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 581 — 39 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: Internal navigation in the online manual "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-01 12:31 +0100
Re: Internal navigation in the online manual Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> - 2026-11-01 20:50 +0000
Re: Internal navigation in the online manual (was: Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously)) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-01 19:40 +0000
Re: Internal navigation in the online manual "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-02 23:27 +0100
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
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-01 04:18 -0500
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-01 17:22 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-01 12:59 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-01 17:50 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) FF <fflud@linux.rocks> - 2026-11-01 18:09 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-02 23:32 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-03 00:26 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:57 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-03 02:17 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:49 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 22:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 04:49 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-01 22:29 +0000
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: Internal navigation in the online manual "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-01 13:03 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2026-11-01 10:58 +0100
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-01 22:27 +0000
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-31 21:57 +0000
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-01 13:07 +0100
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-01 22:32 +0000
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-02 23:35 +0100
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-02 23:22 +0000
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-03 03:02 +0100
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:50 +0000
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 21:18 -0500
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-01 19:40 +0000
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 16:49 -0800
Re: man pages (was Re: [OT] Punch card times) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 11:31 +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) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-01 04:30 -0500
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-11-01 10:16 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-01 19:13 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 09:35 -0800
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 20:27 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 13:50 -0800
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 20:42 -0500
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:42 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-01 18:17 -0500
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 16:45 -0800
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-01 21:00 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-02 02:16 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 04:48 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-02 14:13 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 06:47 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-02 20:02 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 19:48 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-02 16:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 20:10 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-11-02 17:10 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 20:25 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 03:56 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-02 20:03 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 13:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 19:56 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 01:28 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-02 09:41 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 11:22 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-02 20:11 +0800
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 13:57 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-03 00:20 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-11-03 00:08 +0100
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 21:12 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:42 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:49 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:53 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 04:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 22:53 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-11-02 22:29 -0500
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-02 16:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 11:13 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-02 19:41 +0000
Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-11-02 17:01 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 10:52 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-02 15:35 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 10:47 +0000
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-02 20:16 +0800
Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 13:58 +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) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-11-01 12:19 +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 14 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 30 Next page →
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 11:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <nkluscFas32U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #94812 |
On 2026-10-30 20:24, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2026-10-30, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/29/26 12:27, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> rbowman wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed):
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 19:33:23 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The closest I ever came to using an IDE was the symbolic debugger that
>>>>> came with Lattice C for MS-DOS. Simple, effective... and gone.
>>>>
>>>> I missed that one although I did use MS C after they bought Lattice and
>>>> developed it further. I will say for its era Microsoft C had excellent
>>>> hard copy documentation.
>>>
>>> I agree with that last sentence. In the 80's the manuals for their
>>> C and FORTRAN were very good, and obviously inspired by the layout
>>> of DEC's manuals.
>>
>> You are correct - manuals/docs were EXTREMELY good
>> for such stuff "back in the day". Found a manual
>> for "Aztec C" (great !) from the old days ... WOW ! ...
>> literally bit-level shit in there in case you needed
>> to hyper-optimize something. Clearly the people who
>> wrote the doc also wrote the compiler.
>>
>> More VOLUME of docs these days ... but "As Good" ???
>
> Hardly. Most manuals back in the day had a section titled
> "Theory of Operation". I really miss that.
Talking of manuals, I find large man pages very difficult to use,
specially when you need something specific. No clickable table of
content, no clickable index. Info pages are somewhat better.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 10:49 +0000 |
| Subject | Internal navigation in the online manual (was: Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously)) |
| Message-ID | <11c4h4n$1025g$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94832 |
On 2026-10-31, Carlos E. R. wrote: > On 2026-10-30 20:24, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> On 2026-10-30, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> >>> On 10/29/26 12:27, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >>> >>>> rbowman wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed): >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 19:33:23 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The closest I ever came to using an IDE was the symbolic debugger that >>>>>> came with Lattice C for MS-DOS. Simple, effective... and gone. >>>>> >>>>> I missed that one although I did use MS C after they bought Lattice and >>>>> developed it further. I will say for its era Microsoft C had excellent >>>>> hard copy documentation. >>>> >>>> I agree with that last sentence. In the 80's the manuals for their >>>> C and FORTRAN were very good, and obviously inspired by the layout >>>> of DEC's manuals. >>> >>> You are correct - manuals/docs were EXTREMELY good >>> for such stuff "back in the day". Found a manual >>> for "Aztec C" (great !) from the old days ... WOW ! ... >>> literally bit-level shit in there in case you needed >>> to hyper-optimize something. Clearly the people who >>> wrote the doc also wrote the compiler. >>> >>> More VOLUME of docs these days ... but "As Good" ??? >> >> Hardly. Most manuals back in the day had a section titled >> "Theory of Operation". I really miss that. > > > Talking of manuals, I find large man pages very difficult to use, > specially when you need something specific. No clickable table of > content, no clickable index. Info pages are somewhat better. Isn't that more about the viewer using to read the manual pages, than a flaw of the online manual in itself? -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 13:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Internal navigation in the online manual (was: Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously)) |
| Message-ID | <6ae5e8f6$0$3138$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #94837 |
Le 31-10-2026, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> a écrit : > On 2026-10-31, Carlos E. R. wrote: > >> Talking of manuals, I find large man pages very difficult to use, >> specially when you need something specific. No clickable table of >> content, no clickable index. Info pages are somewhat better. > > Isn't that more about the viewer using to read the manual pages, than a > flaw of the online manual in itself? Maybe. When I wanted to learned about Linux, I hated man pages. I found them awful and useless. Now, I'm using them only when I know what I'm looking for. I mean, when I don't know something, I know that the man page will send me a useless shit load of details without anything useful. Or, if anything is useful it's buried and hidden among useless stuff. If I'm looking for a fast way to use a command, I'm using tldr. If I want to understand a command, I avoid man pages and go look for some information on Internet. It's only when I want to know what an option is really doing or if an option exists that I'm going to look for it in the man pages. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 19:53 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Internal navigation in the online manual |
| Message-ID | <nkmrq0FftpsU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #94841 |
On 2026-10-31 14:11, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> Le 31-10-2026, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> a écrit :
>> On 2026-10-31, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>
>>> Talking of manuals, I find large man pages very difficult to use,
>>> specially when you need something specific. No clickable table of
>>> content, no clickable index. Info pages are somewhat better.
>>
>> Isn't that more about the viewer using to read the manual pages, than a
>> flaw of the online manual in itself?
>
> Maybe. When I wanted to learned about Linux, I hated man pages. I found
> them awful and useless. Now, I'm using them only when I know what I'm
> looking for. I mean, when I don't know something, I know that the man
> page will send me a useless shit load of details without anything
> useful. Or, if anything is useful it's buried and hidden among useless
> stuff. If I'm looking for a fast way to use a command, I'm using tldr.
> If I want to understand a command, I avoid man pages and go look for
> some information on Internet. It's only when I want to know what an
> option is really doing or if an option exists that I'm going to look for
> it in the man pages.
I ask chatgpt how to use the command.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 19:56 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Internal navigation in the online manual |
| Message-ID | <nkmrv0FftpsU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #94837 |
On 2026-10-31 11:49, Nuno Silva wrote:
> On 2026-10-31, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
>> On 2026-10-30 20:24, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> On 2026-10-30, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/29/26 12:27, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> rbowman wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed):
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 19:33:23 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The closest I ever came to using an IDE was the symbolic debugger that
>>>>>>> came with Lattice C for MS-DOS. Simple, effective... and gone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I missed that one although I did use MS C after they bought Lattice and
>>>>>> developed it further. I will say for its era Microsoft C had excellent
>>>>>> hard copy documentation.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with that last sentence. In the 80's the manuals for their
>>>>> C and FORTRAN were very good, and obviously inspired by the layout
>>>>> of DEC's manuals.
>>>>
>>>> You are correct - manuals/docs were EXTREMELY good
>>>> for such stuff "back in the day". Found a manual
>>>> for "Aztec C" (great !) from the old days ... WOW ! ...
>>>> literally bit-level shit in there in case you needed
>>>> to hyper-optimize something. Clearly the people who
>>>> wrote the doc also wrote the compiler.
>>>>
>>>> More VOLUME of docs these days ... but "As Good" ???
>>>
>>> Hardly. Most manuals back in the day had a section titled
>>> "Theory of Operation". I really miss that.
>>
>>
>> Talking of manuals, I find large man pages very difficult to use,
>> specially when you need something specific. No clickable table of
>> content, no clickable index. Info pages are somewhat better.
>
> Isn't that more about the viewer using to read the manual pages, than a
> flaw of the online manual in itself?
No, man pages do not contain links to section of the document. It is not
structured.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 22:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Internal navigation in the online manual |
| Message-ID | <wwv33tl1oi1.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #94860 |
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes: > On 2026-10-31 11:49, Nuno Silva wrote: >> On 2026-10-31, Carlos E. R. wrote: >>> Talking of manuals, I find large man pages very difficult to use, >>> specially when you need something specific. No clickable table of >>> content, no clickable index. Info pages are somewhat better. >> >> Isn't that more about the viewer using to read the manual pages, than >> a flaw of the online manual in itself? > > No, man pages do not contain links to section of the document. It is > not structured. Nuno is right; a viewer can include links. For an example see man7.org. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 12:31 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Internal navigation in the online manual |
| Message-ID | <nkom8aFp0edU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #94870 |
On 2026-10-31 23:41, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>> On 2026-10-31 11:49, Nuno Silva wrote:
>>> On 2026-10-31, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>> Talking of manuals, I find large man pages very difficult to use,
>>>> specially when you need something specific. No clickable table of
>>>> content, no clickable index. Info pages are somewhat better.
>>>
>>> Isn't that more about the viewer using to read the manual pages, than
>>> a flaw of the online manual in itself?
>>
>> No, man pages do not contain links to section of the document. It is
>> not structured.
>
> Nuno is right; a viewer can include links. For an example see man7.org.
Maybe the viewer can, but the man files don't.
There is the tool "pinfo", it can highlight somethings like the name of
another man page, and jump to it.
Still, no table of content. No jumping from one section while browsing
the man page.
See man man page, for example.
SYNOPSIS
man [man options] [[section] page ...] ...
man -k [apropos options] regexp ...
man -K [man options] [section] term ...
man -f [whatis options] page ...
man -l [man options] file ...
man -w|-W [man options] page ...
I can not click or tap on the third line to explain to me about "man -K"
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 20:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Internal navigation in the online manual |
| Message-ID | <slrn11ef9g6.1il7.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de> |
| In reply to | #94860 |
On 2026-10-31, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > No, man pages do not contain links to section of the document. It is not > structured. There are two roff macro sets for man pages: man(7) and mdoc(7). man(7) is poorly structured. mdoc(7), which originated in 4.4BSD but is now widely available, provides semantic markup. With mdoc(7), the structure is there, it's up to the downstream tools to use it. The HTML output mode of Kristaps Dzonsons' mandoc(1) formatter, which appears to have spread to all BSDs, seems to mostly limit itself to providing lots of #anchors as potential targets for linking, e.g.: https://man.openbsd.org/ls When you are piping formatted text into less(1), there are few possibilities. OpenBSD's man(1) uses mandoc(1) to dump various definitions into a temporary ctags(1) file that is passed to less -T. So when I run "man ls" and want to know what the -u option does, I can jump straight to it by entering ":tu". That can be very useful when navigating long manpages, such as got(1) from Game of Trees, where I can jump directly to the subcommand I want to look up. mdoc(7)'s semantic markup also allows for a more powerful apropos(1) that, for instance, allows you to seach for all man pages that mention the type "struct stat": $ apropos Vt='struct stat' stat(1) - display file status fhopen, fhstat, fhstatfs(2) - access file via file handle getfsstat(2) - get list of all mounted file systems pledge(2) - restrict system operations stat, fstat, fstatat, lstat, S_ISBLK, S_ISCHR, S_ISDIR, S_ISFIFO, S_ISLNK, S_ISREG, S_ISSOCK(2) - get file status statfs, fstatfs(2) - get file system statistics ftw, nftw(3) - traverse (walk) a file tree ... -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 19:40 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Internal navigation in the online manual (was: Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously)) |
| Message-ID | <tAMFS.70975$%ZO1.51912@fx13.iad> |
| In reply to | #94837 |
On 2026-10-31, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 2026-10-31, Carlos E. R. wrote: > >> On 2026-10-30 20:24, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> On 2026-10-30, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> More VOLUME of docs these days ... but "As Good" ??? >>> >>> Hardly. Most manuals back in the day had a section titled >>> "Theory of Operation". I really miss that. >> >> Talking of manuals, I find large man pages very difficult to use, >> specially when you need something specific. No clickable table of >> content, no clickable index. Info pages are somewhat better. > > Isn't that more about the viewer using to read the manual pages, than a > flaw of the online manual in itself? At least the man command can search a man page for a text string. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | In this world there are \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | two kinds of people: X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | 1. Those who can extrapolate / \ if you read it the right way. | from incomplete data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-02 23:27 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Internal navigation in the online manual |
| Message-ID | <nksh21F3cbcU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #94898 |
On 2026-11-01 20:40, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2026-10-31, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2026-10-31, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>
>>> On 2026-10-30 20:24, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2026-10-30, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> More VOLUME of docs these days ... but "As Good" ???
>>>>
>>>> Hardly. Most manuals back in the day had a section titled
>>>> "Theory of Operation". I really miss that.
>>>
>>> Talking of manuals, I find large man pages very difficult to use,
>>> specially when you need something specific. No clickable table of
>>> content, no clickable index. Info pages are somewhat better.
>>
>> Isn't that more about the viewer using to read the manual pages, than a
>> flaw of the online manual in itself?
>
> At least the man command can search a man page for a text string.
> It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing.
>
If you know the string to search for, and it doesn't happen a hundred times.
For instance, in openSUSE the search is not case sensitive, so looking
for -l can find -L first. And of course, finds anywhere where -l or -L
is mentioned in the text, dozen of times.
For example, the "man zypper" page (specific to *suse systems) has many
sections, but there is not a table of contents at the start listing the
section so that we know what section to search for.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 14:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <18e3a2a67a32de8f$1683$3261087$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> |
| In reply to | #94832 |
On Sat, 31 Oct 2026 11:40:12 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote: > > Talking of manuals, I find large man pages very difficult to use, > specially when you need something specific. No clickable table of > content, no clickable index. Info pages are somewhat better. > Try TkMan: <https://sourceforge.net/projects/tkman/> But a patch is required for recent Tcl: <https://sourceforge.net/p/tkman/bugs/6/> After patching, just click away. Tk/Tcl is perhaps the most underrated graphical toolkit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 16:57 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11c5356$n1fl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94832 |
On 2026-10-31 11:40, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
> Talking of manuals, I find large man pages very difficult to use,
> specially when you need something specific. No clickable table of
> content, no clickable index. Info pages are somewhat better.
I agree with you on the _horrendous large_ 'man' "pages".
They shouldn't replace exhaustive and thorough documentation, IMO.
But worse I think are the ("maneuverable") 'info' pages.
Or the habit of some "Unixes" to have no man-page information but
only a stub with the hint to look into the (IMO horrendous) 'info'
pages. (I'm aware that some certainly prefer them; how else would
their proliferation be otherwise explainable.)
Concerning "clickable" information generally, mind the time when
man-pages were introduced!
Janis, preferring to avoid mouse-devices in the first place
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 19:56 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <nkmruhFftpsU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #94852 |
On 2026-10-31 16:57, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 2026-10-31 11:40, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>
>> Talking of manuals, I find large man pages very difficult to use,
>> specially when you need something specific. No clickable table of
>> content, no clickable index. Info pages are somewhat better.
>
> I agree with you on the _horrendous large_ 'man' "pages".
> They shouldn't replace exhaustive and thorough documentation, IMO.
> But worse I think are the ("maneuverable") 'info' pages.
> Or the habit of some "Unixes" to have no man-page information but
> only a stub with the hint to look into the (IMO horrendous) 'info'
> pages. (I'm aware that some certainly prefer them; how else would
> their proliferation be otherwise explainable.)
>
> Concerning "clickable" information generally, mind the time when
> man-pages were introduced!
Yes, I understand that. Isn't time we get something better?
>
> Janis, preferring to avoid mouse-devices in the first place
Sure, point and click can also work without a mouse. Use the cursor to
select an entry in the table of contents, then hit enter.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 22:11 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11c5lhs$nak9$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94859 |
On 2026-10-31 19:56, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2026-10-31 16:57, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 2026-10-31 11:40, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>
>>> Talking of manuals, I find large man pages very difficult to use,
>>> specially when you need something specific. No clickable table of
>>> content, no clickable index. Info pages are somewhat better.
>>
>> I agree with you on the _horrendous large_ 'man' "pages".
>> They shouldn't replace exhaustive and thorough documentation, IMO.
>> But worse I think are the ("maneuverable") 'info' pages.
>> Or the habit of some "Unixes" to have no man-page information but
>> only a stub with the hint to look into the (IMO horrendous) 'info'
>> pages. (I'm aware that some certainly prefer them; how else would
>> their proliferation be otherwise explainable.)
>>
>> Concerning "clickable" information generally, mind the time when
>> man-pages were introduced!
>
> Yes, I understand that. Isn't time we get something better?
But technically we have already "clickable" documents; with HTML for
example.
(Although it should still be available in one page, and ideally also
searchable by regexps in easy ways. (As opposed to click on a search
icon, move the mouse to a new sub-window, (optionally) click another
time in that window to "activate" it for input, type in only a fixed
non-regexp text (often without possibility to distinguish caps, or,
if you're lucky, only with an extra click in some control-box), and
hit enter (if you're lucky) or have to again move the mouse to click
on some Okay button.) - I certainly hate to have no '/search-pattern'
or '<Ctrl-F>search-pattern' available; with emphasis on "pattern".)
Personally I typically want (at least) three levels of information.
Terse usage information, complete interface description, and thorough
explanations of all details in case of the more complex tools.
Mostly we (now) have all that information; if only through the Web.
(But often inconsistent or even unreliable.)
Should we have everything just in one (clickable) format like HTML?
I don't think so. Should we have all the spread existing information
rewritten in some other format? Well, who would do that job?
What I (also) criticize is that we don't have a consistent level of
information with some newer Linux platforms. I wished for the "second
level" of information that the man page format would have been kept/
maintained instead of trying to deprive that format in favor of the
'info' format.
>
>>
>> Janis, preferring to avoid mouse-devices in the first place
>
> Sure, point and click can also work without a mouse. Use the cursor to
> select an entry in the table of contents, then hit enter.
Yes, sure. For long documents ("level three" information) with a lot
content where a "table of contents" is sensible that makes completely
sense. (Even pure mouse-control would be fine here [for me] in this
case.)
For the information level where I'd see the man-pages I wouldn't even
need a "table of contents", since that type of information shouldn't
be that voluminous, IMO.
Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 04:18 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <qamcnUStLJx7nnr3nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #94865 |
On 10/31/26 17:11, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 2026-10-31 19:56, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2026-10-31 16:57, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>> On 2026-10-31 11:40, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Talking of manuals, I find large man pages very difficult to use,
>>>> specially when you need something specific. No clickable table of
>>>> content, no clickable index. Info pages are somewhat better.
>>>
>>> I agree with you on the _horrendous large_ 'man' "pages".
>>> They shouldn't replace exhaustive and thorough documentation, IMO.
>>> But worse I think are the ("maneuverable") 'info' pages.
>>> Or the habit of some "Unixes" to have no man-page information but
>>> only a stub with the hint to look into the (IMO horrendous) 'info'
>>> pages. (I'm aware that some certainly prefer them; how else would
>>> their proliferation be otherwise explainable.)
>>>
>>> Concerning "clickable" information generally, mind the time when
>>> man-pages were introduced!
>>
>> Yes, I understand that. Isn't time we get something better?
>
> But technically we have already "clickable" documents; with HTML for
> example.
"Hyper-Text" - it goes WAY back. Had a *little*
input on at least the concept. Also suggested
an 'any machine' lang ... eventually we got Java.
Pref 'C' :-)
> (Although it should still be available in one page, and ideally also
> searchable by regexps in easy ways. (As opposed to click on a search
> icon, move the mouse to a new sub-window, (optionally) click another
> time in that window to "activate" it for input, type in only a fixed
> non-regexp text (often without possibility to distinguish caps, or,
> if you're lucky, only with an extra click in some control-box), and
> hit enter (if you're lucky) or have to again move the mouse to click
> on some Okay button.) - I certainly hate to have no '/search-pattern'
> or '<Ctrl-F>search-pattern' available; with emphasis on "pattern".)
>
> Personally I typically want (at least) three levels of information.
> Terse usage information, complete interface description, and thorough
> explanations of all details in case of the more complex tools.
>
> Mostly we (now) have all that information; if only through the Web.
> (But often inconsistent or even unreliable.)
>
> Should we have everything just in one (clickable) format like HTML?
> I don't think so. Should we have all the spread existing information
> rewritten in some other format? Well, who would do that job?
>
> What I (also) criticize is that we don't have a consistent level of
> information with some newer Linux platforms. I wished for the "second
> level" of information that the man page format would have been kept/
> maintained instead of trying to deprive that format in favor of the
> 'info' format.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Janis, preferring to avoid mouse-devices in the first place
>>
>> Sure, point and click can also work without a mouse. Use the cursor to
>> select an entry in the table of contents, then hit enter.
>
> Yes, sure. For long documents ("level three" information) with a lot
> content where a "table of contents" is sensible that makes completely
> sense. (Even pure mouse-control would be fine here [for me] in this
> case.)
'Mice' are still a GREAT/useful idea. Thank Xerox !
Finer control than poking yer finger at a screen too.
> For the information level where I'd see the man-pages I wouldn't even
> need a "table of contents", since that type of information shouldn't
> be that voluminous, IMO.
But what if it BECAME so ?
Shit turns into a lot MORE shit.
My input to hypertext in the ancient days was the
idea of a sort of 'infinitely-indexed database'
where everything of importance somehow linked to
a huge tree of related info, which linked to a
huge tree of related info .....
Weren't as many 'computer geeks' back then.
They solved the index-space issue by using html
page links. The giant 'tree' wasn't in one place
any more. Not really possible before the early-80s
alas until DARPA-Net firmly became the Internet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 17:22 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11c7ovo$nak9$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94878 |
On 2026-11-01 10:18, c186282 wrote: > On 10/31/26 17:11, Janis Papanagnou wrote: [...] >> For the information level where I'd see the man-pages I wouldn't even >> need a "table of contents", since that type of information shouldn't >> be that voluminous, IMO. > > But what if it BECAME so ? There's obviously [only] a couple pathological cases of gigantic man-pages. (I seem to recall to have had posted the statistics of the man-page length distribution some not too long time ago.) But there's certainly also too many that grew to large on Linux. It's the responsibility of the authors and publishers to rewrite their documentation, so it's all vain to complain about existing ones. (And I also don't think this will happen for those tools.) I don't see, though, that this would mean that new tools will have to follow that path of producing one overly long man-page with all information and undifferentiated in one huge file. > > Shit turns into a lot MORE shit. > > My input to hypertext in the ancient days was the > idea of a sort of 'infinitely-indexed database' > where everything of importance somehow linked to > a huge tree of related info, which linked to a > huge tree of related info ..... That "somehow" in your thought needs some refinement, I suppose. :-) Back in the days (and possibly still prevalent) there was a DB hype to put everything in databases. (By "databases" here I mean systems, DBMS.) Over the past decades my personal preferences changed insofar to prefer a reduce complexity for the many simple application cases. I'd certainly reduce all dependencies, and avoid any necessities to access tool documentation data only through such a system. I'm not sure the textual tools-documentation should have (or would require) a comparably complex database. YMMV. > > Weren't as many 'computer geeks' back then. > > They solved the index-space issue by using html > page links. The giant 'tree' wasn't in one place > any more. Not really possible before the early-80s > alas until DARPA-Net firmly became the Internet. Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 12:59 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <nkontqFp0edU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #94865 |
On 2026-10-31 22:11, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 2026-10-31 19:56, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2026-10-31 16:57, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>> On 2026-10-31 11:40, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Talking of manuals, I find large man pages very difficult to use,
>>>> specially when you need something specific. No clickable table of
>>>> content, no clickable index. Info pages are somewhat better.
>>>
>>> I agree with you on the _horrendous large_ 'man' "pages".
>>> They shouldn't replace exhaustive and thorough documentation, IMO.
>>> But worse I think are the ("maneuverable") 'info' pages.
>>> Or the habit of some "Unixes" to have no man-page information but
>>> only a stub with the hint to look into the (IMO horrendous) 'info'
>>> pages. (I'm aware that some certainly prefer them; how else would
>>> their proliferation be otherwise explainable.)
>>>
>>> Concerning "clickable" information generally, mind the time when
>>> man-pages were introduced!
>>
>> Yes, I understand that. Isn't time we get something better?
>
> But technically we have already "clickable" documents; with HTML for
> example.
Yes, and some tools use that. But then, a command like "apropos" does
not find that page.
>
> (Although it should still be available in one page, and ideally also
> searchable by regexps in easy ways. (As opposed to click on a search
> icon, move the mouse to a new sub-window, (optionally) click another
> time in that window to "activate" it for input, type in only a fixed
> non-regexp text (often without possibility to distinguish caps, or,
> if you're lucky, only with an extra click in some control-box), and
> hit enter (if you're lucky) or have to again move the mouse to click
> on some Okay button.) - I certainly hate to have no '/search-pattern'
> or '<Ctrl-F>search-pattern' available; with emphasis on "pattern".)
>
> Personally I typically want (at least) three levels of information.
> Terse usage information, complete interface description, and thorough
> explanations of all details in case of the more complex tools.
>
And an examples section. How to do this or that.
> Mostly we (now) have all that information; if only through the Web.
> (But often inconsistent or even unreliable.)
>
> Should we have everything just in one (clickable) format like HTML?
> I don't think so. Should we have all the spread existing information
> rewritten in some other format? Well, who would do that job?
>
> What I (also) criticize is that we don't have a consistent level of
> information with some newer Linux platforms. I wished for the "second
> level" of information that the man page format would have been kept/
> maintained instead of trying to deprive that format in favor of the
> 'info' format.
Well, I find "info date" (for me "pinfo date") better for finding the
information than "man date". Or "pinfo gcc".
>>> Janis, preferring to avoid mouse-devices in the first place
>>
>> Sure, point and click can also work without a mouse. Use the cursor to
>> select an entry in the table of contents, then hit enter.
>
> Yes, sure. For long documents ("level three" information) with a lot
> content where a "table of contents" is sensible that makes completely
> sense. (Even pure mouse-control would be fine here [for me] in this
> case.)
>
> For the information level where I'd see the man-pages I wouldn't even
> need a "table of contents", since that type of information shouldn't
> be that voluminous, IMO.
Yes, but I have trouble finding the information for commands with very
long pages, like "man zypper" (2559 lines).
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 17:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <11c7ql0$nak9$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94886 |
On 2026-11-01 12:59, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2026-10-31 22:11, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 2026-10-31 19:56, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>> On 2026-10-31 16:57, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>>> On 2026-10-31 11:40, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Talking of manuals, I find large man pages very difficult to use,
>>>>> specially when you need something specific. No clickable table of
>>>>> content, no clickable index. Info pages are somewhat better.
>>>>
>>>> I agree with you on the _horrendous large_ 'man' "pages".
>>>> They shouldn't replace exhaustive and thorough documentation, IMO.
>>>> But worse I think are the ("maneuverable") 'info' pages.
>>>> Or the habit of some "Unixes" to have no man-page information but
>>>> only a stub with the hint to look into the (IMO horrendous) 'info'
>>>> pages. (I'm aware that some certainly prefer them; how else would
>>>> their proliferation be otherwise explainable.)
>>>>
>>>> Concerning "clickable" information generally, mind the time when
>>>> man-pages were introduced!
>>>
>>> Yes, I understand that. Isn't time we get something better?
>>
>> But technically we have already "clickable" documents; with HTML for
>> example.
>
> Yes, and some tools use that. But then, a command like "apropos" does
> not find that page.
Frankly, I don't know the installation process of my Linux distro in
detail, but I can say that when I add a new tool-binary I instantly
also have the man page accessible, and I find the respective infos
through 'apropos' as well. I don't see why there would be a principal
hindrance to do that for other information sources as well.
>
>>
>> (Although it should still be available in one page, and ideally also
>> searchable by regexps in easy ways. (As opposed to click on a search
>> icon, move the mouse to a new sub-window, (optionally) click another
>> time in that window to "activate" it for input, type in only a fixed
>> non-regexp text (often without possibility to distinguish caps, or,
>> if you're lucky, only with an extra click in some control-box), and
>> hit enter (if you're lucky) or have to again move the mouse to click
>> on some Okay button.) - I certainly hate to have no '/search-pattern'
>> or '<Ctrl-F>search-pattern' available; with emphasis on "pattern".)
>>
>> Personally I typically want (at least) three levels of information.
>> Terse usage information, complete interface description, and thorough
>> explanations of all details in case of the more complex tools.
>>
>
> And an examples section. How to do this or that.
This is often useful. For powerful large tools this might exceed
what one likes in a man-page, though, and would just contribute
to making the man-page "unreadable" due to its length. Here again
I think that the type of the examples is the discriminating info;
the man-page should certainly contain the technical options and
examples how to call the tool with those, but (having tools like
Imagemagick in mind) not the functional usage examples that would
better be placed in a tutorial type of documentation.
>
>> Mostly we (now) have all that information; if only through the Web.
>> (But often inconsistent or even unreliable.)
>>
>> Should we have everything just in one (clickable) format like HTML?
>> I don't think so. Should we have all the spread existing information
>> rewritten in some other format? Well, who would do that job?
>>
>> What I (also) criticize is that we don't have a consistent level of
>> information with some newer Linux platforms. I wished for the "second
>> level" of information that the man page format would have been kept/
>> maintained instead of trying to deprive that format in favor of the
>> 'info' format.
>
> Well, I find "info date" (for me "pinfo date") better for finding the
> information than "man date". Or "pinfo gcc".
One problem I have with 'info' is that I see only a paragraph of
a subsection of a section of the described thing. I certainly want
to see more context! I also like to have the typical chapters that
describe the tools' _interfaces_ (the name with terse description,
the usage synopsis, a description, the list of options, returned
status codes, files that affect the tool in some way, example uses,
and know bugs, for example).
The 'date' manual you gave as example is certainly not one of the
pathologically huge man-pages (with its 200 lines, and most of it
is anyway just a table of the format specifiers).
Janis
> [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | FF <fflud@linux.rocks> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 18:09 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <18e3fe377cfaa6a4$1049$3105571$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> |
| In reply to | #94894 |
On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 17:50:40 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > > Frankly, I don't know the installation process of my Linux distro in > detail, but I can say that when I add a new tool-binary I instantly also > have the man page accessible, and I find the respective infos through > 'apropos' as well. I don't see why there would be a principal hindrance > to do that for other information sources as well. > The configuration files that set the global MANPATH* variables are: /etc/man.conf /etc/man_db.conf Only the specified MANPATH* locations are searched for man pages. Of course, a package build has to also specify where its man pages will be located. These are usually the same as the MANPATH* locations. But, again, GNU/Linux allows man pages to be placed anywhere that the user desires. Most users, however, are not the masters of their own machines and the distros will make all decisions for them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-02 23:32 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously) |
| Message-ID | <nkshcgF3cbcU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #94894 |
On 2026-11-01 17:50, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 2026-11-01 12:59, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2026-10-31 22:11, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>> On 2026-10-31 19:56, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>> On 2026-10-31 16:57, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>>>> On 2026-10-31 11:40, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Talking of manuals, I find large man pages very difficult to use,
>>>>>> specially when you need something specific. No clickable table of
>>>>>> content, no clickable index. Info pages are somewhat better.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with you on the _horrendous large_ 'man' "pages".
>>>>> They shouldn't replace exhaustive and thorough documentation, IMO.
>>>>> But worse I think are the ("maneuverable") 'info' pages.
>>>>> Or the habit of some "Unixes" to have no man-page information but
>>>>> only a stub with the hint to look into the (IMO horrendous) 'info'
>>>>> pages. (I'm aware that some certainly prefer them; how else would
>>>>> their proliferation be otherwise explainable.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Concerning "clickable" information generally, mind the time when
>>>>> man-pages were introduced!
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I understand that. Isn't time we get something better?
>>>
>>> But technically we have already "clickable" documents; with HTML for
>>> example.
>>
>> Yes, and some tools use that. But then, a command like "apropos" does
>> not find that page.
>
> Frankly, I don't know the installation process of my Linux distro in
> detail, but I can say that when I add a new tool-binary I instantly
> also have the man page accessible, and I find the respective infos
> through 'apropos' as well. I don't see why there would be a principal
> hindrance to do that for other information sources as well.
>
>>
>>>
>>> (Although it should still be available in one page, and ideally also
>>> searchable by regexps in easy ways. (As opposed to click on a search
>>> icon, move the mouse to a new sub-window, (optionally) click another
>>> time in that window to "activate" it for input, type in only a fixed
>>> non-regexp text (often without possibility to distinguish caps, or,
>>> if you're lucky, only with an extra click in some control-box), and
>>> hit enter (if you're lucky) or have to again move the mouse to click
>>> on some Okay button.) - I certainly hate to have no '/search-pattern'
>>> or '<Ctrl-F>search-pattern' available; with emphasis on "pattern".)
>>>
>>> Personally I typically want (at least) three levels of information.
>>> Terse usage information, complete interface description, and thorough
>>> explanations of all details in case of the more complex tools.
>>>
>>
>> And an examples section. How to do this or that.
>
> This is often useful. For powerful large tools this might exceed
> what one likes in a man-page, though, and would just contribute
> to making the man-page "unreadable" due to its length. Here again
> I think that the type of the examples is the discriminating info;
> the man-page should certainly contain the technical options and
> examples how to call the tool with those, but (having tools like
> Imagemagick in mind) not the functional usage examples that would
> better be placed in a tutorial type of documentation.
Sometimes a tool has a small man page, then a large structured document
in some other format.
>
>>
>>> Mostly we (now) have all that information; if only through the Web.
>>> (But often inconsistent or even unreliable.)
>>>
>>> Should we have everything just in one (clickable) format like HTML?
>>> I don't think so. Should we have all the spread existing information
>>> rewritten in some other format? Well, who would do that job?
>>>
>>> What I (also) criticize is that we don't have a consistent level of
>>> information with some newer Linux platforms. I wished for the "second
>>> level" of information that the man page format would have been kept/
>>> maintained instead of trying to deprive that format in favor of the
>>> 'info' format.
>>
>> Well, I find "info date" (for me "pinfo date") better for finding the
>> information than "man date". Or "pinfo gcc".
>
> One problem I have with 'info' is that I see only a paragraph of
> a subsection of a section of the described thing. I certainly want
> to see more context! I also like to have the typical chapters that
> describe the tools' _interfaces_ (the name with terse description,
> the usage synopsis, a description, the list of options, returned
> status codes, files that affect the tool in some way, example uses,
> and know bugs, for example).
>
> The 'date' manual you gave as example is certainly not one of the
> pathologically huge man-pages (with its 200 lines, and most of it
> is anyway just a table of the format specifiers).
>
> Janis
>
>> [...]
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 30 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 30 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web