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 502 — 33 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) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-30 03:40 -0400
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-30 19:24 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-30 23:10 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-31 04:14 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-31 11:40 +0100
Internal navigation in the online manual (was: Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously)) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-31 10:49 +0000
Re: Internal navigation in the online manual (was: Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously)) Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-31 13:11 +0000
Re: Internal navigation in the online manual "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-31 19:53 +0100
Re: Internal navigation in the online manual "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-31 19:56 +0100
Re: Internal navigation in the online manual Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-31 22:41 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-31 14:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-31 16:57 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-31 19:56 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-31 22:11 +0100
Internal navigation in the online manual (was: Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously)) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-01 01:08 +0000
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-31 21:57 +0000
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) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-30 04:00 -0400
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) Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> - 2026-10-30 15:14 +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) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-30 11:10 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-30 17:52 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-10-30 17:14 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-30 19:25 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-30 18:26 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-30 19:25 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-30 20:12 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> - 2026-10-31 11:07 -0400
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-31 21:38 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-31 11:49 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-31 16:42 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-31 20:08 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:20 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-31 18:42 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-31 11:57 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-31 18:53 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-31 21:48 +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: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-30 04:27 -0400
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-30 03:58 -0400
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 16 of 26 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 26 Next page →
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 16:42 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11c529k$nak9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94836 |
On 2026-10-31 11:49, Carlos E. R. wrote: > [...] So, when I arrived to Madrid for my second year (I think that was in > the 83), a friend told me that the computer building that was shared by > all in the campus had switched from cards to terminals, and that I had > just missed it. > > And he described me the nightmare that first/second year students had to > suffer to get their stack of cards punched and executed. Could take days. Strong words. And absurd time scales. They certainly don't match my observations. All of us did our punch cards based coding often just during the pauses between the lectures; the basic code maybe in an hour, the fixes - usually just one or two iterations needed - done during the "cum tempore" 10 minutes. But most programming in those early beginner courses also wasn't too voluminous, to be fair. What certainly was painful was the (for obvious reasons) inherent non-existence of a <Del> or <Backspace> key on the punch devices. (They had a useful "Copy" key (<Dup>?), though.)[*] BTW, a "nightmare" I considered the keyboards that came with the VT100 series of terminals! (My fingers still ache if I only think back of these days!) Luckily these times passed fast. Janis, now back at his Model-M keyboard clone [*] IIRC, they looked like (or may even have been) these devices: https://mimmsmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Punchcard-708x1024.jpg (For those who couldn't imagine what we dinosaurs are talking about.) :-) Still amazing seeing images of these devices again after all those many decades. > [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 20:08 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <nkmsliFftpsU8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #94851 |
On 2026-10-31 16:42, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 2026-10-31 11:49, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> [...] So, when I arrived to Madrid for my second year (I think that
>> was in the 83), a friend told me that the computer building that was
>> shared by all in the campus had switched from cards to terminals, and
>> that I had just missed it.
>>
>> And he described me the nightmare that first/second year students had
>> to suffer to get their stack of cards punched and executed. Could take
>> days.
>
> Strong words. And absurd time scales. They certainly don't match my
> observations. All of us did our punch cards based coding often just
> during the pauses between the lectures; the basic code maybe in an
> hour, the fixes - usually just one or two iterations needed - done
> during the "cum tempore" 10 minutes. But most programming in those
> early beginner courses also wasn't too voluminous, to be fair.
>
> What certainly was painful was the (for obvious reasons) inherent
> non-existence of a <Del> or <Backspace> key on the punch devices.
> (They had a useful "Copy" key (<Dup>?), though.)[*]
I don't remember if my friend punched his own code, or had it punched.
Would depend on how many punch machines they had for lowly students.
I remember his saying that he had to submit his stack of cards to a
clerk, then given a paper slip to collect the results another day.
...
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 21:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11c5ij7$nak9$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94861 |
On 2026-10-31 20:08, Carlos E. R. wrote: > > I don't remember if my friend punched his own code, or had it punched. > Would depend on how many punch machines they had for lowly students. We had a "row" of such machines available. Don't recall to have ever waited for a free place (or the waiting time was negligible). > > I remember his saying that he had to submit his stack of cards to a > clerk, then given a paper slip to collect the results another day. The way it was done in our place was technically similar but did not require that much time. The batch cards reader was in an accessible are, you could just put the cards either directly in the reader device or in a queue on a nearby desk where an operator did that job then. The reader was constantly fed with cards by the operators since the queue was also regularly filled by all the students; hardly more delay than, maybe, 15 minutes. The printouts were quickly created with the batch processing by super-fast chain printers, so were also available in short term. Some delay was due to the fanfold paper needed to be physically separated (by the jobs or user IDs) to be associated to the different users. The output landed sorted in a special shelf where we could fetch them. The whole batch process, from the punch cards delivery to getting the printout results in (typically less than) an hour. A peculiarity of the physical separation of the printouts was the application of a nice trick; the printing logic for the front page of the job printed some text (X-es?) across the paper-perforation so that the individual jobs could quickly be detected visually if you looked at the paper stack from the side. Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 18:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <nkmr4qFftq4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #94836 |
On Sat, 31 Oct 2026 11:49:18 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote: > I was forced by the system to take first year of engineering at the > university in my province. All engineering had the same first year. Once > we (if!) we passed, we could actually choose what college to continue > in. At mine the first two years were the same for everyone. It provided the basics needed for specialization.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 11:57 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times |
| Message-ID | <nklvsjFas33U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #94786 |
On 2026-10-29 22:40, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2026-10-29, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> I think I saw it in 1983, but there were departments that had terminals
>> earlier.
>
> That's one data point, thanks.
I have one recollection of maybe 1983 or 84, visiting the microwave
department, which was designing the aerial complex of a new frigate.
They had a model to scale in an anechoic chamber; they had to scale the
frequencies up to match the ship model. And they had an Apple-II (or was
it I?) doing some long calculations. The display was off, the teacher
was in the back, and he asked us near the machine to turn the display on
to see the simulation. None of us knew how to do that. He had to come to
the front, grumbling about how come we did not know where the switch was.
Well, none of us had the money to buy an Apple II! And the IBM PC was
still a year or two away.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 18:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times |
| Message-ID | <nkmrq0Fftq4U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #94838 |
On Sat, 31 Oct 2026 11:57:23 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote: > I have one recollection of maybe 1983 or 84, visiting the microwave > department, which was designing the aerial complex of a new frigate. > They had a model to scale in an anechoic chamber; they had to scale the > frequencies up to match the ship model. And they had an Apple-II (or was > it I?) doing some long calculations. The display was off, the teacher > was in the back, and he asked us near the machine to turn the display on > to see the simulation. None of us knew how to do that. He had to come to > the front, grumbling about how come we did not know where the switch > was. > > Well, none of us had the money to buy an Apple II! And the IBM PC was > still a year or two away. The company I worked for wasn't big on pending money but for some reason they had a firm come it to teach us pair programming. The presenter arrived with Macs for the hands on experience. There were probably 60 people attending, none of whom had ever used a Mac. The programmers from my area grabbed the snacks and ghosted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 21:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times |
| Message-ID | <11c5nml$1f300$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94838 |
On Sat, 31 Oct 2026 11:57:23 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote: > I have one recollection of maybe 1983 or 84, visiting the microwave > department, which was designing the aerial complex of a new frigate. > They had a model to scale in an anechoic chamber; they had to scale > the frequencies up to match the ship model. And they had an Apple-II > (or was it I?) doing some long calculations. In about 1987 or so, all the 🇳🇿 universities were members of the Apple University Consortium. We decided to put together a report on what people were doing with their respective Apple Mac gear. To try to get a fresh perspective on things, each University sent a person to report on another one. I got sent to Auckland. At the Architecture department, I found a guy using a Macintosh II to collect data on the acoustic characteristics of architectural models. As you say, to get the numbers to come out proportionally right, he had to scale down the wavelengths to match the scale of the model, which meant scaling up the frequencies. And the old IBM PC (AT?) bus of the time simply didn’t have the bandwidth to cope with those high frequencies; but the 32-bit NuBus inside the Mac II could.
[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 | 2026-10-30 04:27 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <6cqcnXMuGul9yXn3nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #94788 |
On 10/29/26 19:48, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > 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”? Fair enough. As said, depends on WHERE. Where I was, first saw like a dozen 'public access' terminals in 1978. But you had to be 'authorized' - and for minor users it was just access to a few little databases. Even the 'big iron' (usually medium-iron) of the day couldn't handle TOO much stuff.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-30 03:58 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <L-GdncvKWuWM03n3nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #94778 |
On 10/29/26 13:37, 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". Ummmm ... started seeing them in the latter 70s ... at least ones 'regular people' were allowed to use for anything. EXACT date - forget it - depends on where you were. Surely sooner at Princeton than SteerPoke U. Original 'regular people' uses often included the printed library card catalog. Those authorized COULD write programs however. First I saw were hooked to SOME model of DEC iron.
[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]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 04:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bp6k0$139ta$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94691 |
On 2026-10-26 08:15, c186282 wrote:
> 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:
[...]
>>
>> 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.
I can't see how that would match to what had previously been discussed.
First, I think, we should acknowledge a few facts for better valuation.
Kornshell (ksh88) was the base for the POSIX standard (not "standard").
Bash (and Zsh) support that standard. All these three shells extended
their set of features according to the needs and course of evolution.
Zsh made some fundamental additions in some features to tackle inherent
issues in Bourne shell. Ksh and Bash kept Bourne shell's basic syntax.
Ksh extended (and streamlined some) features staying withing Bourne's
syntactical paragon (as far as sensible and possible).
So it came that Ksh featured, for example, things like ${..//../..},
${..:..:..}, ((...)), <(...), "ksh-patterns", and many more features
that Bash (and Zsh) adopted.
Many more features either weren't (yet) adopted, things like 'float'
arithmetic and more basic math functions in $((...)) and ((...)),
namespaces, type system, discipline functions, and whatnot.
I would have hoped that some features would not have been implemented
in Bash by other names, using other built-in command's options, and
that the rest would have converged better and faster; mind that many
of the newer Ksh features have already been available with Ksh in '93.
>
>> (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.
Maybe, maybe not. - But what strikes me more is that (shell-)languages
might vanish because of other factors; like official maintenance and
support. I think with the predominance of Bash it will likely persist,
but I'm not that sure with Ksh; after official support from AT&T was
dropped we have to rely on those that took over the task today. Since
the Ksh is less widely used (and the maintainers struggling with the
code base, at least as it seems to me) I'm not too optimistic here.
> [snip Csh talk]
>
>>> 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).
*shrug*
My experience here is that you can do a lot to address that, so the
adverbs you use are relative to one's experience and programming
habits.
> 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.
As said, as lot is in the hand of the programmer. (You may be doomed
if you want to work on third-party code. But if your own code is that
bad that you can't "decipher" it after a year don't blame the language
alone.)
> [snip Python talk]
>
>>> (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'.
So I understood correctly, fine.
I maintain my philosophy to not store any of my sensible data in "the
cloud", neither in plain nor in encrypted form. An encryption that is
safe today isn't guaranteed to be safe tomorrow. Since if my data is
accessible by some third party in the cloud _now_ it might get decoded
later; so that's no option for my.
> 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 ???
(In my previous post I wrote that I'm not the appropriate person to
discuss Python.)
I just said that I understand that because you obviously show some,
umm.., enthusiasm here, concerning that specific language.
(I heard and read about Python, I helped debugging a piece of Python
that my child was trying to run, and I draw the conclusion that it's
not worth [for me] to learn and use that language.)
(It certainly appears a lot more "attractive" than the Unix shells.
But enthusiastic comments often disregard other aspects. Standard
environments and tools, company policies, etc., so in your private
system environment you have more options to choose your personally
preferred tools.)
>
>>> 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.
(I already commented on that.)
> Doing serious string stuff in
> BASH and several others ... nasty !
I'm curious what specifically you mean; can you give examples?
>
> 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.
Well, your way of writing programs may differ from mine.
And (given what you wrote) I'm likely about as old as you are;
and I'm certainly not "remembering" what an older program does.
I'm certainly writing my programs in ways that makes it possible
to resume work at a later stage. This is actually not uncommon;
I've done it in various languages, and problems arose primarily
where I ignored (general, or my own) program quality standards.
I mean I've seen bad code in many languages. And I consider it a
basic programming skill to structure code, name entities sensibly,
and comment code, as necessary.
I understand that the shell with its attributes of being somewhat
cryptic you may more easily write "messy" code, and that it needs
experience and more discipline to write maintainable software.[*]
[*] Back in the 1990's when I gave a couple courses in Kornshell
I explicitly emphasized to handle the Shell not as a "scripting
language" but as a _programming language_. (Hope you understand
what I'm trying to say by that.) To apply all the good practices
that you also apply with other non-"scripting"-languages.
>
>>> 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.
(I already asked above about any concrete example you have in mind.)
> [snip]
>>>
>>> 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 ???
Here we spoke not about "defaulting"[*]; here we spoke about
explicitly "intentionally installed" shells.
Over the time I've used several. Around Y2k I had Suse which had a
PD-ksh. Currently I have Xubuntu which comes with ksh93u+m. But of
course you can also make another shell your personal default-shell;
there's really a lot of shells you can choose from (on Linuxes).
[*] Concerning to your term "'ksh'-defaulting" I refer to another
post in this thread who already expanded on that. (I don't want to
engage with you in some terminology-battle, whether that is your
intention or not.)[**]
[**] Concerning "default" shell we already exchanged this:
|
| 24-10-2026, Janis Papanagnou:
| > 2026-10-24, c186282:
| >> Note however that MOST distros default to BASH now -
| >
| > Yes, Linux often has Bash as its default.
|
and with a seemingly agreed interpretation of "default" we seem to
have said the same, so I don't think there's more to say.
> [snip]
>> [...]
>
> Never got TOO far into ZSH ... but it DOES have a lot
> of potential. Don't count it out of the picture.
(I certainly don't ignore Zsh, I even mentioned it a couple times.)
> [big snip of digressions]
Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-24 12:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bi3f0$2kv20$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94632 |
On 2026-10-24, 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. Now that sounds like something Greg Sullivan of Microsoft would say. -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 23:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <YqednVkC15mDTUP3nZ2dnZfqn_YAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #94650 |
On 10/24/26 07:06, Nuno Silva wrote: > On 2026-10-24, 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. > > Now that sounds like something Greg Sullivan of Microsoft would say. You "can do" most anything in COBOL or FORTRAN or 'C' in ANY other lang - just as anything in one shell script you can do in any other. The issue is 'how easily' - and that depends on your particular application. "Needs" eventually rule. So, EVERYONE winds up with kind of the same 'capabilities'. How nice/easy/clear, depends. Use Python for scripts over maybe 10 lines for everything these days. Infinitely capable and READABLE and DOCUMENTED. No real competition now. If you hate Python "just because" then reconsider. Yea yea ... the old shells are "Trad-IX" ... but IMHO their day is kinda OVER.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 26 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 26 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web