Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #24771 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-08-23 20:05 +0200 |
| Last post | 2012-09-13 20:39 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 386 — 52 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-23 20:05 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-23 20:28 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 21:06 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-23 12:44 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-23 22:14 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-23 14:15 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2012-08-23 22:07 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2012-08-23 16:20 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-23 22:51 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Daniel Weber <usenet@daniel-weber.eu> - 2012-08-24 09:33 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 09:51 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Daniel Weber <usenet@daniel-weber.eu> - 2012-08-24 13:30 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 13:32 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Daniel Weber <usenet@daniel-weber.eu> - 2012-08-24 13:46 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-24 15:44 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language ozbear@bigpond.com (ozbear) - 2012-08-26 02:22 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-26 00:19 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language ozbear@bigpond.com (ozbear) - 2012-08-27 00:25 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-23 13:51 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language CRNG <Spam@uce.gov> - 2012-08-23 16:57 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-23 18:01 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-23 15:21 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-23 19:04 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-23 23:26 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-23 19:14 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-24 11:35 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 21:03 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-24 18:46 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 21:13 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 21:08 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-25 10:41 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-25 10:50 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 22:35 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-26 02:17 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 02:58 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-26 15:32 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 23:02 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Leo Havmøller <rtxleh@nospam.nospam> - 2012-08-24 06:52 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 09:00 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-23 23:16 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-24 00:06 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 09:18 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Leo Havmøller <rtxleh@nospam.nospam> - 2012-08-24 09:22 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 09:53 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 03:48 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-24 15:28 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 10:20 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 22:43 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-25 03:30 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 23:11 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 23:10 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 10:16 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-25 02:45 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 10:58 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:02 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Adrian Ratnapala <adrian.ratnapala@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 02:59 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-25 05:28 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Adrian Ratnapala <adrian.ratnapala@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 07:45 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-25 12:12 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-25 05:33 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-25 16:57 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:22 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-26 10:46 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-25 11:00 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:31 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-26 01:57 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 13:58 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:36 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-25 22:50 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-26 10:42 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 04:27 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-09-01 11:35 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2012-09-02 00:52 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 23:21 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:16 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 22:59 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 22:55 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-24 00:45 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 04:17 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 04:47 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-24 06:33 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-25 06:47 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:58 -0600
Alternatives to Windows APIs in Metro style apps "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 04:20 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2012-08-24 12:38 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language rashid <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-08-25 21:09 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 01:40 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language rashid <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-08-27 20:58 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 17:12 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 22:25 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 15:03 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 15:35 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-28 01:13 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-28 01:30 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 22:46 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 09:12 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 23:26 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-02 09:59 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 02:44 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-02 11:40 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-02 03:10 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 05:05 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-03 00:32 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-03 01:16 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-29 01:03 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 22:28 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language rashid <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-08-28 18:25 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2012-08-28 20:35 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-08-28 11:55 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 21:11 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 21:39 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-28 22:29 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 23:09 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-28 23:16 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 23:27 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-28 17:24 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 23:37 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 14:37 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 23:39 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 00:15 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 01:54 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 17:15 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 02:27 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-29 10:01 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 10:54 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-29 13:47 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-29 07:57 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 16:20 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-29 12:32 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 20:28 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 14:51 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 21:11 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 15:32 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 21:47 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 23:01 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Bowler <nbowler@draconx.ca> - 2012-08-29 19:27 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 21:30 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 15:44 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Bowler <nbowler@draconx.ca> - 2012-08-29 20:07 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 23:06 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-29 08:21 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 15:37 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 15:59 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 16:27 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 11:02 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-29 11:42 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 14:52 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 07:27 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language rashid <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-08-29 20:00 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 16:36 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 23:12 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-29 21:47 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-29 17:51 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-30 03:07 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-29 21:38 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-30 11:40 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-30 04:00 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-30 13:55 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-30 13:47 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-30 23:24 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-30 02:40 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-29 17:46 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-29 18:25 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-30 13:43 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-30 03:37 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-30 08:28 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-31 05:29 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-31 11:57 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-30 14:20 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-30 06:39 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-30 20:08 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-30 22:51 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-31 01:04 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 11:42 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-30 16:33 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 12:29 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-31 04:40 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-08-31 17:26 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-31 08:50 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-31 12:46 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2012-08-31 20:17 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-31 14:41 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2012-09-01 00:11 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 12:48 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2012-09-02 20:39 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-02 17:07 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 12:22 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 20:49 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-02 18:58 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Paul J Gans <gansno@panix.com> - 2012-09-03 02:15 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-02 22:10 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-03 10:16 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 12:10 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-03 13:06 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-04 12:16 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-04 12:24 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2012-09-04 20:14 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-04 17:38 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Edek Pienkowski <edek.pienkowski@gmail.com> - 2012-09-04 19:34 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-04 16:46 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Edek Pienkowski <edek.pienkowski@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 08:26 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-02 13:40 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 15:30 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-02 16:05 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 17:01 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-02 17:21 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 21:17 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-03 00:24 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-02 18:06 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-03 11:07 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-02 18:36 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-02 20:38 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 20:00 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 11:25 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-03 11:52 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-31 11:56 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-01 13:45 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-01 12:29 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 22:47 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-02 12:41 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 22:46 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-31 14:08 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-01 11:54 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-02 20:05 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-03 08:55 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 11:43 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-04 09:25 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-04 17:50 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-04 19:32 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-04 22:58 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-04 22:09 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-05 10:13 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-05 08:59 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-05 07:57 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-06 17:30 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-06 13:16 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-07 07:13 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-06 21:25 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-06 15:18 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-07 00:42 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-07 11:28 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-07 22:44 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-07 18:59 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 01:10 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-07 22:45 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-08 05:18 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 14:29 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-08 07:16 -0700
Re: Reâ: â¬Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 15:58 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 17:39 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-08 10:21 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 22:29 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-08 15:04 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-09 00:24 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-07 20:47 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-06 17:22 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-06 13:12 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2012-09-06 08:51 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-06 16:57 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 19:40 +0300
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-07 22:46 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-09-10 17:02 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-10 22:49 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-09-11 11:13 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-10 22:44 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-07 07:18 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-06 21:11 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-06 16:57 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-07 02:27 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-06 15:40 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-09-08 09:54 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-08 01:23 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-10 10:48 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-02 14:29 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 11:49 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-02 15:15 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-31 21:58 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-31 14:02 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 12:55 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-02 19:21 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 22:44 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-01 21:56 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:48 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-03 02:04 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-02 19:07 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-08-31 11:57 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-31 11:05 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-31 21:10 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 11:54 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-30 08:02 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-28 14:57 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2012-08-28 21:19 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language ais523 <ais523@bham.ac.uk> - 2012-08-28 22:07 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 14:36 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-29 09:40 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 17:13 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-29 01:01 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 22:26 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-09-02 12:28 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 16:48 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language timprince <tprince@computer.org> - 2012-08-25 23:20 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 20:55 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-26 02:24 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-26 10:45 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 03:13 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Tim Prince <tprince@nospamcomputer.org> - 2012-08-26 11:01 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-26 13:53 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 21:54 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 22:46 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-27 08:52 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 01:16 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-27 11:24 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 04:07 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-27 13:09 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-27 09:17 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-27 16:36 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 22:02 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 22:18 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-28 13:14 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-28 10:03 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-08-31 17:44 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:12 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-09-03 11:39 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 11:22 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-09-03 12:54 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-28 19:47 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:34 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-27 01:26 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 02:53 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:36 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-02 03:17 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 04:37 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 00:35 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-26 11:00 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 03:16 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-26 11:06 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 05:02 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-26 15:14 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2012-08-26 15:22 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 22:35 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:38 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language s0suk3@gmail.com - 2012-08-27 10:56 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-27 21:21 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2012-08-28 02:42 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language s0suk3@gmail.com - 2012-08-27 20:02 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-28 10:51 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-28 03:52 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-28 12:47 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2012-08-28 18:25 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language s0suk3@gmail.com - 2012-08-29 11:25 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-26 11:06 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 22:01 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 07:33 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 00:13 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-26 11:17 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-26 14:22 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 22:30 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-08-26 22:43 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 00:32 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-08-27 01:02 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-27 01:42 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 03:00 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-28 10:49 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-28 04:14 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-28 04:18 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-27 10:56 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 03:40 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-08-27 04:05 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-27 15:13 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 23:47 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 09:16 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-28 01:48 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-28 14:10 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 17:14 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:45 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-02 10:01 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 02:54 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-27 13:45 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 23:28 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-27 13:58 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-28 00:20 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Adrian Ratnapala <adrian.ratnapala@gmail.com> - 2012-08-26 15:24 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2012-08-27 00:48 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-13 19:46 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-09-13 13:32 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-13 20:39 +0000
Page 10 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 20 Next page →
| From | Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-31 20:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87ipbzhqou.fsf@huddi.jernurt.dk> |
| In reply to | #25654 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: > On 31-Aug-12 06:40, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue wrote: >> I find it acceptable to crash a couple times a year > You may, but many/most of us, our employers and our customers do > not. Actually, I suspect Brown Eyes lives in that part of the world where "good enough" is the deciding factor. What "good enough" is, is highly dependant on the job at hand. A batch job, running every hour, that can be restarted and recover on itself is "good enough", when it restarts mid-batch twice a year. The control software for the Curiosity sky crane is "good enough", when it never fails. Knowing the difference between those two situations, is what most managers and customers I know of, spend a lot of time mulling over. None of them are prepared to pay the NASA-price for the low-priority batch job. >> due to unrecoverable resource contentions that can only be >> recoverred by restarting anyway. > If it can be recovered by restarting, then it obviously wasn't > unrecoverable in the first place. Maybe it could be avoided. But not always, especially not if you have to code against the physical reality. But even in the case where a deqadlock theoretically could be prevented, the tradeoff between "good enough" and "perfect in 10 man-years" comes into play. > Also, what "resource contentions" are causing your code to crash? > Sounds like sloppy coding, where you just accept bugs rather than > fix them, rather than some inevitable problem. I'd be happy if you tell me how to fix the systems I'm supposed to interface with. I'm bound by that pseky "good enough", so I cannot do much more than assume that the opposite side of the socket, actually implements the protocol as described. When that assertion fails, the inevitable result is more often than not something that can be described by the onomapoeticon "Kaboom!" -- /Wegge Leder efter redundant peering af dk.*,linux.debian.*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-31 14:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <50410556.5050801@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #25657 |
On 08/31/2012 02:17 PM, Anders Wegge Keller wrote: ... > Actually, I suspect Brown Eyes lives in that part of the world where > "good enough" is the deciding factor. What "good enough" is, is highly > dependant on the job at hand. A batch job, running every hour, that > can be restarted and recover on itself is "good enough", when it > restarts mid-batch twice a year. The control software for the > Curiosity sky crane is "good enough", when it never fails. > > Knowing the difference between those two situations, is what most > managers and customers I know of, spend a lot of time mulling > over. None of them are prepared to pay the NASA-price for the > low-priority batch job. My skills are contracted out to NASA, but not on one of those projects where "failure is not an option". It's just data-analysis software - no one will die if my software fails, nothing I do will have any affect on the instruments on the satellites that collect the data, and even if my software goes radically wrong, there's not even any danger of losing the input files needed to re-run my program, because copies of those files are archived in places my program can't reach, no matter how badly it malfunctions. Some of those archived files have been lost, permanently, but nothing my programs do could have that effect. Still, I try to program on the cautious side, and when I read ... > ... so I cannot do > much more than assume that the opposite side of the socket, actually > implements the protocol as described. When that assertion fails, the > inevitable result is more often than not something that can be > described by the onomapoeticon "Kaboom!" my immediate reaction was "Why can't you do more than that?". At a minimum, when writing such code I'd try to validate whatever comes back from the socket, and try to at least minimize the "Kaboom" if the validity tests indicate that the protocol is not being implemented as described. I realize that such validity tests cannot be perfect; that really good validity tests can cost what you called "the NASA-price". However, there should be at least a few simple validity tests you can perform (unless it's a one-way data transfer, with no feedback) to provide some kind of protection.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-01 00:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87ehmmiuei.fsf@huddi.jernurt.dk> |
| In reply to | #25662 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: ... > Still, I try to program on the cautious side, and when I read > > ... > > ... so I cannot do > > much more than assume that the opposite side of the socket, actually > > implements the protocol as described. When that assertion fails, the > > inevitable result is more often than not something that can be > > described by the onomapoeticon "Kaboom!" > > > my immediate reaction was "Why can't you do more than that?". At a > minimum, when writing such code I'd try to validate whatever comes back > from the socket, and try to at least minimize the "Kaboom" if the > validity tests indicate that the protocol is not being implemented as > described. Case 1: An airport, where the luggage sorting system is interfacing with another system called FIS (Flight Information Service). The sorting system receives information about which gate fligt SK777 is departing from, so the luggage can be sorted correctly. The interface is a bit weird, comsisting of a variable length telegram formatted as /FIELD/DATA/FIELD/DATA/.... This particular failure was when FIS started sending information for flights 3 days in advance. OPS hadn't yet decided the gate, so we suddely started receiving /GATE/N/A/... This didn't parse according to spec, so our system replied with a NAK, indicating errornous telegram. The FIS then decided to resend the same telegram. Net result: After some time, our system had no idea about any of the flights departing from that airport. Case 2: A large national postal service. The sorting system in question was running in a "dumb mode", where all descisions was made by a host system. At some point, a bug was introduced at this system, causing it to lose information about parcels in some specific circumstances. Our system reported those "lost" parcels on every roundtrip: Parcel 4935374045DE has circulated 456 times Parcel 4935374045DE has circulated 457 times Parcel 4935374045DE has circulated 458 times .... Each parcel stuck on the system in this way takes up space, and after some time, the capacity was severely degraded, not to talk about the parcels, that in some caces had been stuck for well over a month. > I realize that such validity tests cannot be perfect; that > really good validity tests can cost what you called "the NASA-price". > However, there should be at least a few simple validity tests you can > perform (unless it's a one-way data transfer, with no feedback) to > provide some kind of protection. I can (and do) validate all that I want, but that just doesn't help in situations like these two. -- /Wegge Leder efter redundant peering af dk.*,linux.debian.*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-02 12:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k2066b$gv6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25657 |
On 31-Aug-12 13:17, Anders Wegge Keller wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: >> On 31-Aug-12 06:40, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue wrote: >>> due to unrecoverable resource contentions that can only be >>> recoverred by restarting anyway. >> >> If it can be recovered by restarting, then it obviously wasn't >> unrecoverable in the first place. > > Maybe it could be avoided. But not always, especially not if you have > to code against the physical reality. But even in the case where a > deqadlock theoretically could be prevented, the tradeoff between "good > enough" and "perfect in 10 man-years" comes into play. My point is that one cannot say a situation is "unrecoverable" and then, later in the very same sentence, explain how to recover from it. If one can recover, then by definition it is not "unrecoverable". >> Also, what "resource contentions" are causing your code to crash? >> Sounds like sloppy coding, where you just accept bugs rather than >> fix them, rather than some inevitable problem. > > I'd be happy if you tell me how to fix the systems I'm supposed to > interface with. I'm bound by that pseky "good enough", so I cannot do > much more than assume that the opposite side of the socket, actually > implements the protocol as described. When that assertion fails, the > inevitable result is more often than not something that can be > described by the onomapoeticon "Kaboom!" Obviously, one can't prevent error conditions outside of one's control; that is what "outside of one's control" means. However, one _can_ detect and handle such errors gracefully, rather than simply crashing. 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]
| From | Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-02 20:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <874nngi81h.fsf@huddi.jernurt.dk> |
| In reply to | #25751 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: > On 31-Aug-12 13:17, Anders Wegge Keller wrote: > My point is that one cannot say a situation is "unrecoverable" and > then, later in the very same sentence, explain how to recover from > it. If one can recover, then by definition it is not > "unrecoverable". For some value of "recover". If a server reboot is your idea of a gracefull recovery, I recommend that you start using SCO Openserver as deployment platform :) But that bittterness aside, I think that we disagree about the definition of recovery, rather than the tradeoff between effort and return. -- /Wegge Leder efter redundant peering af dk.*,linux.debian.*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-02 17:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <chine.bleu-DA9597.17074502092012@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #25757 |
In article <874nngi81h.fsf@huddi.jernurt.dk>, Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: > > > On 31-Aug-12 13:17, Anders Wegge Keller wrote: > > > My point is that one cannot say a situation is "unrecoverable" and > > then, later in the very same sentence, explain how to recover from > > it. If one can recover, then by definition it is not > > "unrecoverable". > > For some value of "recover". If a server reboot is your idea of a > gracefull recovery, I recommend that you start using SCO Openserver as > deployment platform :) > > But that bittterness aside, I think that we disagree about the > definition of recovery, rather than the tradeoff between effort and > return. I hve never had an abort due to a variable length array on the stack. My stack aborts are from endless recursion. -- My name Indigo Montoya. \\ Annoying Usenet one post at a time. You flamed my father. \' At least I can stay in character. Prepare to be spanked. // When you look into the void, Stop posting that! `/ the void looks into you, and fulfills you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-03 12:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k223so$cg7$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #25785 |
Don't make my brown eyes China Blue wrote: > I hve never had an abort due to a variable length array on the stack. My > stack aborts are from endless recursion. So, after boasting about your vast experience in having "learned programming using Fortran 77, Pascal, and Algol 61 on CDC 3300s and Cyber 170s" and how you "learned a great deal about allocating loc variables with limitted space", and then proceeding to make sarcastic comments such as "I realise that VM, like recursion and stack allocation are radical concepts that have been around for a mere 50 years, but I have coped with these", you then go on to admit that you actually are oblivious to how a call stack works and are incapable of putting the legwork to avoid making that rookie mistake? Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-02 20:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k212an$nv6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25757 |
On 02-Sep-12 13:39, Anders Wegge Keller wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: >> My point is that one cannot say a situation is "unrecoverable" and >> then, later in the very same sentence, explain how to recover from >> it. If one can recover, then by definition it is not >> "unrecoverable". > > For some value of "recover". If a server reboot is your idea of a > gracefull recovery, I recommend that you start using SCO Openserver as > deployment platform :) Or Windows :) > But that bittterness aside, I think that we disagree about the > definition of recovery, rather than the tradeoff between effort and > return. For the purposes of this discussion so far, I would say that if restarting the application brings it back to a normal operational state, that constitutes recovery. And, if such recovery is possible, then by definition the error was not "unrecoverable". Regarding the acceptability (or inevitability) of crashes, there is nothing about restarting the application that proper error-handling code within the application could not have done itself. Since there was no need to crash in the first place, the crash is not acceptable. I do recognize that there are "legitimate" reasons for an application to crash, eg. bad hardware, OS problems, gamma rays, crashing into the surface of Mars, etc. Let's not go making excuses for preventable crashes just because we're too lazy to do our jobs right. 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]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-02 18:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnr4qjx3xh.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #25790 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
[...]
> For the purposes of this discussion so far, I would say that if
> restarting the application brings it back to a normal operational state,
> that constitutes recovery. And, if such recovery is possible, then by
> definition the error was not "unrecoverable".
>
> Regarding the acceptability (or inevitability) of crashes, there is
> nothing about restarting the application that proper error-handling code
> within the application could not have done itself. Since there was no
> need to crash in the first place, the crash is not acceptable.
>
> I do recognize that there are "legitimate" reasons for an application to
> crash, eg. bad hardware, OS problems, gamma rays, crashing into the
> surface of Mars, etc. Let's not go making excuses for preventable
> crashes just because we're too lazy to do our jobs right.
Suppose the crashes cost you X person-hours over the lifetime
of the application, and fixing it will cost you Y person-hours.
(Or express the costs in terms of money if you prefer.) If Y > X,
does leaving the bug in place still constitute being "too lazy to
do our jobs right"?
Note that just determining the value of Y might itself cost Z
person-hours; in some cases, Z==Y, or nearly so.
--
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]
| From | Paul J Gans <gansno@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-03 02:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k213s6$m6d$5@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #25791 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: >Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: >[...] >> For the purposes of this discussion so far, I would say that if >> restarting the application brings it back to a normal operational state, >> that constitutes recovery. And, if such recovery is possible, then by >> definition the error was not "unrecoverable". >> >> Regarding the acceptability (or inevitability) of crashes, there is >> nothing about restarting the application that proper error-handling code >> within the application could not have done itself. Since there was no >> need to crash in the first place, the crash is not acceptable. >> >> I do recognize that there are "legitimate" reasons for an application to >> crash, eg. bad hardware, OS problems, gamma rays, crashing into the >> surface of Mars, etc. Let's not go making excuses for preventable >> crashes just because we're too lazy to do our jobs right. >Suppose the crashes cost you X person-hours over the lifetime >of the application, and fixing it will cost you Y person-hours. >(Or express the costs in terms of money if you prefer.) If Y > X, >does leaving the bug in place still constitute being "too lazy to >do our jobs right"? >Note that just determining the value of Y might itself cost Z >person-hours; in some cases, Z==Y, or nearly so. But one has to include the side effects of the crashes in X as well. If a crash brings down a system resulting in the loss of several million dollars of business... -- --- Paul J. Gans
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-02 22:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnmx17wv1l.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #25793 |
Paul J Gans <gansno@panix.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
[...]
>>Suppose the crashes cost you X person-hours over the lifetime
>>of the application, and fixing it will cost you Y person-hours.
>>(Or express the costs in terms of money if you prefer.) If Y > X,
>>does leaving the bug in place still constitute being "too lazy to
>>do our jobs right"?
>
>>Note that just determining the value of Y might itself cost Z
>>person-hours; in some cases, Z==Y, or nearly so.
>
> But one has to include the side effects of the crashes in X
> as well. If a crash brings down a system resulting in the
> loss of several million dollars of business...
Of course. That's implicit in how I defined X (which can be defined
either as person-hours or as money).
--
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]
| From | "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-03 10:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k21si8$imq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25793 |
"Paul J Gans" <gansno@panix.com> wrote in message news:k213s6$m6d$5@reader1.panix.com... > Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: >>Suppose the crashes cost you X person-hours over the lifetime >>of the application, and fixing it will cost you Y person-hours. >>(Or express the costs in terms of money if you prefer.) If Y > X, >>does leaving the bug in place still constitute being "too lazy to >>do our jobs right"? > >>Note that just determining the value of Y might itself cost Z >>person-hours; in some cases, Z==Y, or nearly so. > > But one has to include the side effects of the crashes in X > as well. If a crash brings down a system resulting in the > loss of several million dollars of business... There is a difference in the costs of the software developer, and any consequential losses of any single customer out of thousands. The developer won't care to spend a definite $1000 to save a possible $1000000 of a customer. It might make more sense to just give a refund to that one customer, although that would be a dangerous precedent, so any liabilities (or lack of) of the software ought to be carefully spelled out in the licence agreement. Of course if many customers are getting irate at such problems, then the developer should do something about them. But it needs to make financial sense for the developer not the customer. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-03 12:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k2237n$ark$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #25791 |
Keith Thompson wrote: > Suppose the crashes cost you X person-hours over the lifetime > of the application, and fixing it will cost you Y person-hours. > (Or express the costs in terms of money if you prefer.) If Y > X, > does leaving the bug in place still constitute being "too lazy to > do our jobs right"? If the person responsible for punching in the code intentionally disregards fundamental coding practices that are covered in every programming 101 course, claiming that somehow they only mattered in the 1960s, and then proceeds to mitigate the problems caused by that level of incompetence by claiming that restarting the process is an adequate fix, then I believe we can agree that it easily fits the "too lazy to do our jobs right" category. There may be software bugs whose fix presents a cost/benefit ratio that is too high to justify fixing them, but that doesn't mean that a programmer should be free to intentionally implement disastrous coding practices and criticise those who actually try to avoid making that sort of mistake. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-03 13:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln8vcqx45p.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #25826 |
Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Suppose the crashes cost you X person-hours over the lifetime
>> of the application, and fixing it will cost you Y person-hours.
>> (Or express the costs in terms of money if you prefer.) If Y > X,
>> does leaving the bug in place still constitute being "too lazy to
>> do our jobs right"?
>
> If the person responsible for punching in the code intentionally disregards
> fundamental coding practices that are covered in every programming 101
> course, claiming that somehow they only mattered in the 1960s, and then
> proceeds to mitigate the problems caused by that level of incompetence by
> claiming that restarting the process is an adequate fix, then I believe we
> can agree that it easily fits the "too lazy to do our jobs right" category.
Sure, if you radically change the question I'm asking, you can justify
any answer you like.
> There may be software bugs whose fix presents a cost/benefit ratio that is
> too high to justify fixing them, but that doesn't mean that a programmer
> should be free to intentionally implement disastrous coding practices and
> criticise those who actually try to avoid making that sort of mistake.
I said absolutely nothing about "intentionally implement[ing]
disastrous coding practices".
Every large project I've worked on has had hundreds of bugs reported
against it. Can you point to one that doesn't?
Unless you're willing to pay the *huge* price to write (nearly)
bug-free code (as NASA did for the space shuttle's on-board
software), there are going to be bugs. It's entirely possible
that some of those bugs are going to result in crashes. If a
system crashes once or twice a year, it doesn't necessarily imply
incompetence on the part of the developers -- nor does it imply that
fixing that particular bug (with the inevitable risk of introducing
*new* bugs) is the best use of finite resources.
--
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]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-04 12:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k25d19$s5n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25790 |
On 04-Sep-12 03:43, Nick Keighley wrote: > On Sep 3, 2:49 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote: >> On 02-Sep-12 13:39, Anders Wegge Keller wrote: >>> Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> writes: >>>> My point is that one cannot say a situation is "unrecoverable" and >>>> then, later in the very same sentence, explain how to recover from >>>> it. If one can recover, then by definition it is not >>>> "unrecoverable". >> >>> For some value of "recover". If a server reboot is your idea of a >>> gracefull recovery, I recommend that you start using SCO Openserver as >>> deployment platform :) >> >> Or Windows :) >> >>> But that bittterness aside, I think that we disagree about the >>> definition of recovery, rather than the tradeoff between effort and >>> return. > > perhaps we need to distinguish recovery of the system (or daemon or > apllication) and recovery of the current "transaction". > > Consider a mobile radio system. rebooting may "recover" the system but > all the on-going calls have gone. Right. Of course, if you handle the error without crashing, then you have the opportunity to save all of those ongoing calls. >> For the purposes of this discussion so far, I would say that if >> restarting the application brings it back to a normal operational state, >> that constitutes recovery. And, if such recovery is possible, then by >> definition the error was not "unrecoverable". >> >> Regarding the acceptability (or inevitability) of crashes, there is >> nothing about restarting the application that proper error-handling code >> within the application could not have done itself. > > in principle- not always in practice. Th system may have munged its > data structures so badly it may not know what state it is in. Said munging is likely the root cause of the crash, and that is what needs to be fixed first. If the crash persists, then you fix that as well--on top of a foundation that allows for a graceful recovery. >> Since there was no need to crash in the first place, the crash is not >> acceptable. > > so Linux never panics? See below on OS problems. If the crash is solely due to instability in the layers below, eg. OS or hardware, then you're just an innocent victim; there is no bug to fix. But, since you asked, it's been years since I've had a Linux system panic on me. Heck, it's been nearly a month since I've had a Windows system panic on me, which is quite an improvement over years past. >> I do recognize that there are "legitimate" reasons for an application to >> crash, eg. bad hardware, OS problems, gamma rays, crashing into the >> surface of Mars, etc. Let's not go making excuses for preventable >> crashes just because we're too lazy to do our jobs right. > > you write perfect software? I am far from perfect. However, when I find a bug in my code, I don't call it "acceptable" just because I don't feel like fixing it. I don't have infinite resources, obviously, but the priority of crashes is second only to security vulnerabilities. Customers aren't impressed by new/fixed features if the product isn't reliable enough or secure enough to use in the first place. 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]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-04 12:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnpq61twu0.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #25898 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
[...]
> I am far from perfect. However, when I find a bug in my code, I don't
> call it "acceptable" just because I don't feel like fixing it. I don't
> have infinite resources, obviously, but the priority of crashes is
> second only to security vulnerabilities. Customers aren't impressed by
> new/fixed features if the product isn't reliable enough or secure enough
> to use in the first place.
For problems with Windows systems, the canonical tech support question
is "Have you tried rebooting?". Customers have in fact accepted this
for decades.
--
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]
| From | Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-04 20:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnk4co94.7sn.angel+news@pearlgates.net> |
| In reply to | #25904 |
On 2012-09-04, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: > [...] >> I am far from perfect. However, when I find a bug in my code, I don't >> call it "acceptable" just because I don't feel like fixing it. I don't >> have infinite resources, obviously, but the priority of crashes is >> second only to security vulnerabilities. Customers aren't impressed by >> new/fixed features if the product isn't reliable enough or secure enough >> to use in the first place. > > For problems with Windows systems, the canonical tech support question > is "Have you tried rebooting?". Customers have in fact accepted this > for decades. Because M$'s marketing department did such an awesome job convincing not only the generic public but also many software vendors that there are no alternatives. Gotta admire them for that, I guess. As a Linux admin, I often have to convince my customers that no, the server is not down and no, rebooting will not miraculously cure their problems. And that they should be caning their programmer/vendor instead until he fixes the rampant memory- and/or file descriptor leaks that bring their application down every other day... (How I wish I was kidding...) -- "C provides a programmer with more than enough rope to hang himself. C++ provides a firing squad, blindfold and last cigarette." - seen in comp.lang.c
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-04 17:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k25vst$mfq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25904 |
On 04-Sep-12 14:24, Keith Thompson wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: >> ... Customers aren't impressed by new/fixed features if the product >> isn't reliable enough or secure enough to use in the first place. > > For problems with Windows systems, the canonical tech support question > is "Have you tried rebooting?". Customers have in fact accepted this > for decades. Microsoft's customers have "accepted" it because they (believe they) don't have a choice. As one blogger put it, "Microsoft creates their own gravity"; what applies to them does _not_ apply to anyone else. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edek Pienkowski <edek.pienkowski@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-04 19:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k25l4j$afn$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #25898 |
Dnia Tue, 04 Sep 2012 12:16:24 -0500, Stephen Sprunk napisal: > On 04-Sep-12 03:43, Nick Keighley wrote: >> On Sep 3, 2:49 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote: >>> On 02-Sep-12 13:39, Anders Wegge Keller wrote: >>>> Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> writes: >>>>> My point is that one cannot say a situation is "unrecoverable" and >>>>> then, later in the very same sentence, explain how to recover from >>>>> it. If one can recover, then by definition it is not >>>>> "unrecoverable". >>> >>>> For some value of "recover". If a server reboot is your idea of a >>>> gracefull recovery, I recommend that you start using SCO Openserver as >>>> deployment platform :) >>> >>> Or Windows :) >>> >>>> But that bittterness aside, I think that we disagree about the >>>> definition of recovery, rather than the tradeoff between effort and >>>> return. >> >> perhaps we need to distinguish recovery of the system (or daemon or >> apllication) and recovery of the current "transaction". >> >> Consider a mobile radio system. rebooting may "recover" the system but >> all the on-going calls have gone. > > Right. Of course, if you handle the error without crashing, then you > have the opportunity to save all of those ongoing calls. I have some experience, so maybe I'll contribute a little. That is not the point - at least for a reasonable HA system. It may be a point for a literal crash a process at some very unlucky point, but it is enough to have a message passing architecture. If a process dies unexpectedly during handling x sessions, it is enough for the HA framework to redo sending to another, with a few exceptions: - some errors have a much better outcome when "not done" than when "done twice", e.g. charging a customer for anything. It is actually often better not to charge than to charge twice and handle complaints - given the above, if the process in response to the message already did some external changes, it might be better to fail by default. Except for the exceptions, the message can be handled "again" by another process; the process may die and respawn. Usually it is possible to have many of them in message-passing architecture. So crashing may not necessarily result in losing anything. The main reason however for existence of such underlying systems is not to justify errors, but only to handle unexpected situations, such as for example a message from some other system which leads to a fault, whatever the fault may be - unexpected may mean "not handled gracefully"; or a memory leak, when a process must be killed and restarted; or a hangup or infinite loop. With all these it is better to kill the process than disrupt the whole system (node). What is not recoverable by the process often is recoverable by the whole system. > >>> For the purposes of this discussion so far, I would say that if >>> restarting the application brings it back to a normal operational state, >>> that constitutes recovery. And, if such recovery is possible, then by >>> definition the error was not "unrecoverable". >>> >>> Regarding the acceptability (or inevitability) of crashes, there is >>> nothing about restarting the application that proper error-handling code >>> within the application could not have done itself. >> >> in principle- not always in practice. Th system may have munged its >> data structures so badly it may not know what state it is in. > > Said munging is likely the root cause of the crash, and that is what > needs to be fixed first. If the crash persists, then you fix that as > well--on top of a foundation that allows for a graceful recovery. I'm not sure if you mean system-wide data structures or process-local data structures. Different beasts, the former may have lots of safety mechanisms (starting with transactionality). > >>> Since there was no need to crash in the first place, the crash is not >>> acceptable. >> >> so Linux never panics? > > See below on OS problems. If the crash is solely due to instability in > the layers below, eg. OS or hardware, then you're just an innocent > victim; there is no bug to fix. Except if you bundle hardware with your software. > > But, since you asked, it's been years since I've had a Linux system > panic on me. Heck, it's been nearly a month since I've had a Windows > system panic on me, which is quite an improvement over years past. I had some linuxes panic during last year, but I would not call them versions stable enough for production. > >>> I do recognize that there are "legitimate" reasons for an application to >>> crash, eg. bad hardware, OS problems, gamma rays, crashing into the >>> surface of Mars, etc. Let's not go making excuses for preventable >>> crashes just because we're too lazy to do our jobs right. >> >> you write perfect software? > > I am far from perfect. However, when I find a bug in my code, I don't > call it "acceptable" just because I don't feel like fixing it. I don't > have infinite resources, obviously, but the priority of crashes is > second only to security vulnerabilities. Customers aren't impressed by > new/fixed features if the product isn't reliable enough or secure enough > to use in the first place. The HA mechanisms considerably improve the situation from customer point of view. The customer may not even know anything went wrong (except for 0,01% failure rate). And in any given large system there will be some bugs left, due to basic statistics. -- Edek
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-04 16:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnligptkpc.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #25908 |
Edek Pienkowski <edek.pienkowski@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> That is not the point - at least for a reasonable HA system.
[...]
HA means "High Availability", yes?
--
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]
Page 10 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web