it.
> 
> Can it run on a system without any graphics card at all?
> 
> (Still, it is good progress if it doesn't need a desktop gui.  It is 
> only 40 years or so behind *nix, but I am happy to see it.  I have 
> little use for Windows servers, and don't keep up with the latest 
> changes, but I glad to hear it has improved in this area.)
> 
> > 
> > You can't do it with their desktop operating systems, that's true.
> >

Now I recollect that one doesn't need to log into Windows box in order to manage it from remote.
Instead of that one can use scriptable interface known as WMI. And no, WMI is not new, it exists almost for 20 years.
If we are going to believe Wikipedia, then by now several Linux distributions have something similar so we should be glad that Linux has improved and that improvements took less than 40 years.

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

#130355

On Sun, 2018-05-06, already5chosen@yahoo.com wrote:
...

> Now I recollect that one doesn't need to log into Windows box in
> order to manage it from remote.

> Instead of that one can use scriptable interface known as WMI. And
> no, WMI is not new, it exists almost for 20 years.

> If we are going to believe Wikipedia,

{citation needed}

> then by now several Linux distributions have something similar so we
> should be glad that Linux has improved and that improvements took
> less than 40 years.

This is offtopic, but note that "login" in Unix doesn't imply there's
a screen, keyboard and mouse, or that it's interactive at all.
Allowing administration without a login serves no useful purpose.

(Still, it's possible someone tries to market such a thing.)

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

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

#130357

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 11:02:11 PM UTC+3, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-05-06, already5chosen@yahoo.com wrote:
> ...
> 
> > Now I recollect that one doesn't need to log into Windows box in
> > order to manage it from remote.
> 
> > Instead of that one can use scriptable interface known as WMI. And
> > no, WMI is not new, it exists almost for 20 years.
> 
> > If we are going to believe Wikipedia,
> 
> {citation needed}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Information_Model_(computing)#Implementations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web-Based_Enterprise_Management#Implementations

> 
> > then by now several Linux distributions have something similar so we
> > should be glad that Linux has improved and that improvements took
> > less than 40 years.
> 
> This is offtopic, but note that "login" in Unix doesn't imply there's
> a screen, keyboard and mouse, or that it's interactive at all.
> Allowing administration without a login serves no useful purpose.
> 
> (Still, it's possible someone tries to market such a thing.)
> 
> /Jorgen
> 
> -- 
>   // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
> \X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

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

#130358

already5chosen@yahoo.com writes:
>On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 11:02:11 PM UTC+3, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>> On Sun, 2018-05-06, already5chosen@yahoo.com wrote:
>> ...
>> 
>> > Now I recollect that one doesn't need to log into Windows box in
>> > order to manage it from remote.
>> 
>> > Instead of that one can use scriptable interface known as WMI. And
>> > no, WMI is not new, it exists almost for 20 years.
>> 
>> > If we are going to believe Wikipedia,
>> 
>> {citation needed}
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Information_Model_(computing)#Implementations

Developed on unix, ported to windows.

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

#130373

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 1:20:41 PM UTC-7, already...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 11:02:11 PM UTC+3, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> > On Sun, 2018-05-06, already5chosen@yahoo.com wrote:
> > ...
> > 
> > > Now I recollect that one doesn't need to log into Windows box in
> > > order to manage it from remote.
> > 
> > > Instead of that one can use scriptable interface known as WMI. And
> > > no, WMI is not new, it exists almost for 20 years.
> > 
> > > If we are going to believe Wikipedia,
> > 
> > {citation needed}
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Information_Model_(computing)#Implementations
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web-Based_Enterprise_Management#Implementations
> 
> > 
> > > then by now several Linux distributions have something similar so we
> > > should be glad that Linux has improved and that improvements took
> > > less than 40 years.
> > 
> > This is offtopic, but note that "login" in Unix doesn't imply there's
> > a screen, keyboard and mouse, or that it's interactive at all.
> > Allowing administration without a login serves no useful purpose.
> > 
> > (Still, it's possible someone tries to market such a thing.)
> > 
> > /Jorgen
> > 
> > -- 
> >   // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
> > \X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .



My view is beyond your understanding. I thought showing him some kindness might help the situation. It did not. Steve Carroll can't get anything else to work, either. The one thing Steve Carroll learned sufficiently is to work to humiliate Thomas E. into silence and if that fails to work, troll-splain or quickly change the argument. Over and over, the refrain is he wants to "talk tech", but the guy spends most of his time whining about "obsession". 

--
Top Ten Ways Steve Carroll Trolls
http://prescottcomputerguy.com/screenflow
http://tinyurl.com/proof-about-ebot
http://alt.conspiracy.narkive.com/QcWYJ4Px/the-mentally-ill-mark-s-bilk
Jonas Eklundh Communication AB

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

#130343

On 06-05-18 23:28, David Brown wrote:
> On 04/05/18 18:13, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> Bullshit. Windows Server 2016 defaults to running headless, and you have
>> to explicitly select the "no, please don't do that" option if you want
>> to avoid it.
> 
> Can it run on a system without any graphics card at all?

I don't know, didn't try it. I prefer to use Debian myself ;-)

> (Still, it is good progress if it doesn't need a desktop gui.  It is
> only 40 years or so behind *nix, but I am happy to see it.  I have
> little use for Windows servers, and don't keep up with the latest
> changes, but I glad to hear it has improved in this area.)

Yup.

My favourite is still the introduction of telnetd (or its equivalent)
into Windows 2000. Just about the time when the unix world had *finally*
migrated away from telnet and onto SSH :-)

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

#130136

bartc wrote:
> On 04/05/2018 10:40, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On 03-05-18 18:39, bartc wrote:
>>> On 03/05/2018 17:17, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>> So the question is how to mark any such projects submitted. A reasonable
>>>> answer is to mark them down as non-functional, and to warn students
>>>> that this is the case. After all, in the workplace, if you're developing
>>>> for Windows and hand in code that works on Linux but not Windows, the
>>>> code
>>>> will likely be spiked.
>>>
>>> Perhaps they can come with a makefile that will compile it for either OS.
>> 
>> Yes, but that's not the point.
>> 
>> The instructor is saying "I'm using Linux to test your solutions to the
>> exercises. If they don't work there, you failed the test". This is just
>> part of the setup of the exercise, and not too weird to ask his students.
>> 
>> He could have said instead "I'll test your exercises on a Linux machine
>> as well as on a Windows machine". If that were the case, then yes, a
>> makefile that works on either OS would make sense. But why do that? It
>> would require him to spend more effort, and he's not teaching "how to
>> write portable C", he's teaching "how to write C". He has to pick an OS,
>> and he picked Linux. Given the fact that Linux is free and allows to
>> easily install a C programming environment, that seems like a reasonable
>> choice.
>> 
>
> It's just reinforcing the prejudice against Windows and perpetuating the 
> myth that C can only properly be developed and run on Linux or 
> compatible machines.
>
> He could have toned down his comments and stated that, wherever the 
> program was developed and tested, assessment would be done on a Linux 
> machine, instead of making anyone thinking of using Windows feel like a 
> pariah.
>

I went to uni around the win2k / winXP migration funtimes.  University
labs, professor PCs, etc. were primarily XP, but some profs kept win2k
around because it did what they needed (also, the whole "don't get a new
version of Windows until SP1" bit).

On more than one occasion, the test / project assignment / whatever
included similar wording -- "This project MUST work on my office win2k
machine. If you do not have a win2k machine, the lab DS-222 still has
win2k machines for you to test on."

-- 
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

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

#130142

On 04/05/18 11:59, bartc wrote:
> On 04/05/2018 10:40, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On 03-05-18 18:39, bartc wrote:
>>> On 03/05/2018 17:17, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>> So the question is how to mark any such projects submitted. A
>>>> reasonable
>>>> answer is to mark them down as non-functional, and to warn students
>>>> that this is the case. After all, in the workplace, if you're
>>>> developing
>>>> for Windows and hand in code that works on Linux but not Windows, the
>>>> code
>>>> will likely be spiked.
>>>
>>> Perhaps they can come with a makefile that will compile it for either
>>> OS.
>>
>> Yes, but that's not the point.
>>
>> The instructor is saying "I'm using Linux to test your solutions to the
>> exercises. If they don't work there, you failed the test". This is just
>> part of the setup of the exercise, and not too weird to ask his students.
>>
>> He could have said instead "I'll test your exercises on a Linux machine
>> as well as on a Windows machine". If that were the case, then yes, a
>> makefile that works on either OS would make sense. But why do that? It
>> would require him to spend more effort, and he's not teaching "how to
>> write portable C", he's teaching "how to write C". He has to pick an OS,
>> and he picked Linux. Given the fact that Linux is free and allows to
>> easily install a C programming environment, that seems like a reasonable
>> choice.
>>
> 
> It's just reinforcing the prejudice against Windows and perpetuating the
> myth that C can only properly be developed and run on Linux or
> compatible machines.
> 

It is not a course on C.  It is a course on HPC, high performance
computing, and happens to use C.  Virtually all HPC work is done on
Linux - with a tiny amount on other *nix's.  Windows is simply
non-existent in the HPC world.  Any student trying to do their
coursework on Windows systems is doing the wrong course.

> He could have toned down his comments and stated that, wherever the
> program was developed and tested, assessment would be done on a Linux
> machine, instead of making anyone thinking of using Windows feel like a
> pariah.
> 

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

#130191

On 04-05-18 11:59, bartc wrote:
> It's just reinforcing the prejudice against Windows and perpetuating the
> myth that C can only properly be developed and run on Linux or
> compatible machines.
> 
> He could have toned down his comments and stated that, wherever the
> program was developed and tested, assessment would be done on a Linux
> machine, instead of making anyone thinking of using Windows feel like a
> pariah.

Oh, that I agree with. The language was certainly not ideal.

Even if C programming is much easier on a Linux system, you're not an
idiot for using Windows.

(well, you are, but for different reasons ;-P )

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

#130193

On 04/05/2018 17:11, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On 04-05-18 11:59, bartc wrote:
>> It's just reinforcing the prejudice against Windows and perpetuating the
>> myth that C can only properly be developed and run on Linux or
>> compatible machines.
>>
>> He could have toned down his comments and stated that, wherever the
>> program was developed and tested, assessment would be done on a Linux
>> machine, instead of making anyone thinking of using Windows feel like a
>> pariah.
> 
> Oh, that I agree with. The language was certainly not ideal.
> 
> Even if C programming is much easier on a Linux system,


Made easier by deciding to add a bunch of complicated stuff to 
developing C programs on Linux, which only works on Linux?

Then sure, if so then might well be easier to use Linux because you have 
more or less made it a prerequisite.

But some of us don't need that complicated stuff so there is nothing to 
choose between them.

HOW TO DEVELOP CODE IN C:

(1) Get a C implementation: eg. compiler, linker and standard headers

(2) Write your program: eg. prog.c

(3) Run the C compiler on prog.c to get eg. prog.obj

(4) Link prog.obj to prog.exe

(5) Run prog.exe

Am I missing something, or can it be /that/ simple? Both OSes of 
interest (Windows and Linux) come with a precompiled C library so that 
doesn't need to be acquired.

-- 
bartc

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

#130201

Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> writes:
> On 04-05-18 11:59, bartc wrote:
>> It's just reinforcing the prejudice against Windows and perpetuating the
>> myth that C can only properly be developed and run on Linux or
>> compatible machines.
>> 
>> He could have toned down his comments and stated that, wherever the
>> program was developed and tested, assessment would be done on a Linux
>> machine, instead of making anyone thinking of using Windows feel like a
>> pariah.
>
> Oh, that I agree with. The language was certainly not ideal.
>
> Even if C programming is much easier on a Linux system, you're not an
> idiot for using Windows.
>
> (well, you are, but for different reasons ;-P )

The instructor's actual comments were quoted upthread.  They do not
contain the word "idiot" or anything like it.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#130335

On 04-05-18 19:57, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> writes:
>> On 04-05-18 11:59, bartc wrote:
>>> It's just reinforcing the prejudice against Windows and perpetuating the
>>> myth that C can only properly be developed and run on Linux or
>>> compatible machines.
>>>
>>> He could have toned down his comments and stated that, wherever the
>>> program was developed and tested, assessment would be done on a Linux
>>> machine, instead of making anyone thinking of using Windows feel like a
>>> pariah.
>>
>> Oh, that I agree with. The language was certainly not ideal.
>>
>> Even if C programming is much easier on a Linux system, you're not an
>> idiot for using Windows.
>>
>> (well, you are, but for different reasons ;-P )
> 
> The instructor's actual comments were quoted upthread.  They do not
> contain the word "idiot" or anything like it.

I didn't say that.

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

#130115

On 05/03/2018 09:58 PM, bartc wrote:
> 
> Not connected with the subject but I found this quote interesting from
> this HPC coursework site of the author's:
> 
> http://www.cs.swan.ac.uk/~csdavec/HPC/
> 
> -------------------------------
> "Note For Windows Users
> 
> If you are trying to do the coursework on Windows, you are making life
> very difficult for yourself. All code submissions are expected to work
> on the Linux lab machines. At the very least, you should test your code
> there.
> 
> If you insist on working on Windows, then I suggest that you either
> install Cygwin, which gives a vaguely UNIX-like environment for Windows.
> Alternatively, use PuTTY to connect remotely to the Linux lab machines.
> 
> Any coursework that contains Windowsisms and does not work on the Linux
> lab machines will be considered non-working, even if it works on Windows."
> -------------------------------
> 
> This is a bit rich considering that elsewhere he mentions this problem
> with the Linux shell:

The course is HPC, no one does HPC on Windows!

-- 
Ian.

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

#130122

On 04/05/2018 04:05, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 05/03/2018 09:58 PM, bartc wrote:
>>
>> Not connected with the subject but I found this quote interesting from
>> this HPC coursework site of the author's:
>>
>> http://www.cs.swan.ac.uk/~csdavec/HPC/
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> "Note For Windows Users
>>
>> If you are trying to do the coursework on Windows, you are making life
>> very difficult for yourself. All code submissions are expected to work
>> on the Linux lab machines. At the very least, you should test your code
>> there.
>>
>> If you insist on working on Windows, then I suggest that you either
>> install Cygwin, which gives a vaguely UNIX-like environment for Windows.
>> Alternatively, use PuTTY to connect remotely to the Linux lab machines.
>>
>> Any coursework that contains Windowsisms and does not work on the Linux
>> lab machines will be considered non-working, even if it works on 
>> Windows."
>> -------------------------------
>>
>> This is a bit rich considering that elsewhere he mentions this problem
>> with the Linux shell:
> 
> The course is HPC, no one does HPC on Windows!


But it could be done? I mean if Windows runs on the same processor as 
the Linux machine, what is different?

My own machine is normally 99% idle, but I can easily run two programs 
on the two cores so that 100% of CPU is used up. In what way is Windows 
interfering with the work done there?

And this is just for coursework where the aim is to compare the speed of 
one approach to another.

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

#130145

On 04/05/18 11:01, bartc wrote:
> On 04/05/2018 04:05, Ian Collins wrote:
>> The course is HPC, no one does HPC on Windows!
> 
> 
> But it could be done? I mean if Windows runs on the same processor as
> the Linux machine, what is different?
> 

Desktop Windows does not run on the same hardware as Linux for HPC.  Big
Windows servers might run on hardware with multiple sockets, but you are
surely not expecting students to have these massively expensive Windows
licenses?  Linux has the support for clustering, for fast networking,
for distributed file systems, for remote memory access, for process
migrations, for non-uniform memory architectures, for hierarchies of
processor cores, connections, and virtual cores, and everything else
needed for high-performance computing on massively parallel systems.
Windows does not - not even the biggest and most expensive server
versions (which have a good deal more than the desktop versions).  Linux
supports multiple cpu architectures (MIPS and PPC are also popular in
HPC, and other cores are sometimes used) - Windows does not.

> My own machine is normally 99% idle, but I can easily run two programs
> on the two cores so that 100% of CPU is used up. In what way is Windows
> interfering with the work done there?

Two processes on two cores is not HPC.

> 
> And this is just for coursework where the aim is to compare the speed of
> one approach to another.
> 
> 

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

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

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

csiph-web