Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #93793 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-16 03:26 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-10-18 10:59 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 465 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 03:26 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 00:00 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 04:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Peyton" <peyton@solacium.us> - 2026-10-15 21:53 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 01:31 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 06:08 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 04:39 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 08:49 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 08:53 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 05:26 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:29 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:31 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:16 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-16 19:42 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:44 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:55 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:20 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 11:20 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 11:09 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 12:54 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:15 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 15:05 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 14:54 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 16:46 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 16:57 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 19:01 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:11 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 14:48 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Harold Stevens <wookie@bookworm.localdomain> - 2026-10-17 08:26 -0500
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 15:01 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 12:19 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 22:11 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 08:52 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 11:30 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 09:48 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 12:12 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 13:04 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 14:40 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:17 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 02:30 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:54 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 19:56 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 12:00 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 04:32 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:30 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:13 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 14:19 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:38 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 15:10 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:58 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 16:04 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 15:33 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 14:23 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 20:37 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 03:03 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 12:02 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 09:40 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-23 18:43 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 20:11 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:53 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 13:00 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 15:12 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 13:26 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 15:35 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 14:04 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 16:24 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:50 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 09:37 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 12:04 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 16:17 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-19 17:33 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 17:26 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 20:19 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 09:39 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 05:58 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:55 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:43 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 09:36 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 12:03 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 12:39 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-23 18:31 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-24 00:17 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:19 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 03:48 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 02:20 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 09:58 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-20 03:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 09:06 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-20 19:04 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-17 06:37 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 11:59 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:20 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:50 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:48 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:09 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-20 09:16 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-20 13:37 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 09:13 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-21 10:56 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-21 14:23 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-21 19:14 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-22 08:22 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-22 17:04 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 10:54 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-21 10:07 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-21 14:02 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-21 15:17 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-21 20:06 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-22 08:26 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-22 17:07 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 11:49 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 15:09 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-22 08:08 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 10:37 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-22 19:29 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 09:13 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 10:04 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-21 20:16 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-22 02:04 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-20 10:51 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-20 14:18 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-20 19:04 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-21 10:15 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-21 17:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-20 21:20 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-21 02:42 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-21 10:16 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-20 18:26 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 11:46 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-21 01:57 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 09:01 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-21 20:14 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-22 08:27 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-22 17:23 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-20 19:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:25 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-20 02:48 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-20 18:15 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-20 19:04 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-20 21:27 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-20 20:08 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-20 23:18 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-21 01:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-21 03:22 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-21 01:25 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-21 01:19 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-23 18:55 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-24 00:47 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-21 10:09 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-21 19:06 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-22 08:09 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-22 16:50 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-22 12:35 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-22 07:18 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-22 13:44 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-22 15:59 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-22 13:48 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-23 07:08 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-23 14:11 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-23 09:28 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-23 14:49 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-22 15:58 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-22 15:56 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-22 17:52 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-22 20:04 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:15 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:36 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 16:07 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 14:57 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Peyton" <peyton@solacium.us> - 2026-10-15 23:16 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 07:45 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Peyton" <peyton@solacium.us> - 2026-10-16 08:41 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 18:27 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 21:55 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 23:43 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:31 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 05:00 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 03:56 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:09 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:58 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 13:33 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:08 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 20:11 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 02:13 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-19 11:39 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-18 18:52 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 03:22 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-19 03:55 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:58 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 20:07 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:41 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 16:21 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-19 22:30 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 13:13 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:27 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 14:50 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 04:15 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 04:41 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 11:00 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:57 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:26 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:42 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 10:56 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 11:14 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 13:07 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:20 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 15:26 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:32 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:21 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 04:04 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:24 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:27 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:20 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 01:13 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 02:32 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 03:04 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:41 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 12:45 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 16:05 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 17:25 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 20:19 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:24 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:16 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:53 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 06:02 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Peyton" <peyton@solacium.us> - 2026-10-15 23:26 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 06:42 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 07:41 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 06:39 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 04:22 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 10:54 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:19 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 08:40 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:52 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:47 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-17 23:29 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-10-19 17:18 -0300
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Helmut Waitzmann <nn.throttle@erine.email> - 2026-10-21 00:54 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-23 18:50 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-23 23:59 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-24 11:53 +0200
Taking Speedy too seriously (Was: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-24 12:10 +0000
Re: Taking Speedy too seriously (Was: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-24 18:53 +0200
Re: Taking Speedy too seriously (Was: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-26 00:28 -0400
Re: Taking Speedy too seriously (Was: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-26 06:20 +0100
Re: Taking Speedy too seriously (Was: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-26 03:38 -0400
Re: Taking Speedy too seriously (Was: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-27 05:01 +0100
Re: Taking Speedy too seriously (Was: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-27 12:24 -0400
[OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-28 01:12 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-28 05:26 -0400
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-28 19:33 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-29 00:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-29 12:27 -0400
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Josef Möllers <josef@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-28 17:01 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-28 17:50 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-28 18:18 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> - 2026-10-28 23:28 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-29 00:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-29 00:46 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-28 22:36 -0400
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-29 09:13 -0700
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-29 18:13 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> - 2026-10-29 17:37 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-29 20:01 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-29 21:18 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> - 2026-10-29 21:40 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-29 23:58 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-30 00:09 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-30 04:33 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-29 23:48 +0000
Re: Taking Speedy too seriously (Was: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-26 00:57 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-24 13:41 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-24 21:31 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-24 22:36 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-25 23:49 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-26 06:04 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-26 03:15 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-27 04:42 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-24 12:06 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-25 23:59 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-26 06:41 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-26 03:50 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-27 02:44 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 15:16 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-27 02:26 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 05:29 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 10:07 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:28 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 11:26 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 10:56 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 12:40 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 11:46 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 13:39 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:48 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:16 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 08:51 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 11:04 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 11:13 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 13:03 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:26 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 15:21 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 15:07 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 21:26 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-17 01:55 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-17 01:07 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:28 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:35 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:09 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-10-16 16:37 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:51 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-16 11:44 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 16:14 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-16 17:10 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 17:56 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-16 18:10 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 18:32 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 21:52 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:19 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 02:28 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-17 01:52 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 09:37 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:11 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 21:50 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-16 19:39 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 09:43 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 15:02 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 15:06 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 17:15 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 19:55 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:38 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:08 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 19:51 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 17:36 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 17:12 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 20:05 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 22:35 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 09:12 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 16:46 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 19:01 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 19:08 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:07 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 09:22 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:29 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 09:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:59 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:09 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:42 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 01:54 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 12:11 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 12:38 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 20:01 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 22:25 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 03:19 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 21:48 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-19 11:29 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 17:29 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 17:34 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-19 18:51 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 19:57 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-19 22:24 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 19:42 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:36 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-17 15:47 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 23:11 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-17 18:07 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 03:05 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 11:31 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:40 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 16:09 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 02:58 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 21:43 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 21:22 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-19 10:42 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 17:09 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-20 16:28 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 19:30 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-21 06:24 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 12:27 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-22 08:48 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 09:57 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 20:05 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 14:38 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:38 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 16:07 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Piergiorgio Sartor <piergiorgio.sartor.this.should.not.be.used@nexgo.REMOVETHIS.de> - 2026-10-18 23:44 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 22:09 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Piergiorgio Sartor <piergiorgio.sartor.this.should.not.be.used@nexgo.REMOVETHIS.de> - 2026-10-19 09:54 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 08:40 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Piergiorgio Sartor <piergiorgio.sartor.this.should.not.be.used@nexgo.REMOVETHIS.de> - 2026-10-19 10:55 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-20 00:54 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Piergiorgio Sartor <piergiorgio.sartor.this.should.not.be.used@nexgo.REMOVETHIS.de> - 2026-10-20 08:08 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-20 07:50 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-20 18:06 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-21 02:59 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-19 07:16 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-20 21:33 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-21 02:52 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 19:47 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:36 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-19 00:22 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 02:49 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 12:14 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-17 07:20 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 07:43 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-17 12:17 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 20:18 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 08:16 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:18 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 04:47 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-17 17:26 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 19:47 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 07:25 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:45 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:26 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:50 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:51 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 04:58 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 07:43 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:15 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 22:03 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-19 09:01 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 07:13 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 02:17 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 21:31 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 20:14 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 08:01 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 05:55 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:09 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 19:28 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-19 08:01 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-19 20:05 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-20 09:16 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:12 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 02:42 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 08:53 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 05:06 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:32 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:20 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:22 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 02:19 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-19 08:20 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-16 19:36 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-16 19:35 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:18 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-17 06:32 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 11:55 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 12:12 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 13:43 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 20:37 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 09:07 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-17 13:30 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 13:09 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 20:08 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:04 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Nick Charles <none@none.none> - 2026-10-16 23:19 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 02:29 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-17 01:54 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 08:58 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 11:25 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "De ongekruisigde ds." <ongekruisigde-ds@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 10:59 +0000
Page 14 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 24 Next page →
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 00:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <nkfha4F6rc9U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #94757 |
On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 23:28:12 -0000 (UTC), David LaRue wrote: > That was much earlier in my life, perhaps Junior High when I was > also in an elective class to earn my Amateur Radio Novice Licence. Upon > earning that and quickly moving to Technician, I became a member of the > local ARRL Club. There I met all kinds of electricians, radio and > antenna experts, and one Advanced class leader with his own antenna farm > on his farm. He was doing moon bounce and slow scan TV. He showed me > his latest project -- a home built Z80 Computer that booted by flipping > switches to input the very tiny OS or a simple program. Now that really > helped me form my programming and diagnostic capabilities. The Sputnik launch awakened interest in STEM subjects but computers were exotic critters when I was in high school. The IBM System 360/30 was released in 1964. RPI had close ties with IBM and iirc had one by 1965. That's what I learned FORTRAN IV on. The Z80 was way in the future. I did eventually get a Amateur Radio license. I'm stubborn enough to keep my Advanced license. They ain't making them anymore but if you had one you could keep it. I wasn't that great with code so I never tried for Extra.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 00:46 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11bu51q$2u4ci$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94757 |
On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 23:28:12 -0000 (UTC), David LaRue wrote: > I too grew up accessing computers (the big iron) first with cards > and later with terminals as they became available around campus. I > agree that cards or anything low tech makes the developer first > think about what they want to build and then do so. Imagine if your calculator was like that: you had to think carefully what you wanted to do, and write it down on a coding form or something, before simply switching the thing on and punching buttons ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 22:36 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <mIKdndv348emLH_3nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #94764 |
On 10/28/26 20:46, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 23:28:12 -0000 (UTC), David LaRue wrote: > >> I too grew up accessing computers (the big iron) first with cards >> and later with terminals as they became available around campus. I >> agree that cards or anything low tech makes the developer first >> think about what they want to build and then do so. > > Imagine if your calculator was like that: you had to think carefully > what you wanted to do, and write it down on a coding form or > something, before simply switching the thing on and punching buttons > ... Well ... THAT'S HOW IT WAS not ALL so long ago. Get it right the FIRST time, or SUFFER. That plus minimal memory/storage ensured good quality, tight, code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 09:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <20261029091314.0000126b@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #94767 |
On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 22:36:37 -0400 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > Well ... THAT'S HOW IT WAS not ALL so long ago. > > Get it right the FIRST time, or SUFFER. > > That plus minimal memory/storage ensured good quality, tight, code. :s/ensured/encouraged/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 18:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <W0MES.44500$lAb6.5817@fx07.iad> |
| In reply to | #94773 |
On 2026-10-29, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 22:36:37 -0400 > c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > >> Well ... THAT'S HOW IT WAS not ALL so long ago. >> >> Get it right the FIRST time, or SUFFER. >> >> That plus minimal memory/storage ensured good quality, tight, code. > >:s/ensured/encouraged/ It also encouraged efficient, logical, consistent system design. There just weren't the resources to implement the kinds of cruft that seems to be mandatory these days. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | In this world there are \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | two kinds of people: X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | 1. Those who can extrapolate / \ if you read it the right way. | from incomplete data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 17:37 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <slrn11e712j.1hu2.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de> |
| In reply to | #94757 |
On 2026-10-28, David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > I too grew up accessing computers (the big iron) first with cards and later > with terminals as they became available around campus. For those of us too young: When exactly did terminals become common on university campuses? Please be more specific than "the 1980s". -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 20:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <20261029124542.471@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #94778 |
On 2026-10-29, Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote: > On 2026-10-28, David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >> I too grew up accessing computers (the big iron) first with cards and later >> with terminals as they became available around campus. > > For those of us too young: When exactly did terminals become common > on university campuses? Please be more specific than "the 1980s". By January 1st, 1979, 87.395% of all university access methods to computers were interactive visual terminals rather than TTYs or other. (With a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.003% based on the polled sample size.) A coordinated mass conversion, to visual terminals, of all remaining teletype and other non-visual terminals attached to legacy time sharing systems, at all university campuses around the world, took place on September 13, 1983, now remembered as "T day". Engineering students in New York celebrated by suspending a chain of seven key punch machines from the Brooklyn Bridge. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 21:18 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <damcrmx02i.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #94778 |
On 2026-10-29 18:37, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > On 2026-10-28, David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >> I too grew up accessing computers (the big iron) first with cards and later >> with terminals as they became available around campus. > > For those of us too young: When exactly did terminals become common > on university campuses? Please be more specific than "the 1980s". > Depends on the country and the uni. Even depends on the department. I think I saw it in 1983, but there were departments that had terminals earlier. Maybe what counts is the department that teaches programming to students buys the terminals, which is an important investment. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 21:40 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <slrn11e7f9k.1n8k.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de> |
| In reply to | #94782 |
On 2026-10-29, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >> For those of us too young: When exactly did terminals become common >> on university campuses? Please be more specific than "the 1980s". > > Depends on the country and the uni. Even depends on the department. I'm asking for personal recollections. When did it happen for you? I've been wondering for some time, and this seems like the perfect opportunity to ask, given that people have reminisced about their punch card days. And yes, I expect computer science got terminals earlier than engineering. > I think I saw it in 1983, but there were departments that had terminals > earlier. That's one data point, thanks. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 23:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11c0mir$3qofm$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94786 |
On 29/10/2026 21:40, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > On 2026-10-29, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >>> For those of us too young: When exactly did terminals become common >>> on university campuses? Please be more specific than "the 1980s". >> >> Depends on the country and the uni. Even depends on the department. > > I'm asking for personal recollections. When did it happen for you? > I've been wondering for some time, and this seems like the perfect > opportunity to ask, given that people have reminisced about their > punch card days. > Well in 1969 it was flexowriters and an Elliot computer and paper tape. It was so bad I gave up on computers till around 1980 At some point a friend with more money than sense started building an S100 computer. 6800 based I think. Think he had a serial terminal But what then happened was PC's and computers with keyboards and monitors and no one cared about terminals much. Unless you were running UNIX and a multiuser setup. I remember 32 Wyse 50s on a sco unix 386 box with a custom serial card. That was a popular corporate setup. > And yes, I expect computer science got terminals earlier than > engineering. > >> I think I saw it in 1983, but there were departments that had terminals >> earlier. > > That's one data point, thanks. > That vaguely gybes with my memory. I THINK that serial terminals for micros existed prior to 1980, but have no idea about mainframes etc. VT100 was a 1978 released serial terminal It was essentially the benchmark Later terminals were cheaper, but the VT100 was the first I can recall However... "DEC's first video terminal was the VT05 (1970), succeeded by the VT50 (1974), and soon upgraded to the VT52 (1975). The VT52 featured a text display with 80 columns and 24 rows, bidirectional scrolling, and a custom control protocol that allowed the cursor to be moved about the screen. " I think that the Vt52 was about the first time a 'glass teletype' actually became more cost effective than a teletype -- "Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will let them."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-30 00:09 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <ifRES.91546$Gau3.37669@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #94786 |
On 2026-10-29, Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote: > On 2026-10-29, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >>> For those of us too young: When exactly did terminals become common >>> on university campuses? Please be more specific than "the 1980s". >> >> Depends on the country and the uni. Even depends on the department. > > I'm asking for personal recollections. When did it happen for you? > I've been wondering for some time, and this seems like the perfect > opportunity to ask, given that people have reminisced about their > punch card days. > > And yes, I expect computer science got terminals earlier than > engineering. > >> I think I saw it in 1983, but there were departments that had terminals >> earlier. > > That's one data point, thanks. I attended university from 1968 to 1971. In the fall of 1968 they converted from an IBM 7044 to a 360/67. The 360 had a few 2260s, but I wouldn't call them common and access was fairly restricted. There was a number of hard-copy terminals, many of them dialup: IBM 2741, Teletype 33, 35, and even a few 37s. But billing (in computer centre funny money, issued to students at the start of a term) was given a fudge factor of 1.4 for terminal access. Most of us contented ourselves with either using the RJE terminal (originally staffed with an operator who collected a ticket for each run, later self-serve IIRC), or dropping our cards into a tray and coming back the next day to pick up the results (which incurred only a 0.4 fudge factor, which was great for conserving CC$ that were running low by the end of the term). -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | In this world there are \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | two kinds of people: X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | 1. Those who can extrapolate / \ if you read it the right way. | from incomplete data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-30 04:33 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <nkil10FinrcU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #94790 |
On Fri, 30 Oct 2026 00:09:50 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > I attended university from 1968 to 1971. In the fall of 1968 they > converted from an IBM 7044 to a 360/67. The 360 had a few 2260s, but I > wouldn't call them common and access was fairly restricted. The 360/67 was the start of something new for IBM -- timesharing. The 360/30 maxxed out at 64K and became a satellite processor for some of the later 360 machines. I wasn't too interested but a friend was and spoke of the future with awe. He eventually dropped out and moved to Boston where there was a lot more happening. My girlfriend started at SUNY Albany before transferring out of that zoo. I can't remember what they had, CDC maybe, but definitely not IBM and her programming course was in some language that I don't think survived either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 23:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11c0m0m$3q5il$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94778 |
On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 17:37:23 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber wrote: > For those of us too young: When exactly did terminals become common > on university campuses? Please be more specific than "the 1980s". How about “the 1970s”?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 00:57 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Taking Speedy too seriously (Was: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI) |
| Message-ID | <pLicnUKiRtswQEP3nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #94654 |
On 10/24/26 08:10, Kenny McCormack wrote: > In article <11bhv61$1bjd2$2@dont-email.me>, > Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 2026-10-24 05:59, c186282 wrote: >>> >>> KSH and BASH are "mostly compatible". Minor diffs but >>> nothing hard to get around. Anything you can do in KSH >>> can be done in BASH. >> >> This is not correct. While Bash has over time adopted quite >> some features from Ksh - but sadly needed often far too many >> years for that - there's still a lot substantial functions >> in Ksh that Bash has not implemented (or substituted by some >> equivalent feature). > > I think you're taking Speedy way too seriously here. All of your points > are valid, of course, but it should not be necessary to respond to the > troll. > > BTW, you assert that there are (many) features of Ksh that are not (yet) > present in bash. I'm not doubting you, but I am curious about examples. > It seems to me that if you assert something like that, you should give > examples. I've mentioned (necessary) "Functional Convergence". If yer shell doesn't do something neat-o some other one does NOW, it WILL soon enough. Might get squeezed-in nice/neat, or maybe NOT. All great/pure ideas/visions eventually HAVE to converge somewhere - or vanish into the historical recycle bin. Anyway, for 'scripts', I'm 99% Python now. Does EVERYTHING and MUCH clearer than any old shell. Of note, did NOT use Python until P3 came out. It seemed interesting/versatile but why learn an obsolete version ? BASIC, skip the bile, became a fair 'script' lang after awhile - but, too clunky IMHO - meant for a different era, different environment, different mindset.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-24 13:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6adcb580$0$7075$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #94648 |
Le 24-10-2026, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> a écrit : > On 2026-10-24 05:59, c186282 wrote: >> Note however that MOST distros default to BASH now - > > Yes, Linux often has Bash as its default. I just keep this because I guess, if I don't consider it to be wrong because I know what it exactly means, I believe it's often a source of confusion. Because it can mean two different things and three different things must be considered when speaking about the default shell. Mostly, BASH is the default for the three things, one of them can be changed effortlessly, one of them would be very difficult to change in the long term and the last one depend on the interaction with others. The first thing is the way by which you interact directly with your SHELL, a kind of REPL. It's just a field in the /etc/passwd file, it's easy to change and if you prefer any SHELL, just install it, change the field and it rocks. It's just a matter of taste, nothing can go wrong by changing it. The second thing is the shell used by the distro to run its script. This one is clearly often BASH, changing it can be challenging. And things can go wrong in a lot of ways, from the shebang poorly defined to some specificities expected by the distro. But really, I'm not sure it's a real issue because I'm not sure there are reason to change it. The fact that systemd doesn't need any shell script is a reason why it's nit that important. One can want to change the default provided by the distro, but changing the script shell provided by the distro mean each time an update is done, the changes will be removed. And they will need special care. When there are ways to change the default without changing the scripts provided by the distro. The last one is the shell you choose to write your scripts. It doesn't need to be the same one than the one you are using to interact with your shell. As long as the shebang is correctly defined, it depends more on the people with whom you share it than with any default choice made by any distro. Because people can be more or less comfortable with different specificities, even if they can install any available shell. Unlike the choice of the default bootloader or the choice of the default init system can can have huge impacts, I really don't see how the choice of the default shell by a distro can be important (for the end user because for the contributor, it has some implications). -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-24 21:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <skdvqmxgvc.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #94657 |
On 2026-10-24 15:41, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > Le 24-10-2026, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> a écrit : >> On 2026-10-24 05:59, c186282 wrote: >>> Note however that MOST distros default to BASH now - >> >> Yes, Linux often has Bash as its default. > > I just keep this because I guess, if I don't consider it to be wrong > because I know what it exactly means, I believe it's often a source of > confusion. Because it can mean two different things and three different > things must be considered when speaking about the default shell. > > Mostly, BASH is the default for the three things, one of them can be > changed effortlessly, one of them would be very difficult to change in > the long term and the last one depend on the interaction with others. > > The first thing is the way by which you interact directly with your > SHELL, a kind of REPL. It's just a field in the /etc/passwd file, it's > easy to change and if you prefer any SHELL, just install it, change the > field and it rocks. It's just a matter of taste, nothing can go wrong by > changing it. > > The second thing is the shell used by the distro to run its script. This > one is clearly often BASH, changing it can be challenging. And things > can go wrong in a lot of ways, from the shebang poorly defined to some > specificities expected by the distro. But really, I'm not sure it's a > real issue because I'm not sure there are reason to change it. The > fact that systemd doesn't need any shell script is a reason why it's nit > that important. One can want to change the default provided by the > distro, but changing the script shell provided by the distro mean each > time an update is done, the changes will be removed. And they will need > special care. When there are ways to change the default without changing > the scripts provided by the distro. I don't see any reason to change the shell used by system scripts. If the shebang is /bin/sh, and bad things happen if you uninstall bash and they are forced to use ksh, well, it is their fault and it is a bug. They should have specified the proper shebang. Just report it. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-24 22:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11bjbu4$340l8$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94657 |
On 24 Oct 2026 13:41:20 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > The second thing is the shell used by the distro to run its script. > This one is clearly often BASH, changing it can be challenging. And > things can go wrong in a lot of ways, from the shebang poorly > defined to some specificities expected by the distro. Debian (and I guess its derivatives as well) long ago moved away from the assumption that “/bin/sh” meant the same thing as “/bin/bash”. They introduced a new, very vanilla, POSIX-compliant shell called dash(1) <https://manpages.debian.org/dash(1)>, which is the shell that is invoked when your script says “/bin/sh”. So if you want bash, you have to explicitly ask for bash.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 23:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <YqednV4C15lKUEP3nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #94648 |
On 10/24/26 05:53, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 2026-10-24 05:59, c186282 wrote:
>>
>> KSH and BASH are "mostly compatible". Minor diffs but
>> nothing hard to get around. Anything you can do in KSH
>> can be done in BASH.
>
> This is not correct. While Bash has over time adopted quite
> some features from Ksh - but sadly needed often far too many
> years for that - there's still a lot substantial functions
> in Ksh that Bash has not implemented (or substituted by some
> equivalent feature).
>
>> [...]
>>
>> If KSH works for you then stick with it.
>
> I use Ksh meanwhile for ~35 years, and since I use a lot of
> Ksh features that Bash just doesn't support there's certainly
> no reason to switch. (Also its speed is a criterion, BTW. And
> back then there were no Bash versions on commercial Unixes;
> but commercial Linuxes haven't the prevalence any more today,
> and play no role now in my private systems context.)
>
>> Note however that MOST distros default to BASH now -
>
> Yes, Linux often has Bash as its default.
>
>> so if you plan
>> to 'distribute' your work it'd be better to move your
>> stuff over to BASH.
>
> Certainly not.
>
> And this is short-sighted. If _portability_ is an issue you'd
> better stick with the POSIX subset of both, Ksh and Bash.
>
> (Sadly, as we observe, especially "Linux kiddies" often don't
> know what that POSIX subset actually is; in their scripts they
> are writing #!/bin/sh and using some bash-specific syntax not
> realizing that there's a difference, and that Bash is not the
> [portable] *standard*.)
Delay does not necessarily equate with 'ignorance'.
Different developers ... everyone had their own idea
of a 'perfect shell' - but then had to adapt and adapt
again as the Real Needs became more obvious. Now, most
WILL do the same things - just slightly different syntax.
I rather liked the 'c-shell' long back because it, well,
'looked like C'. It was one of the things that attracted
me to Unix/Linux in the first place. Now I'm happy (ok,
that's not really the word) with BASH. Not much it
can't do ... but the fudged-fudged-fudged syntax to add
features over time CAN be a pain in the ass.
If I want 'scripting' now, I do it with Python. BASH
or whatever, maybe it just EVOKES the Python scripts,
a one or two-liner. Wrote many rather long BASH scripts
in the past, and while they worked they were, well, just
TOO messy/cryptic.
Last big BASH script I did was for backing up a bunch
of on-network drives. Mount-checking (important), calls
to rsync and openSSH and ftp, local AND 'cloud', all
with some confirmation checks along the way. SEMI-repeating
units but each was a bit 'special'.
(ALWAYS pre-encrypt before sending to 'cloud' - I do
NOT trust the providers one bit. Mine had an extension
that 'suggested' some kind of ZIP, just to help them
waste time)
RE-did it in Python. MUCH shorter and more comprehensible
and a nice easy CSV config file you could tweak in a text
editor or spreadsheet. Python made it all BETTER.
Had a 'C' version of that backup pgm earlier. Worked
fine, but there was a lot of string checking/editing
involved and 'C' is CLUNKY with string shit. Python
stole the FORTRAN string-slicing stuff, good deal !
Won't ever use BASH or any other 'shell script' for
that kind of task again. Those might be "trad -IX"
but IMHO they're just OVER. "Solutions" MOVED ON.
>> Most distros, users would have to
>> intentionally install KSH and scripts would need a
>> shebang at the top to specify which shell to use.
>
> I don't recall to have ever "intentionally installed" Ksh on
> Linux. Earlier Linuxes had just a (sub-optimal!) PD-ksh that
> you could use out of the box. Later they provided also the
> much better "original" [AT&T] Ksh, and meanwhile you find on
> (some?) Linuxes ksh93u+m, Martijn Dekker's improved version.
Um ... these days, almost all distros, you do have
to "intentionally install" KSH or any rivals. BASH
rules by default.
> Of course you can call shell scripts with the executable-flag
> set and with a she-bang line on top. Personally I run most
> shell scripts with the interpreter explicitly provided, as in
> ksh my-script flags arguments
> allowing easy debugging by adding '-x' without explicit 'set'
> command in the script. Only if some script gets the status of
> a "standard-command" I regularly use I set the shebang. YMMV.
Direct spec of the shell IS useful, however the
'shebang' trick works well too.
> (So you don't "need" a shebang line, but it's useful.)
>
>> (good practice, always add the shebang)
>
> Yes, if you are running your scripts executable script (or if
> you want to give your editor a hint for syntax highlighting,
> what shell is actually used, or just for specification purpose;
> but note, as said above, that we see many people have no clear
> idea about what a "/bin/sh" is and where /bin/bash or /bin/ksh
> differ from the standard.
I have, I think, FOUR shells on this machine. The
shebang IS required/desired.
Still kinda like 'tcsh', it's there in case I get
a brain-worm and wanna fool around with olde-dayz
stuff. Zsh ain't so bad either.
But, as said, for 'scripting' now, Python is by
far my #1 choice unless the script is like a
simple little ten-liner. Tend to use those on
my PIs.
Fooled around a bit with Lua and Ruby for scripting,
but, really, Python and the MASSIVE number of libs
have them beat. Python will do ANYTHING these days,
just not as fast as 'C'. However CPU speed is less
of a thing these days - I/O ops drag things down
more than the CPU - so Python and 'C' can usually
compete pretty well.
There are Python compilers too. The main issue there
is all the sub-sub-versions of Python, so you always
have to include the entire binaries into each compilation
to ensure it'll work. But then space is also a minor
issue now as well unless you're doing micro-controllers.
Did my share of those - DO teach you how to really SQUEEZE
shit in - all computer kiddies should learn MCs first.
. . .
("Harry talks in his sleep, didn't you notice ?"
Slight telling delay, then Hermonie says 'No' :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 06:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bmn1r$36mvl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94681 |
On 2026-10-26 04:49, c186282 wrote:
> On 10/24/26 05:53, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 2026-10-24 05:59, c186282 wrote:
>>>
>>> KSH and BASH are "mostly compatible". Minor diffs but
>>> nothing hard to get around. Anything you can do in KSH
>>> can be done in BASH.
>>
>> This is not correct. While Bash has over time adopted quite
>> some features from Ksh - but sadly needed often far too many
>> years for that - there's still a lot substantial functions
>> in Ksh that Bash has not implemented (or substituted by some
>> equivalent feature).
>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> If KSH works for you then stick with it.
>>
>> I use Ksh meanwhile for ~35 years, and since I use a lot of
>> Ksh features that Bash just doesn't support there's certainly
>> no reason to switch. (Also its speed is a criterion, BTW. And
>> back then there were no Bash versions on commercial Unixes;
>> but commercial Linuxes haven't the prevalence any more today,
>> and play no role now in my private systems context.)
>>
>>> Note however that MOST distros default to BASH now -
>>
>> Yes, Linux often has Bash as its default.
>>
>>> so if you plan
>>> to 'distribute' your work it'd be better to move your
>>> stuff over to BASH.
>>
>> Certainly not.
>>
>> And this is short-sighted. If _portability_ is an issue you'd
>> better stick with the POSIX subset of both, Ksh and Bash.
>>
>> (Sadly, as we observe, especially "Linux kiddies" often don't
>> know what that POSIX subset actually is; in their scripts they
>> are writing #!/bin/sh and using some bash-specific syntax not
>> realizing that there's a difference, and that Bash is not the
>> [portable] *standard*.)
>
> Delay does not necessarily equate with 'ignorance'.
Not sure why you bring up that statement; nobody said anything
like that.
My statement about the delayed adoption of Ksh features by Bash
was just pointing to the fact that Bash users had to wait before
they could use comfortable features that Ksh had already provided
for (often many) years.
(It's also a bit unfortunate that Bash implemented some features,
and some of them IMO unnecessarily, in a slightly different way,
so that you cannot easily switch between the two shells.)
>
> Different developers ... everyone had their own idea
> of a 'perfect shell' - but then had to adapt and adapt
> again as the Real Needs became more obvious. Now, most
> WILL do the same things - just slightly different syntax.
Where not outright wrong, this is very fuzzy. (I don't think it
makes sense to comment on that.)
>
> I rather liked the 'c-shell' long back because it, well,
> 'looked like C'. It was one of the things that attracted
> me to Unix/Linux in the first place. Now I'm happy (ok,
> that's not really the word) with BASH. Not much it
> can't do ... but the fudged-fudged-fudged syntax to add
> features over time CAN be a pain in the ass.
If you think it's a good idea to use C-shell for scripting, and
since for you it seems to be just a syntax-difference, well, do
what you like in your private working context.
>
> If I want 'scripting' now, I do it with Python. BASH
> or whatever, maybe it just EVOKES the Python scripts,
> a one or two-liner. Wrote many rather long BASH scripts
> in the past, and while they worked they were, well, just
> TOO messy/cryptic.
Yes, I share your valuation of shells being somewhat cryptic and
also "messy".
>
> Last big BASH script I did was for backing up a bunch
> of on-network drives. Mount-checking (important), calls
> to rsync and openSSH and ftp, local AND 'cloud', all
> with some confirmation checks along the way. SEMI-repeating
> units but each was a bit 'special'.
Well, that's what their task mostly is, to "glue" together tools,
even if that glue is quite powerful (yet still somewhat "messy").
>
> (ALWAYS pre-encrypt before sending to 'cloud' - I do
> NOT trust the providers one bit. Mine had an extension
> that 'suggested' some kind of ZIP, just to help them
> waste time)
I suppose you mean here that you encrypt your backups before you
store them in the cloud. That's sensible. (I don't store my files
or backups in the cloud in the first place.)
>
> RE-did it in Python. MUCH shorter and more comprehensible
> and a nice easy CSV config file you could tweak in a text
> editor or spreadsheet. Python made it all BETTER.
I'm not too surprised that you say that.
>
> Had a 'C' version of that backup pgm earlier. Worked
> fine, but there was a lot of string checking/editing
> involved and 'C' is CLUNKY with string shit.
Shell has higher abstractions compared to "C".
> Python
> stole the FORTRAN string-slicing stuff, good deal !
Not sure what you are actually referring here to. (Shell has
such things as well. Unless you mean something more fancy when
you talk about Python or FORTRAN? My memories on FORTRAN are
very faint after 40 years when I had last used it.)
>
> Won't ever use BASH or any other 'shell script' for
> that kind of task again. Those might be "trad -IX"
> but IMHO they're just OVER. "Solutions" MOVED ON.
With the POSIX-Shells you have at least a standard language on
Unixes.
>
>>> Most distros, users would have to
>>> intentionally install KSH and scripts would need a
>>> shebang at the top to specify which shell to use.
>>
>> I don't recall to have ever "intentionally installed" Ksh on
>> Linux. Earlier Linuxes had just a (sub-optimal!) PD-ksh that
>> you could use out of the box. Later they provided also the
>> much better "original" [AT&T] Ksh, and meanwhile you find on
>> (some?) Linuxes ksh93u+m, Martijn Dekker's improved version.
>
> Um ... these days, almost all distros, you do have
> to "intentionally install" KSH or any rivals. BASH
> rules by default.
Mine has even ksh93u+m. Some years ago I've got original ksh. Yet
more years ago I've seen PD-ksh. All in the standard distribution.
As said, I've never had to "intentionally install" a Ksh.
There's one exception; back in the days when there was only PD-Ksh
provided in the distributions and that was the only existing Ksh,
but AT&T released their ksh93 for free, I got that from the AT&T
to replace the PD-thing. That *was* an intentional install. But
all those who didn't want The Original they could just use the one
that came with the distros.
>
>> Of course you can call shell scripts with the executable-flag
>> set and with a she-bang line on top. Personally I run most
>> shell scripts with the interpreter explicitly provided, as in
>> ksh my-script flags arguments
>> allowing easy debugging by adding '-x' without explicit 'set'
>> command in the script. Only if some script gets the status of
>> a "standard-command" I regularly use I set the shebang. YMMV.
>
> Direct spec of the shell IS useful, however the
> 'shebang' trick works well too.
>
>> (So you don't "need" a shebang line, but it's useful.)
>>
>>> (good practice, always add the shebang)
>>
>> Yes, if you are running your scripts executable script (or if
>> you want to give your editor a hint for syntax highlighting,
>> what shell is actually used, or just for specification purpose;
>> but note, as said above, that we see many people have no clear
>> idea about what a "/bin/sh" is and where /bin/bash or /bin/ksh
>> differ from the standard.
>
> I have, I think, FOUR shells on this machine. The
> shebang IS required/desired.
>
> Still kinda like 'tcsh', it's there in case I get
> a brain-worm and wanna fool around with olde-dayz
> stuff. Zsh ain't so bad either.
I don't consider it a good idea to use 'csh' or 'tcsh' for shell
*programming*. (Browse the web for the well known paper with the
thoroughly explained rationales.)
I know some folks use and prefer 'tcsh' as interactive shells.
(Although the Bash, Zsh, or Ksh, are meanwhile quite comfortable
to use also interactively.)
>
> But, as said, for 'scripting' now, Python is by
> far my #1 choice unless the script is like a
> simple little ten-liner. Tend to use those on
> my PIs.
>
> Fooled around a bit with Lua and Ruby for scripting,
> but, really, Python and the MASSIVE number of libs
> have them beat. Python will do ANYTHING these days,
> just not as fast as 'C'. However CPU speed is less
> of a thing these days - I/O ops drag things down
> more than the CPU - so Python and 'C' can usually
> compete pretty well.
>
> There are Python compilers too. The main issue there
> is all the sub-sub-versions of Python, so you always
> have to include the entire binaries into each compilation
> to ensure it'll work. But then space is also a minor
> issue now as well unless you're doing micro-controllers.
> Did my share of those - DO teach you how to really SQUEEZE
> shit in - all computer kiddies should learn MCs first.
(I'm not the appropriate person to discuss Python, Lua, Ruby, and
similar.)
Janis
>
> . . .
>
> ("Harry talks in his sleep, didn't you notice ?"
> Slight telling delay, then Hermonie says 'No' :-)
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 03:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pLicnXyiRtu-Y0P3nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #94687 |
On 10/26/26 01:04, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 2026-10-26 04:49, c186282 wrote: >> On 10/24/26 05:53, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >>> On 2026-10-24 05:59, c186282 wrote: >>>> >>>> KSH and BASH are "mostly compatible". Minor diffs but >>>> nothing hard to get around. Anything you can do in KSH >>>> can be done in BASH. >>> >>> This is not correct. While Bash has over time adopted quite >>> some features from Ksh - but sadly needed often far too many >>> years for that - there's still a lot substantial functions >>> in Ksh that Bash has not implemented (or substituted by some >>> equivalent feature). >>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> If KSH works for you then stick with it. >>> >>> I use Ksh meanwhile for ~35 years, and since I use a lot of >>> Ksh features that Bash just doesn't support there's certainly >>> no reason to switch. (Also its speed is a criterion, BTW. And >>> back then there were no Bash versions on commercial Unixes; >>> but commercial Linuxes haven't the prevalence any more today, >>> and play no role now in my private systems context.) >>> >>>> Note however that MOST distros default to BASH now - >>> >>> Yes, Linux often has Bash as its default. >>> >>>> so if you plan >>>> to 'distribute' your work it'd be better to move your >>>> stuff over to BASH. >>> >>> Certainly not. >>> >>> And this is short-sighted. If _portability_ is an issue you'd >>> better stick with the POSIX subset of both, Ksh and Bash. >>> >>> (Sadly, as we observe, especially "Linux kiddies" often don't >>> know what that POSIX subset actually is; in their scripts they >>> are writing #!/bin/sh and using some bash-specific syntax not >>> realizing that there's a difference, and that Bash is not the >>> [portable] *standard*.) >> >> Delay does not necessarily equate with 'ignorance'. > > Not sure why you bring up that statement; nobody said anything > like that. My following exposition explains why. > My statement about the delayed adoption of Ksh features by Bash > was just pointing to the fact that Bash users had to wait before > they could use comfortable features that Ksh had already provided > for (often many) years. Well, good for them. I'll stick to my philosophic "Functional Convergence" theory here. If shell X does something neat-o then it HAS to be incorporated into all others - some way, some how, neat or not. > (It's also a bit unfortunate that Bash implemented some features, > and some of them IMO unnecessarily, in a slightly different way, > so that you cannot easily switch between the two shells.) > >> >> Different developers ... everyone had their own idea >> of a 'perfect shell' - but then had to adapt and adapt >> again as the Real Needs became more obvious. Now, most >> WILL do the same things - just slightly different syntax. > > Where not outright wrong, this is very fuzzy. (I don't think it > makes sense to comment on that.) I think it makes good sense. Everybody just HAS to somehow incorporate everyone else's good ideas eventually. Otherwise --> TRASH BIN of history. >> I rather liked the 'c-shell' long back because it, well, >> 'looked like C'. It was one of the things that attracted >> me to Unix/Linux in the first place. Now I'm happy (ok, >> that's not really the word) with BASH. Not much it >> can't do ... but the fudged-fudged-fudged syntax to add >> features over time CAN be a pain in the ass. > > If you think it's a good idea to use C-shell for scripting, and > since for you it seems to be just a syntax-difference, well, do > what you like in your private working context. As said, CSH did initially attract me to -IX. However don't really USE it anymore. HAVE tcsh installed though, Just In Case. Good idea, but didn't "evolve" enough. >> If I want 'scripting' now, I do it with Python. BASH >> or whatever, maybe it just EVOKES the Python scripts, >> a one or two-liner. Wrote many rather long BASH scripts >> in the past, and while they worked they were, well, just >> TOO messy/cryptic. > > Yes, I share your valuation of shells being somewhat cryptic and > also "messy". VERY messy and OFTEN 'cryptic' (unless very short). Just no NEED for such shit anymore. >> Last big BASH script I did was for backing up a bunch >> of on-network drives. Mount-checking (important), calls >> to rsync and openSSH and ftp, local AND 'cloud', all >> with some confirmation checks along the way. SEMI-repeating >> units but each was a bit 'special'. > > Well, that's what their task mostly is, to "glue" together tools, > even if that glue is quite powerful (yet still somewhat "messy"). But NOT 'comprehensible' a year or two LATER. Been there, experienced/suffered that. Python is MUCH better in that respect. Didn't matter if I wrote the thing, the logic/sense of it DECAYS with time no matter HOW many comments/doc. I had a 40+ year career ... even 'simple' scripts/pgms, the whole sense/sensibility decayed over time. It all seems SO clear WHEN you're writing it, but ...... Note a good third of my 'programs' at least were COMMENTS - by-line PLUS an informative header at the top of each function. Two or three years later, revision time - "WHAT The Fuck ???". >> (ALWAYS pre-encrypt before sending to 'cloud' - I do >> NOT trust the providers one bit. Mine had an extension >> that 'suggested' some kind of ZIP, just to help them >> waste time) > > I suppose you mean here that you encrypt your backups before you > store them in the cloud. That's sensible. (I don't store my files > or backups in the cloud in the first place.) I very much mean to encrypt the backups BEFORE you send them to 'cloud'. Don't put un-encrypted shit on their sites for a millisecond. Do NOT trust them ! AES-xxx is good, though sometimes used Camilla. With several langs/FTP you can put a file on 'cloud' and then set the datetime/ownership to whatever the original had. That's how I did it for a decade+ - works very well. Encrypt, upload, then tweak the specifics. Pirates get NOTHING. >> RE-did it in Python. MUCH shorter and more comprehensible >> and a nice easy CSV config file you could tweak in a text >> editor or spreadsheet. Python made it all BETTER. > > I'm not too surprised that you say that. Do you disagree ??? >> Had a 'C' version of that backup pgm earlier. Worked >> fine, but there was a lot of string checking/editing >> involved and 'C' is CLUNKY with string shit. > > Shell has higher abstractions compared to "C". Slightly - but also CLUNKY and hard to understand a year or two later. Doing serious string stuff in BASH and several others ... nasty ! Look, if you're 20-something it MAY be possible to hold all the sense/logic of older shit in your head. Believe me - that CHANGES. Too much shit on a small drive, so to speak. >> Python >> stole the FORTRAN string-slicing stuff, good deal ! > > Not sure what you are actually referring here to. (Shell has > such things as well. Unless you mean something more fancy when > you talk about Python or FORTRAN? My memories on FORTRAN are > very faint after 40 years when I had last used it.) Um ... check. Almost all the Python string shit was 'borrowed' from FORTRAN. This is a GOOD thing. SO often you have to slice and dice and squish string stuff together in the real world. It'd better be EASY and OBVIOUS or you're doomed. >> Won't ever use BASH or any other 'shell script' for >> that kind of task again. Those might be "trad -IX" >> but IMHO they're just OVER. "Solutions" MOVED ON. > > With the POSIX-Shells you have at least a standard language on > Unixes. Python is now 'standard enough' - and totally ubiquitous. FIRST place I started seeing a lot of Python wasn't Linux, but WINDERS. Had to learn a little P2 just because. Found, despite initial prejudice, I didn't hate it ...... >>>> Most distros, users would have to >>>> intentionally install KSH and scripts would need a >>>> shebang at the top to specify which shell to use. >>> >>> I don't recall to have ever "intentionally installed" Ksh on >>> Linux. Earlier Linuxes had just a (sub-optimal!) PD-ksh that >>> you could use out of the box. Later they provided also the >>> much better "original" [AT&T] Ksh, and meanwhile you find on >>> (some?) Linuxes ksh93u+m, Martijn Dekker's improved version. >> >> Um ... these days, almost all distros, you do have >> to "intentionally install" KSH or any rivals. BASH >> rules by default. > > Mine has even ksh93u+m. Some years ago I've got original ksh. Yet > more years ago I've seen PD-ksh. All in the standard distribution. > As said, I've never had to "intentionally install" a Ksh. Umm ... what IS this 'ksh'-defaulting distro ??? > There's one exception; back in the days when there was only PD-Ksh > provided in the distributions and that was the only existing Ksh, > but AT&T released their ksh93 for free, I got that from the AT&T > to replace the PD-thing. That *was* an intentional install. But > all those who didn't want The Original they could just use the one > that came with the distros. > >> >>> Of course you can call shell scripts with the executable-flag >>> set and with a she-bang line on top. Personally I run most >>> shell scripts with the interpreter explicitly provided, as in >>> ksh my-script flags arguments >>> allowing easy debugging by adding '-x' without explicit 'set' >>> command in the script. Only if some script gets the status of >>> a "standard-command" I regularly use I set the shebang. YMMV. >> >> Direct spec of the shell IS useful, however the >> 'shebang' trick works well too. >> >>> (So you don't "need" a shebang line, but it's useful.) >>> >>>> (good practice, always add the shebang) >>> >>> Yes, if you are running your scripts executable script (or if >>> you want to give your editor a hint for syntax highlighting, >>> what shell is actually used, or just for specification purpose; >>> but note, as said above, that we see many people have no clear >>> idea about what a "/bin/sh" is and where /bin/bash or /bin/ksh >>> differ from the standard. >> >> I have, I think, FOUR shells on this machine. The >> shebang IS required/desired. >> >> Still kinda like 'tcsh', it's there in case I get >> a brain-worm and wanna fool around with olde-dayz >> stuff. Zsh ain't so bad either. > > I don't consider it a good idea to use 'csh' or 'tcsh' for shell > *programming*. (Browse the web for the well known paper with the > thoroughly explained rationales.) OFTEN not a 'good idea' ... but sometimes "an IDEA", a brain-worm that commands you to "do this it tcsh" ! :-) > I know some folks use and prefer 'tcsh' as interactive shells. > (Although the Bash, Zsh, or Ksh, are meanwhile quite comfortable > to use also interactively.) Never got TOO far into ZSH ... but it DOES have a lot of potential. Don't count it out of the picture. >> But, as said, for 'scripting' now, Python is by >> far my #1 choice unless the script is like a >> simple little ten-liner. Tend to use those on >> my PIs. >> >> Fooled around a bit with Lua and Ruby for scripting, >> but, really, Python and the MASSIVE number of libs >> have them beat. Python will do ANYTHING these days, >> just not as fast as 'C'. However CPU speed is less >> of a thing these days - I/O ops drag things down >> more than the CPU - so Python and 'C' can usually >> compete pretty well. >> >> There are Python compilers too. The main issue there >> is all the sub-sub-versions of Python, so you always >> have to include the entire binaries into each compilation >> to ensure it'll work. But then space is also a minor >> issue now as well unless you're doing micro-controllers. >> Did my share of those - DO teach you how to really SQUEEZE >> shit in - all computer kiddies should learn MCs first. > > (I'm not the appropriate person to discuss Python, Lua, Ruby, and > similar.) Experiences vary. Needs vary. As said somewhere, I'm not "religious" in any of this stuff - shells/langs/distros. Whatever is best for The Job. If "Plan-9" or Solaris seem to serve best then USE them. NOT much use for Winders these days, not at all. A code/method CESSPIT full of spyware and worse. Bought five of those "mini-boxes", BMax/BeeLink, a couple years back when they were cheap. Kinda "lower-end laptop" power. However with -IX the performance is very good. Kinda a matter of pride to not let Winders run for a single millisecond before I install an -IX. Did add SATA SSDs to three of them (again cheap before the tariff wars). These are my home backbone now, do everything I want as fast as I need. Even have one as a de-facto NAS box with a bunch of USB drives attached. (Oh, DON'T disagree with the tariff wars ... were kinda NEEDED in my opinion. BAD idea to let China Own All). Alas no USA/EU/Taiwan makers seemed to step up to the challenge, at least not yet) REALLY simple/dedicated uses - and HAVE several - just use PIs. Note had a HORRIBLE/useless experience with a SUPPOSED SATA hat. Spent a week trying to get it to work - NADA ! Still have several PIs pretending to be IP cameras and smart displays however. P3s work as IP cams fine, P4s are good for smart displays of the images, P5s ... um ... they're kinda too weird/expensive right now. Have one, don't use it for anything. (note there are cheap weather-proof boxes that will JUST fit a Pi-3 and a mini-board camera. Use "motion" for the cam. Have two of those running very well right now. Scripts even compensate for varying day/night times. Two cams on one mini-box also, again the day/night script. Note the PI3s ... kept locking up after about a week. Tried the simple solution of forcing a reboot, but that tended to hang. Clue - force all Python stuff to STOP just before the reboot. Now they run for months) Have two Pi-0/W2 boards. Might fit an even smaller waterproof box. Testing. Less power than a Pi3, but still MAYBE just enough if you stick to a low frame rate. "-IX" is just MUCH better and more efficient and less trashy than Winders. Have one with "GhostBSD" which is a good FreeBSD alt - easier to install and a nice GUI. Got into -IX a little back in the 386 days, remember SCO ?, but the boss decided against using it. Maybe smart back then. The goal was to write a database and GIS in it. However 'cheap'/useful/better' ones came out for Winders soon. Old commercial -IX systems were EXPENSIVE too. 'AREV' for the database, multi-value. LOVED it ! Kinda steep learning curve though, DO check the 'advanced' shit at the back of the manuals. You can STILL buy it, but no support and DOS mem lims. STILL kinda interested in Solaris/OpenIndiana. Unix-LIKE ... SOME interesting aspects and NOT Winders at all. More experiments coming. The storage set-up IS weird though ... more for 'giant' systems. Don't need that now. Oh well, went too long/wide again ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 24 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web