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 296 — 24 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 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 "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 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 Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 09:40 +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 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 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 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 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:25 +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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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> - 2026-10-18 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 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 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 8 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 15 Next page →
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 08:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6ad33478$0$28048$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #93798 |
Le 16-10-2026, Peyton <peyton@solacium.us> a écrit : > c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes: > >> On 10/15/26 23:26, Leroy H wrote: >>> It is amazing how knowledge of basic CS is absent in most >>> programmers, both professional and amateur alike. While >>> "vibe coding" is all the rage, a silent disaster is also >>> creeping. >> >> 99+ percent of us got by just fine without >> any "computer science" crapola. >> >> CS is all math/stats. Has almost nothing to >> do with the real-world these days. Maybe in >> the 1940s ....... >> >> Might, MAYBE, produce a useful idea, every, >> very, once in awhile. >> > I one time worked with a colleague who did not understand why a C# > binary executable was running significantly faster than a Python > script. > > Not having basic CS fundamentals does have real implications in > everyday software. But updating ones fundamentals can't harm. Now, there are almost no more interpreted scripts. Scripts, like python, are compiled when they are launched. So the difference is not interpreted vs. compiled but more about the quality of the compiler. And python compiler is pretty bad, mostly when things can run in parallel. And I strongly believe that if the python script was significantly slower than the C# one, it was more related with multithreading than with interpreted slowness. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 09:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11avcvt$59n$15@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93982 |
On 17/10/2026 09:40, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> Now, there are almost no more
> interpreted scripts.
PHP...
--
"Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have
forgotten your aim."
George Santayana
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 20:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11b0ms8$iems$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93982 |
On 17 Oct 2026 08:40:24 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > Now, there are almost no more interpreted scripts. Shell scripts are still interpreted. Not only that, but the shell actually seeks through the source file to do a transfer of control. How do I know this? Try making changes to the script while it is running. ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 23:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11b0pbe$3pvda$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94087 |
On 2026-10-17 22:47, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On 17 Oct 2026 08:40:24 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>> Now, there are almost no more interpreted scripts.
>
> Shell scripts are still interpreted. Not only that, but the shell
> actually seeks through the source file to do a transfer of control.
>
> How do I know this? Try making changes to the script while it is
> running. ;)
I've just done this ("a script change while it's running") [*]
(with ksh and bash) and there was no change in behavior of the
running script.
You may want to provide an example what you've actually done
to come to that conclusion (or reformulate your conclusion).
BTW; I've in other (more complex?) contexts observed that some
intrusions (tackling the shell program while it runs) do affect
the running script, but back then I haven't examined the reason
or circumstances of that effect, or whether it's some effect of
an interaction with the OS. - So the principle question, what
exactly happens in what circumstances, is still interesting.
Janis
[*] What I've done was to run the following script "dynchg.sh"
while read ; do
echo $REPLY
done
and change it (from another terminal) while it runs by
sed -i '2p' dynchg.sh
I could even remove that file from the directory and it still
processes data as expected. And there's also no difference if
that program is explicitly run with the interpreter or running
it using a shebang interpreter as executable script.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 05:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11ascn8$312c3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93794 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 00:00:58 -0400, c186282 wrote: > On 10/15/26 23:26, Leroy H wrote: >> It is amazing how knowledge of basic CS is absent in most programmers, >> both professional and amateur alike. While "vibe coding" is all the >> rage, a silent disaster is also creeping. > > 99+ percent of us got by just fine without any "computer science" > crapola. "Got by just fine" at doing _what_, exactly? The state of software would make one think that very few people are "getting by just fine", incidentally...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 10:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11asph1$33n8m$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93800 |
On 16/10/2026 06:29, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 00:00:58 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> On 10/15/26 23:26, Leroy H wrote: >>> It is amazing how knowledge of basic CS is absent in most programmers, >>> both professional and amateur alike. While "vibe coding" is all the >>> rage, a silent disaster is also creeping. >> >> 99+ percent of us got by just fine without any "computer science" >> crapola. > > "Got by just fine" at doing _what_, exactly? > > The state of software would make one think that very few people are > "getting by just fine", incidentally... That is because software development teams don't bother with the most basic elements of quality control. Largely because computer science doesn't teach it It is however a major part in the degree course in *software engineering*. Computers science is not what you think it is. What you think it is, is actually called software engineering. A PRACTICAL discipline teaching how to write good code, test it and manage teams of people effectively and break projects into manageable chunks that can be offloaded to separate teams of individuals, tested and quality inspected, and integrated into te final product ===================================================== Software Engineering Tutorial Last Updated : 13 Aug, 2026 "Software Engineering is the systematic process of designing, developing, testing, and maintaining software to create reliable, efficient, and high-quality applications. It applies engineering principles, methods, and tools to develop software in a systematic manner. It supports teamwork, planning, documentation, testing, and maintenance to ensure successful software development throughout its lifecycle. It helps create software that meets user requirements while ensuring reliability, security, efficiency, and maintainability." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Computer Science Key Concepts in Programming & Problem Solving Algorithms: Step-by-step instructions or logic rules designed to solve a specific problem or complete a task. Data Structures: Specialized formats for organizing and storing data efficiently, such as arrays, linked lists, stacks, queues, and trees. Programming Languages: Tools like Python, C++, and Java that let humans write code in readable text, which is then translated into machine-executable binary. You can explore structured guides through platforms like Codecademy or introductory breakdowns on Boot.dev. Control Flow: The order in which individual instructions, conditional statements (if/else), and loops (for/while) execute in a program" Now decide which you would rather have in your team of application developers. -- Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 09:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11asqn0$31lan$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93822 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 10:07:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > That is because software development teams don't bother with the most > basic elements of quality control. > > Largely because computer science doesn't teach it And why should it, being... computer science? It has, and should not have, more than a passing interest in industrial applications. It can at best, and it does, teach you what properties of a program are provable and give you a theoretical framework for correctness. And you're clearly not gonna formally prove your web app, you use those to prove the avionics at AirBUS or other mission critical systems. And they actually do! IIRC the Astree static analyzer was commissioned by AirBUS itself. And, again IIRC, funnily the end users are old timer plane designers who don't understand code, so as far as I'm aware they design the avionics with a point&click thing which then outputs code which is _then_ verified vs. specs. The kind of thing Boeing neglected to do lately, see: 737 MAX. > It is however a major part in the degree course in *software > engineering*. As it should be. > Computers science is not what you think it is. Funnily, I have a degree in computer science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 11:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11asu45$33n8m$24@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93828 |
On 16/10/2026 10:28, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 10:07:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> That is because software development teams don't bother with the most >> basic elements of quality control. >> >> Largely because computer science doesn't teach it > > And why should it, being... computer science? > It has, and should not have, more than a passing interest in industrial > applications. > > It can at best, and it does, teach you what properties of a program are > provable and give you a theoretical framework for correctness. > > And you're clearly not gonna formally prove your web app, you use those to > prove the avionics at AirBUS or other mission critical systems. > No. you dont. That's why Airbus has duplicate computers running different code. Because CS has utterly failed to be able to validate code in the real world, And so software engineers came up with pragmatic solutions that accept the indecidability of Turing style problems, and engineer around it with redundancy. > And they actually do! IIRC the Astree static analyzer was commissioned by > AirBUS itself. Anything more complex than a finite state machine cannot be validated. > > And, again IIRC, funnily the end users are old timer plane designers who > don't understand code, so as far as I'm aware they design the avionics > with a point&click thing which then outputs code which is _then_ verified > vs. specs. > Christ on a bike. You have no idea do you? > The kind of thing Boeing neglected to do lately, see: 737 MAX. > They relied on CS style theoretical solutions. >> It is however a major part in the degree course in *software >> engineering*. > > As it should be. > >> Computers science is not what you think it is. > > Funnily, I have a degree in computer science. Indeed. And it shows -- Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. Groucho Marx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 10:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11asvsk$31lan$12@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93843 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 11:26:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> It can at best, and it does, teach you what properties of a program are >> provable and give you a theoretical framework for correctness. >> >> And you're clearly not gonna formally prove your web app, you use those >> to prove the avionics at AirBUS or other mission critical systems. >> > No. you dont. Oh! I must have been lied to by people connected to the project. I apologize for spreading misinformation. In which case, I guess you don't formally prove avionics either. Maybe you don't prove anything at all outside of academia. I don't have a problem with that. > Anything more complex than a finite state machine cannot be validated. Surely that's an interesting computer science result that you'd want to know before attempting to allocate some budget to do just that? (Or before you allocate some budget to build a finite state machine that you can later, theoretically, validate.) > Christ on a bike. You have no idea do you? Again, I am only sharing the anecdotes of people familiar with the work. I can't 100% rule out it's Santa and his elves making the planes. >> The kind of thing Boeing neglected to do lately, see: 737 MAX. >> > They relied on CS style theoretical solutions. Don't suppose you have a source for that? It would be really funny to apply "CS style theoretical solutions" to a plane (and not in the sense of the _avionics_, or the on-board enteirtanment, but the plane itself... after chopping off its tail). >>> Computers science is not what you think it is. >> >> Funnily, I have a degree in computer science. > > Indeed. And it shows Thank you, I'll wear the compliment with pride.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 12:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11at2fv$33n8m$35@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93845 |
On 16/10/2026 11:56, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 11:26:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >>> It can at best, and it does, teach you what properties of a program are >>> provable and give you a theoretical framework for correctness. >>> >>> And you're clearly not gonna formally prove your web app, you use those >>> to prove the avionics at AirBUS or other mission critical systems. >>> >> No. you dont. > > Oh! > I must have been lied to by people connected to the project. > I apologize for spreading misinformation. > > In which case, I guess you don't formally prove avionics either. > Maybe you don't prove anything at all outside of academia. > > I don't have a problem with that. > >> Anything more complex than a finite state machine cannot be validated. > > Surely that's an interesting computer science result that you'd want to > know before attempting to allocate some budget to do just that? > > (Or before you allocate some budget to build a finite state machine that > you can later, theoretically, validate.) > >> Christ on a bike. You have no idea do you? > > Again, I am only sharing the anecdotes of people familiar with the work. > I can't 100% rule out it's Santa and his elves making the planes. > >>> The kind of thing Boeing neglected to do lately, see: 737 MAX. >>> >> They relied on CS style theoretical solutions. > > Don't suppose you have a source for that? > Its all in the industry press. Everywhere. They had to tilt the engines up to get them to fit. That changed the aicrafts handling. So they patched some other software that wasn't related, to compensate and make it more or less feel like the old 737 so pilots did not have to get re certified. This worked, until speficic setss of circumstances that clearly were not envisaged by the CS people who recoded it, appeared and crashed the planes > It would be really funny to apply "CS style theoretical solutions" to a > plane (and not in the sense of the _avionics_, or the on-board > enteirtanment, but the plane itself... after chopping off its tail). > >>>> Computers science is not what you think it is. >>> >>> Funnily, I have a degree in computer science. >> >> Indeed. And it shows > > Thank you, I'll wear the compliment with pride. Another CS flaw noted -- To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 11:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11at2r8$31lan$17@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93850 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 12:40:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> The kind of thing Boeing neglected to do lately, see: 737 MAX. >>>> >>> They relied on CS style theoretical solutions. >> >> Don't suppose you have a source for that? >> > Its all in the industry press. > Everywhere. > > They had to tilt the engines up to get them to fit. > > That changed the aicrafts handling. > > So they patched some other software that wasn't related, to compensate > and make it more or less feel like the old 737 so pilots did not have to > get re certified. I'm familiar with that part. I'm less familiar with the part where "CS" comes in. Which I don't think it did at any point. I don't think it was a "CS person"'s decision to do it like that, given that we're talking about planes and not compilers (happy to be proven wrong and show that Boeing had a PhD in CS with executive power on it). I don't have evidence that any "CS person" got a formal spec and failed to conform to it either (and if they did, they'd need _more_ science, not less!). If anything, this looks like an utter project management failure, due to lack of (formal) communication and a lot of offshore programmers from Synechron and Tata, with about zero CS people involved. I would, however, appreciate a correction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 13:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11at5ua$33n8m$41@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93851 |
On 16/10/2026 12:46, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 12:40:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > >>>>> The kind of thing Boeing neglected to do lately, see: 737 MAX. >>>>> >>>> They relied on CS style theoretical solutions. >>> >>> Don't suppose you have a source for that? >>> >> Its all in the industry press. >> Everywhere. >> >> They had to tilt the engines up to get them to fit. >> >> That changed the aicrafts handling. >> >> So they patched some other software that wasn't related, to compensate >> and make it more or less feel like the old 737 so pilots did not have to >> get re certified. > > I'm familiar with that part. > I'm less familiar with the part where "CS" comes in. > Which I don't think it did at any point. > > I don't think it was a "CS person"'s decision to do it like that, given > that we're talking about planes and not compilers (happy to be proven > wrong and show that Boeing had a PhD in CS with executive power on it). > What I am saying is that the whole approach was theoretical and not practical Just as CS is, > I don't have evidence that any "CS person" got a formal spec and failed to > conform to it either (and if they did, they'd need _more_ science, not > less!). > > If anything, this looks like an utter project management failure, due to > lack of (formal) communication and a lot of offshore programmers from > Synechron and Tata, with about zero CS people involved. > Hardly fits with your claim that aerospace software is designed and guaranteed perfect by CS phds of the highesr calibre :-) > I would, however, appreciate a correction. I'd appreciate a consistent stance. Apart from "when its works, its computer scientists, when it doesn't its offshore programmers" Is rather say 'when it works, engineers have designed it, when it fucks up, computer scientistss have designed it' -- "A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding". Marshall McLuhan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 12:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11at6es$31lan$22@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93864 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 13:39:38 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> I don't have evidence that any "CS person" got a formal spec and failed >> to conform to it either (and if they did, they'd need _more_ science, >> not less!). >> >> If anything, this looks like an utter project management failure, due >> to lack of (formal) communication and a lot of offshore programmers >> from Synechron and Tata, with about zero CS people involved. >> > Hardly fits with your claim that aerospace software is designed and > guaranteed perfect by CS phds of the highesr calibre My claim is that there EXIST aerospace application for abstract interpretation that I'm aware of firsthand. My claim is NOT that every aerospace application is handled by every aerospace company with the utmost scientific rigour in every department for every part of the project. Logic 101 would teach you to mind the direction of the implication. > I'd appreciate a consistent stance. Here you go: "If it's proven correct to a spec, it's either correct to the spec or there is an error in the proof that can be found. If there is no spec or the spec is wrong, ex falso quodlibet." Please prove inconsistency. > Is rather say 'when it works, engineers have designed it, when it fucks up, computer scientistss have designed it' Computer scientists don't "design" things, they merely prove their impossibility, which is a much noble purpose. Taht said, what _I'd_ frankly rather say is that you don't seem to be in the field, unless you moonlilght in workshops while holding a day job at IBM. Your experience is limited even for being anecdotal. Please let it go already.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 09:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11asmgi$33n8m$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93794 |
On 16/10/2026 05:00, c186282 wrote: > CS is all math/stats. Has almost nothing to > do with the real-world these days. Maybe in > the 1940s ....... Yes. I had been writing code years before I read Knuth. It was a revelation. Massively overcomplicated approach to the simplest things. CS is great for people writing compilers, designing chips, or cracking enigma codes, but the reality of writing pragmatic workmanlike maintainable and well documented code on time and on budget is software engineering, not CS CS is actually against the goals of this. It leads to over complexity and adoption of elegant, rather than functional design. E.g. "All the problems of C++ would have been avoided if we had written it in C". -- “It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into, we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a power-directed system of thought.” Sir Roger Scruton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 08:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11asoie$31lan$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93810 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 09:16:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > CS is great for people writing compilers, designing chips, or cracking > enigma codes, but the reality of writing pragmatic workmanlike > maintainable and well documented code on time and on budget is software > engineering, not CS Well, duh? Also nuclear physics is not required for changing a bulb, even if that bulb is powered by a nuclear plant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 11:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11assr3$33n8m$22@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93817 |
On 16/10/2026 09:51, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 09:16:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > >> CS is great for people writing compilers, designing chips, or cracking >> enigma codes, but the reality of writing pragmatic workmanlike >> maintainable and well documented code on time and on budget is software >> engineering, not CS > > Well, duh? > > Also nuclear physics is not required for changing a bulb, even if that > bulb is powered by a nuclear plant. Exactly, So why do people insist on hiring nuclear engineers to change light bulbs? When they have never been taught to use a step ladder safely? We are not arguing against CS per se, just against its inappropriateness in ordinary software design and development. CS graduates should never in my experience get let anywhere near software design and development. Its about as useless as expecting an ArtStudent™ to paint a room -- "I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently. This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and all women"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 11:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11at0t3$31lan$14@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93841 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 11:04:19 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > CS graduates should never in my experience get let anywhere near > software design and development. I fully 100% support the creation of a regulated profession of software engineering, much like medicine and civil engineering, which has its own curriculum, etc., and is distinct from CS, much in the same way as architecture and civil engineering is distinct from physics and arts. But in the present world, for hiring purposes, you have to choose between CS majors and... well, failed economists and physicists and Javascript bootcamp graduates with BAs in critical gender theory. And believe me, the latter are on average a much greater threat to any project.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 13:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11at3ra$33n8m$37@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93848 |
On 16/10/2026 12:13, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 11:04:19 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> CS graduates should never in my experience get let anywhere near >> software design and development. > > I fully 100% support the creation of a regulated profession of software > engineering, much like medicine and civil engineering, which has its own > curriculum, etc., and is distinct from CS, much in the same way as > architecture and civil engineering is distinct from physics and arts. > > But in the present world, for hiring purposes, you have to choose between > CS majors and... well, failed economists and physicists and Javascript > bootcamp graduates with BAs in critical gender theory. > When hiring, I had the option between science band maths graduates who had taught themselves computing and were humble and hard working and arrogant CS graduates who thought that anyone without a CS degree didn't understand computers and were not worth paying respect to. I learnt not to employ them, Other employees came through vocational courses in 'IT' . Tey were brilliant Of course I understood computers all the way from a two transistor flip flop register all the way up to machine code on a processor. Something the CS people had no clue about > And believe me, the latter are on average a much greater threat to any > project. The only people who employ those are the 'creative' houses in charge of designing web sites that look pretty and don't work. Critical race theorist are almost as useless ans critical computer theorists Computers simply are not science. They are machines. Science is 'natural philosophy' The study of the natural world. Computers are not natural. Ergo 'computer science' is meaningless bollocks QED -- Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 12:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11at565$31lan$20@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93855 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 13:03:54 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Computers are not natural. Ergo 'computer science' is meaningless > bollocks I absolutely agree, the English term "computer science" is an unfortunate choice of words which had the main purpose of sounding trendy in the 50s (much like "artificial intelligence", "operations research", "linear programming"). Most pure / theoretical computer science is actually _computing_ science, i.e. the study of computational processes and their properties, with little regard to whether computation on abstract structures is carried out by mind or machine. Does an algorithm terminate? Which properties does a tree have? What is computable? These are hardly computer-related topics and predate the first computers. However, it must be noted that Von Neumann was likely familiar with the Turing machine as an abstraction and it influenced the Von Neumann design: maybe we needed a science of computation before we could build _practical_ computing machines? On the other hand, the areas of distributed computing or databases or real time systems I'd clearly consider (theoretical) engineering, i.e. the study of man-made systems and their design. You can find either at a CS conference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 15:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11atbt1$3bqcl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93861 |
On 16/10/2026 13:26, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 13:03:54 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> Computers are not natural. Ergo 'computer science' is meaningless >> bollocks > > I absolutely agree, the English term "computer science" is an unfortunate > choice of words which had the main purpose of sounding trendy in the 50s > (much like "artificial intelligence", "operations research", "linear > programming"). > > Most pure / theoretical computer science is actually _computing_ science, > i.e. the study of computational processes and their properties, with > little regard to whether computation on abstract structures is carried out > by mind or machine. > > Does an algorithm terminate? > Which properties does a tree have? > What is computable? > > These are hardly computer-related topics and predate the first computers. > > However, it must be noted that Von Neumann was likely familiar with the > Turing machine as an abstraction and it influenced the Von Neumann design: > maybe we needed a science of computation before we could build _practical_ > computing machines? I think he exactly was. He's be a bit ignorant not to have been. Turing and Tommy flowers built the first computer. Turing was a mathematician, Flowers was an electronic engineer. Both in their own way knew what was possible, and more importantly what was not. The tragedy was that that work was classified for years and that all but two machines were broken up. Computer science was what the theoretical aspect of designing computers from scratch was called. But in practice it was electronic engineering. Once you know its a machine that does boolean shit, then its just a question of working out the basic gates you need and how to build them out of transistors and diodes (or originally vacuum tubes) and how to build basic elements like shift registers latches and adders and so on out of the gates. Archtecture iswhat CS defined. Architecture is what engineers built. > > On the other hand, the areas of distributed computing or databases or real > time systems I'd clearly consider (theoretical) engineering, i.e. the > study of man-made systems and their design. > *shrug* there's a difference between as little theory as is necessary to get it working and as little practical application is possible to not sully the inner elegance of my algorithms.. ever hear of the 7 layer model of network architecture? All very CS. All complete bollox. TCP/IP took one look at it and threw it away. TCP was designed to work... > You can find either at a CS conference. Engineers are to busy to attend conferneces -- I would rather have questions that cannot be answered... ...than to have answers that cannot be questioned Richard Feynman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web