Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #33009 > unrolled thread
| Started by | ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-08-30 18:22 -0500 |
| Last post | 2021-09-16 08:02 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 103 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2021-08-30 18:22 -0500
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2021-08-31 00:14 +0000
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-08-30 17:57 -0700
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-31 04:39 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2021-08-31 15:19 +0200
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-31 14:34 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2021-08-31 16:16 +0200
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-31 15:47 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2021-08-31 18:54 +0200
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-31 17:59 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-08-31 11:52 -0700
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-09-01 04:21 +0000
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-31 01:07 -0400
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2021-08-31 11:01 +0200
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-08-31 11:01 -0400
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2021-09-01 11:07 +0200
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-09-01 07:55 -0400
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-01 13:10 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-01 23:58 -0400
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-09-02 13:04 +0200
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-03 01:56 -0400
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2021-09-03 08:44 +0200
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-09-03 11:22 +0200
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-04 00:31 -0400
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2021-09-04 10:56 +0200
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2021-09-04 11:44 +0200
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-09-04 08:04 -0700
OT Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Rinaldi <rm@nunya.inv> - 2021-09-04 10:28 -0500
Re: OT Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-09-04 08:41 -0700
Re: OT Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-04 18:33 +0100
Re: OT Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-05 00:53 -0400
Re: OT Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2021-09-05 08:57 +0200
Re: OT Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-09-05 12:12 -0400
Re: OT Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-05 20:01 -0400
Re: OT Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-09-04 08:42 -0700
Re: OT Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-09-04 08:45 -0700
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-04 18:32 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-09-03 19:51 -0400
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-03 23:48 -0400
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-04 08:44 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-05 00:07 -0400
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-05 08:16 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-05 09:36 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-05 12:50 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-09-05 09:33 -0400
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-09-04 11:22 +0200
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2021-09-04 11:46 +0200
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-09-04 17:47 +0000
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-05 09:35 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-05 19:34 -0400
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-09-06 02:14 +0200
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-06 08:43 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-06 08:45 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? SevenOverSix <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-07 01:54 -0400
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-07 08:44 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? SevenOverSix <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-08 01:36 -0400
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-08 07:46 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? SevenOverSix <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-09 01:53 -0400
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-09 07:41 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? SevenOverSix <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-10 01:52 -0400
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-08 08:46 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-08 10:57 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-08 12:12 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-08 13:06 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-08 13:29 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2021-09-08 14:17 +0300
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? SevenOverSix <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-09 02:04 -0400
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-09 07:46 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? SevenOverSix <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-10 02:51 -0400
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-10 09:49 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? SevenOverSix <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-11 02:03 -0400
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-11 07:19 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-11 08:32 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? SevenOverSix <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-12 00:17 -0400
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-12 09:09 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? SevenOverSix <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-12 23:43 -0400
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-12 11:33 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2021-09-06 11:08 +0300
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-06 09:24 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2021-09-06 12:38 +0300
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-06 12:21 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? SevenOverSix <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-07 02:20 -0400
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-06 11:39 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-06 12:22 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2021-09-02 09:29 +0200
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-02 09:48 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-01 23:32 -0400
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2021-09-02 09:30 +0200
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-03 00:04 -0400
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-09-04 17:58 +0000
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? SixOverFive <hae274c.net> - 2021-09-05 00:22 -0400
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2021-08-31 10:59 +0200
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-31 10:46 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-31 10:50 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-31 10:57 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2021-09-01 11:09 +0200
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-09-01 10:42 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-09-01 13:47 +0200
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-09-04 18:09 +0000
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-08-31 06:04 -0400
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-08-31 11:42 +0100
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2021-09-14 22:42 -0400
Re: Is Debian still good for GUI stuff in an over 12 yrs. old PC? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-09-16 08:02 +0000
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | SixOverFive <hae274c.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-05 00:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <PJmdne9nDc3n36n8nZ2dnUU7-RXNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #33095 |
On 9/4/21 3:44 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > SixOverFive <hae274c.net> writes: >> SOMETIMES though, you can CHEAT. Change the properties of >> your symlink so even root can't edit/change/replace it. >> The installer may bitch, but SO WHAT. >> >> A backup is to simply make a script you run after updates, >> one that once again nukes/renames vi and related and replaces >> them with your symlinks/alternatives. You can even run it >> at startup so nobody can sneak anything in on you ... >> >> Damned systems WILL do what I WANT them to do ... > > Why do you even have vi installed then? Part of the "standard install". You CAN uninstall - though usually you'll get all kinds of screaming warnings about how 999 other things will also be uninstalled. You can mark it to not be RE-installed too - but again you'll get endless grief when trying to install other software. So - FAKE IT OUT.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-05 08:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <877dfvh4qz.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #33111 |
SixOverFive <hae274c.net> writes: > On 9/4/21 3:44 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >> SixOverFive <hae274c.net> writes: >>> Damned systems WILL do what I WANT them to do ... >> >> Why do you even have vi installed then? > > Part of the "standard install". > > You CAN uninstall - though usually you'll get all kinds of screaming > warnings about how 999 other things will also be uninstalled. You can > mark it to not be RE-installed too - but again you'll get endless > grief when trying to install other software. I have indeed uninstalled it and didn’t get any grief over it. What do you think depends on it? -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-05 09:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sh1vj1$nut$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33118 |
On 05/09/2021 08:16, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > SixOverFive <hae274c.net> writes: >> On 9/4/21 3:44 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >>> SixOverFive <hae274c.net> writes: >>>> Damned systems WILL do what I WANT them to do ... >>> >>> Why do you even have vi installed then? >> >> Part of the "standard install". >> >> You CAN uninstall - though usually you'll get all kinds of screaming >> warnings about how 999 other things will also be uninstalled. You can >> mark it to not be RE-installed too - but again you'll get endless >> grief when trying to install other software. > > I have indeed uninstalled it and didn’t get any grief over it. What do > you think depends on it? > Lord knows, but I am massively surprised that something does not. I have no use for e.g. samba at all, but I am fairly sure something depends on it -- "Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace, community, compassion, investment, security, housing...." "What kind of person is not interested in those things?" "Jeremy Corbyn?"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-05 12:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8735qj9r6y.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #33120 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes: > On 05/09/2021 08:16, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >> SixOverFive <hae274c.net> writes: >>> On 9/4/21 3:44 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >>>> SixOverFive <hae274c.net> writes: >>>>> Damned systems WILL do what I WANT them to do ... >>>> >>>> Why do you even have vi installed then? >>> >>> Part of the "standard install". >>> >>> You CAN uninstall - though usually you'll get all kinds of screaming >>> warnings about how 999 other things will also be uninstalled. You can >>> mark it to not be RE-installed too - but again you'll get endless >>> grief when trying to install other software. >> >> I have indeed uninstalled it and didn’t get any grief over it. What >> do you think depends on it? > > Lord knows, but I am massively surprised that something does not. Well so far the only concrete evidence I have is that nothing I care about on a normal desktop system or server depends on vi. Maybe there’s something that you or SixOverFive care about, but saying that something depends on it without saying is presumably guesswork. As far as I can see the only things that depend on vim (rather than vim|emacs|editor) are packages that extend it somehow. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-05 09:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sh2guh$69l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33120 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes: > On 05/09/2021 08:16, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >> SixOverFive <hae274c.net> writes: >>> On 9/4/21 3:44 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >>>> SixOverFive <hae274c.net> writes: >>>>> Damned systems WILL do what I WANT them to do ... >>>> >>>> Why do you even have vi installed then? >>> >>> Part of the "standard install". >>> >>> You CAN uninstall - though usually you'll get all kinds of screaming >>> warnings about how 999 other things will also be uninstalled. You can >>> mark it to not be RE-installed too - but again you'll get endless >>> grief when trying to install other software. >> I have indeed uninstalled it and didn’t get any grief over it. What >> do >> you think depends on it? >> > Lord knows, but I am massively surprised that something does not. I can't imagine why... > I have no use for e.g. samba at all, but I am fairly sure something > depends on it [root]# dnf remove samba Dependencies resolved. ================================================================================================================================================================ Package Architecture Version Repository Size ================================================================================================================================================================ Removing: samba x86_64 2:4.12.10-0.fc32 @updates 2.7 M Removing unused dependencies: liburing x86_64 0.7-2.fc32 @updates 46 k samba-common-tools x86_64 2:4.12.10-0.fc32 @updates 1.2 M Transaction Summary ================================================================================================================================================================ Remove 3 Packages Nothing important. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-04 11:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ufqb0ix59r.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor> |
| In reply to | #33090 |
On 04/09/2021 05.48, SixOverFive wrote:
> On 9/3/21 2:44 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
>> SixOverFive <hae274c.net> wrote:
>>> I've done that before, but certain UPDATES have
>>> set it BACK to the BadOldDays default on more
>>> than one occasion - ALMOST like Bill Gates just
>>> KNOWING how you REALLY want to set up his wunnerful
>>> system.
>>
>> Your Symlinks will be replaced by updates. You're not supposed to
>> peddle with package contents. Environment Variables, set in the
>> correct places, will survive updates.
>
>
> SOMETIMES though, you can CHEAT. Change the properties of
> your symlink so even root can't edit/change/replace it.
> The installer may bitch, but SO WHAT.
>
> A backup is to simply make a script you run after updates,
> one that once again nukes/renames vi and related and replaces
> them with your symlinks/alternatives. You can even run it
> at startup so nobody can sneak anything in on you ...
>
> Damned systems WILL do what I WANT them to do ...
>
> If you like to be bossed-around, use Win/IOS.
>
>
>>> I can't relay properly how much I *hate* to see
>>> 'edlin'-style line-oriented editors STILL being
>>> used in the 2020s. There's some kind of seriously
>>> messed-up 'thinking' involved here .....
>>
>> That's a matter of style. I switched over from an emacs-type editor to
>> vi at the young age of 49 and I have increased my productivity since
>> then.
>>
>> [two screenful of horrible system administration practice removed]
>>
>
>
> Try a REAL text editor - Leafpad, Pluma ... your productivity
> will increase tenfold, your mistakes and fix-up times will
> decrease tenfold. Even nano beats the snot out of vi/vim
> and you don't even need a GUI.
BLA BLA BLA removed.
It is fine not to like vi. And the people that designed Linux know this,
and created a simple way to tell the system that you want to use LeafPad
instead, or whatever. Not a cheat. A documented method that works since
and for decades.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-04 11:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sgvf9p$q3l$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33097 |
Am 04.09.21 um 11:22 schrieb Carlos E. R.: > On 04/09/2021 05.48, SixOverFive wrote: >> Try a REAL text editor - Leafpad, Pluma ... your productivity >> will increase tenfold, your mistakes and fix-up times will >> decrease tenfold. Even nano beats the snot out of vi/vim >> and you don't even need a GUI. > > BLA BLA BLA removed. > > > It is fine not to like vi. And the people that designed Linux know this, > and created a simple way to tell the system that you want to use LeafPad > instead, or whatever. Not a cheat. A documented method that works since > and for decades. *SIC* -- De gustibus non est disputandum
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-04 17:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnsj7cac.nus.sc@scarpet42p.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #33090 |
Le 04-09-2021, SixOverFive <hae274c.net> a écrit : > > SOMETIMES though, you can CHEAT. Change the properties of > your symlink so even root can't edit/change/replace it. > The installer may bitch, but SO WHAT. Cheating on your installer can't be a good advice. If you don't like what it does, use another installer, install everything manually, whatever. But cheating is the better way to have an unstable system without being able to understand why at some point. You do what you want on your computer: I don't care, it's your computer. But pretending others should do the same is just plain wrong. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-05 09:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sh1vfr$nut$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33108 |
On 04/09/2021 18:47, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > Le 04-09-2021, SixOverFive <hae274c.net> a écrit : >> >> SOMETIMES though, you can CHEAT. Change the properties of >> your symlink so even root can't edit/change/replace it. >> The installer may bitch, but SO WHAT. > > Cheating on your installer can't be a good advice. If you don't like > what it does, use another installer, install everything manually, > whatever. But cheating is the better way to have an unstable system > without being able to understand why at some point. > > You do what you want on your computer: I don't care, it's your computer. > But pretending others should do the same is just plain wrong. > You are really simply echoing te dichotomy between a personal computer, which does what *I* want, and a corporate system, which has to do what your *employer* wants, subject to maintainability and reliability and security constraints. I would suggest that they are neither te same case, nor indicate the same solutions. One may do a 5 minute hack to prove a principle and get some code working, but *if* it is going to be replicated or maintained by others it behoves one to rework it into whatever is expected by e.g. other engineers, installation scripts and the like. On the other hand, if it is *not*, so what? Typically embedded systems that are neither subject to maintenance or upgrade can so whatever they like. Faced with lack of space in a 2K EPROM, I replaced all instances of POP AX POP BX POP CX POP DX RET with JMP STDEXIT STDEXIT: POP AX POP BX POP CX POP DX RET and gained the 64 bytes of PROM space I needed to include an extended BIOS. I am sure those who are imbued with 'never use a goto' would be horrified. But it worked, the customer got his extended bios without having to change his bios and I got paid. And really, as we used to say, in the end its all 'bits, in silicon'. -- Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend. "Saki"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SixOverFive <hae274c.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-05 19:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <hcydnZYUt4CXyaj8nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #33119 |
On 9/5/21 4:35 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 04/09/2021 18:47, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: >> Le 04-09-2021, SixOverFive <hae274c.net> a écrit : >>> >>> SOMETIMES though, you can CHEAT. Change the properties of >>> your symlink so even root can't edit/change/replace it. >>> The installer may bitch, but SO WHAT. >> >> Cheating on your installer can't be a good advice. If you don't like >> what it does, use another installer, install everything manually, >> whatever. But cheating is the better way to have an unstable system >> without being able to understand why at some point. >> >> You do what you want on your computer: I don't care, it's your computer. >> But pretending others should do the same is just plair wrong. >> > You are really simply echoing te dichotomy between a personal computer, > which does what *I* want, and a corporate system, which has to do what > your *employer* wants, subject to maintainability and reliability and > security constraints. This dichotomy is understood - you can go more wild west on computers you own. The other side of this are CEOs, division mangers, pointy-haired bosses, with NO CLUE how any box/OS does/should/must work. Whatever the All Important Project of the day (which often they trash-can next week) they want it to work NOW NOW NOW and don't care HOW. The "Art Of Computing" means nothing to them - only $$$ and shutting up the inconvenienced staff. So, do you completely reinstall everything from scratch, maybe re-write the accounting system too, or do you MAKE IT WORK for them ? Many of the abovementioned rude little hacks are not especially "dangerous" and maybe they'll buy you the time to straighten things out a little better next week, find exactly WHICH line in WHICH of 505 config files is causing the big issue. > I would suggest that they are neither te same case, nor indicate the > same solutions. > > One may do a 5 minute hack to prove a principle and get some code > working, but *if* it is going to be replicated or maintained by others > it behoves one to rework it into whatever is expected by e.g. other > engineers, installation scripts and the like. > > On the other hand, if it is *not*, so what? Typically embedded systems > that are neither subject to maintenance or upgrade can so whatever they > like. > > Faced with lack of space in a 2K EPROM, I replaced all instances of > POP AX > POP BX > POP CX > POP DX > RET > > with > JMP STDEXIT > > > STDEXIT: > POP AX > POP BX > POP CX > POP DX > RET > > and gained the 64 bytes of PROM space I needed to include an extended BIOS. So long as there aren't multiple threads going on you CAN just clean up in one spot. If the eeprom was 2k this was probably WAY before multithreading. The single-location thing might also be vulnerable to some race conditions. I'd worry if there were interrupt routines happening too. > I am sure those who are imbued with 'never use a goto' would be > horrified. But it worked, the customer got his extended bios without > having to change his bios and I got paid. And really, as we used to say, > in the end its all 'bits, in silicon. "GOTO" can be GREAT. They're not "elegant" and can indeed lead to SERIOUS spaghetti code, but sometimes they're the best, most economical, easiest to write solution. Unwrapping multi-nested whiles/fors/do loops in the 'elegant' fashion can actually get rather un-elegant. , I always liked Pascal because it COULD be "elegant", and far more self-documenting than the crap 'C' some hotshots would write that was mostly punctuation characters that actually DID stuff but nobody - not even the author a month from then - could figure out HOW. Just did a little utility pgm with a GUI front-end for somebody last month and used Lazarus/FP because it's quick and easy and has the Pascal virtues, so Pascal is hardly some decades-past thing for me. But, some Pascals DO have a GOTO <label> in there, just in case :-) Remember a thing called a Psion Organizer ? I think they came out in the mid/late 80s. Looked like a thick pocket calculator and had a 2 or 4 line LCD text screen. Various plug-in cartridges could be had, including non-volatile memory. Had a ROM BASIC in them that could cover most anything including serial communications. Someone wanted me to write a pgm for them that handled fairly static traveled routes - like a mail carrier might do. Each stop was a little block and you had to fill in some questions. The "elegant" way THEN was to make very good use of GOTOs. I wrote the thing "ladder style" and you could push a function key to jump back a question, or the previous block or the next block. All GOTOs. In THAT case the GOTOs and structure made the whole pgm far easier to understand and quite compact. The route particulars were on a plug-in and, when there were any changes, staff would update the list and hand out new cartridges. Far more "sneaker-net" back then. I did rig it so you could sync over serial, but mostly they found it simpler to just swap cartridges. I recently found out that at least some workers were still using the system almost 15 years later ... I'd have never expected that. They had the devices, the pgm worked, so why spend more $$$ ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-06 02:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u43g0ix3lu.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor> |
| In reply to | #33142 |
On 06/09/2021 01.34, SixOverFive wrote:
> On 9/5/21 4:35 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
>> One may do a 5 minute hack to prove a principle and get some code
>> working, but *if* it is going to be replicated or maintained by others
>> it behoves one to rework it into whatever is expected by e.g. other
>> engineers, installation scripts and the like.
>>
>> On the other hand, if it is *not*, so what? Typically embedded systems
>> that are neither subject to maintenance or upgrade can so whatever
>> they like.
>>
>> Faced with lack of space in a 2K EPROM, I replaced all instances of
>> POP AX
>> POP BX
>> POP CX
>> POP DX
>> RET
>>
>> with
>> JMP STDEXIT
>>
>>
>> STDEXIT:
>> POP AX
>> POP BX
>> POP CX
>> POP DX
>> RET
>>
>> and gained the 64 bytes of PROM space I needed to include an extended
>> BIOS.
>
> So long as there aren't multiple threads going on you CAN
> just clean up in one spot. If the eeprom was 2k this was
> probably WAY before multithreading. The single-location
> thing might also be vulnerable to some race conditions.
> I'd worry if there were interrupt routines happening too.
>
>> I am sure those who are imbued with 'never use a goto' would be
>> horrified. But it worked, the customer got his extended bios without
>> having to change his bios and I got paid. And really, as we used to
>> say, in the end its all 'bits, in silicon.
>
> "GOTO" can be GREAT. They're not "elegant" and can indeed
> lead to SERIOUS spaghetti code, but sometimes they're the
> best, most economical, easiest to write solution. Unwrapping
> multi-nested whiles/fors/do loops in the 'elegant' fashion
> can actually get rather un-elegant.
> ,
> I always liked Pascal because it COULD be "elegant", and far
> more self-documenting than the crap 'C' some hotshots would
> write that was mostly punctuation characters that actually DID
> stuff but nobody - not even the author a month from then -
> could figure out HOW. Just did a little utility pgm with a
> GUI front-end for somebody last month and used Lazarus/FP
> because it's quick and easy and has the Pascal virtues, so
> Pascal is hardly some decades-past thing for me. But, some
> Pascals DO have a GOTO <label> in there, just in case :-)
Indeed, Pascal does have a "goto", and I read about it in Nicklaus Wirth
book no less.
>
> Remember a thing called a Psion Organizer ? I think they came
> out in the mid/late 80s. Looked like a thick pocket calculator
> and had a 2 or 4 line LCD text screen. Various plug-in
> cartridges could be had, including non-volatile memory.
> Had a ROM BASIC in them that could cover most anything including
> serial communications.
>
> Someone wanted me to write a pgm for them that handled
> fairly static traveled routes - like a mail carrier
> might do. Each stop was a little block and you had to
> fill in some questions. The "elegant" way THEN was to
> make very good use of GOTOs. I wrote the thing "ladder
> style" and you could push a function key to jump back
> a question, or the previous block or the next block.
> All GOTOs. In THAT case the GOTOs and structure made
> the whole pgm far easier to understand and quite compact.
> The route particulars were on a plug-in and, when there
> were any changes, staff would update the list and hand
> out new cartridges. Far more "sneaker-net" back then.
> I did rig it so you could sync over serial, but mostly
> they found it simpler to just swap cartridges.
>
> I recently found out that at least some workers were
> still using the system almost 15 years later ... I'd
> have never expected that. They had the devices, the pgm
> worked, so why spend more $$$ ?
Certainly, gotos have their place. Spaghetti code is something else.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-06 08:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sh4gq5$hqp$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33142 |
On 06/09/2021 00:34, SixOverFive wrote: > more self-documenting than the crap 'C' some hotshots would > write that was mostly punctuation characters that actually DID > stuff but nobody - not The problem is that a language does not turn a bad programmer into a good one. It just changes the type of mistakes he makes -- Climate is what you expect but weather is what you get. Mark Twain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-06 08:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sh4gv3$hqp$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33142 |
On 06/09/2021 00:34, SixOverFive wrote: > On 9/5/21 4:35 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >> Faced with lack of space in a 2K EPROM, I replaced all instances of >> POP AX >> POP BX >> POP CX >> POP DX >> RET >> >> with >> JMP STDEXIT >> >> >> STDEXIT: >> POP AX >> POP BX >> POP CX >> POP DX >> RET >> >> and gained the 64 bytes of PROM space I needed to include an extended >> BIOS. > > So long as there aren't multiple threads going on you CAN > just clean up in one spot. If the eeprom was 2k this was > probably WAY before multithreading. The single-location > thing might also be vulnerable to some race conditions. > I'd worry if there were interrupt routines happening too. That code is thread proof it does not alter memory, only the state of the CPU Of course there were interrupts. This was a PC BIOS. -- “Some people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of a car with the cramped public exposure of an airplane.” Dennis Miller
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SevenOverSix <hae274c.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-07 01:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iuSdnXwbb64-Y6v8nZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #33152 |
On 9/6/21 3:45 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 06/09/2021 00:34, SixOverFive wrote: >> On 9/5/21 4:35 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >>> >>> Faced with lack of space in a 2K EPROM, I replaced all instances of >>> POP AX >>> POP BX >>> POP CX >>> POP DX >>> RET >>> >>> with >>> JMP STDEXIT >>> >>> >>> STDEXIT: >>> POP AX >>> POP BX >>> POP CX >>> POP DX >>> RET >>> >>> and gained the 64 bytes of PROM space I needed to include an extended >>> BIOS. >> >> So long as there aren't multiple threads going on you CAN >> just clean up in one spot. If the eeprom was 2k this was >> probably WAY before multithreading. The single-location >> thing might also be vulnerable to some race conditions. >> I'd worry if there were interrupt routines happening too. > > That code is thread proof Nope. It's context-dependent. WHOSE stack are you popping from ? Modern languages essentially have "stack frames", a de-facto stack for every function/subroutine. The old TI-9900 chips actually kinda rigged this in hardware - each user had a 64k 'universe' of their own. I would not even trust that code on a PIC or Arduino ... which, though simple, MIGHT have an ISR running at the instant. Sometimes functions really SHOULD clean up their own messes and not try to leave it to others. > it does not alter memory, only the state of the CPU > > Of course there were interrupts. This was a PC BIOS. I'm used to micro-controllers. They are far more clear than a PC - no room or mechanism to hide mistakes. My last "big" project was for Arduino/Atmel, field dataloggers, and DID use several ISRs. The Stack was NOT The Stack, but "Stacks". Had to deal with everything within its own "context". No, you do NOT use PIs for dataloggers, they are fantastic power-hogs. Atmel/PIC you can tweak to use micro-power while waiting for the next sample interval or event. Oh yea, general advice, ALWAYS use the SEEED LiPo solar-charger/power-supply ... the AdaFruit ones will pass on the full voltage of your solar to the board - blowing it up. Also, those flat-pack LiPo batteries they sell, had ONE detonate on my desk .. barely TOUCHED it and it went off, and it had been six months since it'd been charged. Burned me slightly and took an hour and big fans to clear out the nasty smoke. Nice char-mark on the desk too. My remaining batteries are in a STEEL file-card box now, with ceramic fiber stuff in the bottom. I hate Li polymer batteries. The damned things should be banned. LiFePO are safe, but more expensive. Oh ... and ONE fix I did was to put a low-dropout linear voltage regulator on the solar. Started with 3-watt Zeners - but they got HOT HOT HOT. If you are going to design such field stuff, DO buy one of the USB "oscilloscopes". I had a weird problem - and it turned out to be a sub-microsecond voltage drop when a device kicked in - barely showed up in the scope output. The device was on the wrong side of a load-limiting resistor and sucked-down the voltage on a lot of other stuff when it started, including some interrupt sources.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-07 08:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sh759c$592$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33171 |
On 07/09/2021 06:54, SevenOverSix wrote: > On 9/6/21 3:45 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 06/09/2021 00:34, SixOverFive wrote: >>> On 9/5/21 4:35 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >>>> >>>> Faced with lack of space in a 2K EPROM, I replaced all instances of >>>> POP AX >>>> POP BX >>>> POP CX >>>> POP DX >>>> RET >>>> >>>> with >>>> JMP STDEXIT >>>> >>>> >>>> STDEXIT: >>>> POP AX >>>> POP BX >>>> POP CX >>>> POP DX >>>> RET >>>> >>>> and gained the 64 bytes of PROM space I needed to include an >>>> extended BIOS. >>> >>> So long as there aren't multiple threads going on you CAN >>> just clean up in one spot. If the eeprom was 2k this was >>> probably WAY before multithreading. The single-location >>> thing might also be vulnerable to some race conditions. >>> I'd worry if there were interrupt routines happening too. >> >> That code is thread proof > > Nope. It's context-dependent. WHOSE stack > are you popping from ? > YOUR stack in THIS thread. Of course you do stack context switches in multithreading - but this doesn't affect code. I don't think you understand stack frames properly. They are always private to the thread. That's the whole point, That's how you do multitasking unsafe code is that which modifies memory or accesses memory which is NOT private to a thread. > Modern languages essentially have "stack frames", a > de-facto stack for every function/subroutine. The > old TI-9900 chips actually kinda rigged this in > hardware - each user had a 64k 'universe' of > their own. > > I would not even trust that code on a PIC or Arduino ... > which, though simple, MIGHT have an ISR running at the > instant. Sometimes functions really SHOULD clean up > their own messes and not try to leave it to others. > I think you don not really undesrstand how interrupts work or what that code actually doe >> it does not alter memory, only the state of the CPU >> >> Of course there were interrupts. This was a PC BIOS. > > I'm used to micro-controllers. They are far more > clear than a PC - no room or mechanism to hide > mistakes. My last "big" project was for Arduino/Atmel, > field dataloggers, and DID use several ISRs. The Stack > was NOT The Stack, but "Stacks". Had to deal with > everything within its own "context". > Of course. I was doing what you are doing 30 years ago Give me *some* credit for knowing how to code a multitasker and in interrupt service routine -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. -- Yogi Berra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SevenOverSix <hae274c.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-08 01:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <EMydnUn6a49c1qX8nZ2dnUU7-KPNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #33173 |
On 9/7/21 3:44 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 07/09/2021 06:54, SevenOverSix wrote: >> On 9/6/21 3:45 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 06/09/2021 00:34, SixOverFive wrote: >>>> On 9/5/21 4:35 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> Faced with lack of space in a 2K EPROM, I replaced all instances of >>>>> POP AX >>>>> POP BX >>>>> POP CX >>>>> POP DX >>>>> RET >>>>> >>>>> with >>>>> JMP STDEXIT >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> STDEXIT: >>>>> POP AX >>>>> POP BX >>>>> POP CX >>>>> POP DX >>>>> RET >>>>> >>>>> and gained the 64 bytes of PROM space I needed to include an >>>>> extended BIOS. >>>> >>>> So long as there aren't multiple threads going on you CAN >>>> just clean up in one spot. If the eeprom was 2k this was >>>> probably WAY before multithreading. The single-location >>>> thing might also be vulnerable to some race conditions. >>>> I'd worry if there were interrupt routines happening too. >>> >>> That code is thread proof >> >> Nope. It's context-dependent. WHOSE stack >> are you popping from ? >> > YOUR stack in THIS thread. Of course you do stack context switches in > multithreading - but this doesn't affect code. > > I don't think you understand stack frames properly. They are always > private to the thread. That's the whole point, That's how you do > multitasking > > unsafe code is that which modifies memory or accesses memory which is > NOT private to a thread. > > > >> Modern languages essentially have "stack frames", a >> de-facto stack for every function/subroutine. The >> old TI-9900 chips actually kinda rigged this in >> hardware - each user had a 64k 'universe' of >> their own. >> >> I would not even trust that code on a PIC or Arduino ... >> which, though simple, MIGHT have an ISR running at the >> instant. Sometimes functions really SHOULD clean up >> their own messes and not try to leave it to others. >> > > I think you don not really undesrstand how interrupts work or what that > code actually doe Oh PLEASE ....... I was using ISRs while the common advice was to poll inputs ....... >>> it does not alter memory, only the state of the CPU >>> >>> Of course there were interrupts. This was a PC BIOS. >> >> I'm used to micro-controllers. They are far more >> clear than a PC - no room or mechanism to hide >> mistakes. My last "big" project was for Arduino/Atmel, >> field dataloggers, and DID use several ISRs. The Stack >> was NOT The Stack, but "Stacks". Had to deal with >> everything within its own "context". >> > Of course. I was doing what you are doing 30 years ago I was doing it 30+ years ago too, 8051s mostly. My, how time flies .... I liked the 8051 ... you can still buy "compatibles" using essentially the same instruction set though. There are modern 8/16 solutions though that are better. Pretty good for 8-bit, less primitive than the PICs RISC instructions. There was a company that sold a "fat"-looking '51 - Systronics ? - it was "fat" because there was a battery built into the chip package which kept static RAM alive. Why bother with eproms ? Saved several extra parts and BS - the experience was a lot like the more modern chips with flash built in. They even had a BASIC compiler while most were stuck doing it all in assembler. After the '51s there were Rabbit-2000s ... GREAT, similar to Arduino boards. There were R3/4/5000s too - but they switched to a wiring pitch too fine for normal humans to hand-solder - so that was the end of them. Still sometimes do one-off PIC projects, but using the through-hole 0.1" DIP versions. > Give me *some* credit for knowing how to code a multitasker and in > interrupt service routine Oh, I'll give due credit. Your code IS a good byte-saver. However I've always had a good sense of how bits of code can go wrong. You code is perfectly good - but within a certain context/environment. As I said, WHICH stack are you popping from ? Old uController programs usually had THE Stack - but don't always COUNT on that. If you are in a subroutine (we'll assume its params/vars were pushed up on top of THE Stack) if you drop to some POP POPS you are removing THAT subs data, NOT that of the main pgm loop. Depending, that MIGHT be OK ... or NOT. ISRs make it even worse. My advice was to always "waste" the space - let each sub/isr clean up its own mess. However if you were REALLY stuck for memory, well, write the code so you could get away with the "imperfect" solution though such code could be rather "imperfect" itself. I remember doing something for an ag-product flinger where you had to match the vehicle speed to the output rate (this was pre-GPS). Shaft sensors, opto-isolators, e-noise suppressors and such. PID is *such* a pain, so I had it remember the LAST good solution. When activated it jumped to THAT value and THEN fine-tuned it with proportional+fuzzy and, once stable, it'd record that as the new ideal value. Just a cheap cheap table. Why the hell should the thing have to figure-out the solution from scratch every time - using lots of floating-point or big int math ? Using that approach you could do the fine-tuning with ints or even 8-bit. Oh, optos can be GREAT. E-noise, ignition systems mostly, produce VOLTAGE spikes - but there's no CURRENT to them. Optos need CURRENT to light up. So, they are a good way to suppress such noise. FETs would just drown, having hyper-high input impedance which would take such spikes seriously. Sometimes it pays to "waste" a little current too. BiPolar CAN be better than FETs. The real world is just MESSY. So give ME some credit too - had to Make Do, Squeeze It In, in back in the Bad Old Days as well :-) I wish there'd been pretty color-graphic displays suitable for showing the state of things, but there were no such things (at least affordable) back in the day. There were 7-segment LEDs though ... driving those was why I got into PICs. Send it some numbers, or an analog value ... integrate pulses in a cap/resistor combo, that'll give you an analog value. Not "perfect", but "good enough". Oh well, I've gone on too long again ......
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-08 07:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sh9m8c$s73$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33182 |
On 08/09/2021 06:36, SevenOverSix wrote:
> Oh, I'll give due credit. Your code IS a good byte-saver.
> However I've always had a good sense of how bits of code
> can go wrong. You code is perfectly good - but within a
> certain context/environment. As I said, WHICH stack are
> you popping from ?
I answered that:
The stack that is owned by the current thread
The fact that you cannot understand why that makes your comment
irrelevant worries me greatly. Do you work for Boeing?
--
“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."
- Bertrand Russell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SevenOverSix <hae274c.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-09 01:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <PMSdne1qytPuPKT8nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #33183 |
On 9/8/21 2:46 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 08/09/2021 06:36, SevenOverSix wrote: >> Oh, I'll give due credit. Your code IS a good byte-saver. >> However I've always had a good sense of how bits of code >> can go wrong. You code is perfectly good - but within a >> certain context/environment. As I said, WHICH stack are >> you popping from ? > I answered that: > The stack that is owned by the current thread IF you carefully code it that way. But as a "general fix" I'd still be wary. If you use GOTOs for a bunch of subs it may NOT be the current thread/isr you're popping from. The others may get, well, a tad upset .... Not using subs AT ALL ... then it's far easier/safer to use the GOTO fixes. There's usually only ONE frame then. > The fact that you cannot understand why that makes your comment > irrelevant worries me greatly. Do you work for Boeing? Are we going to get into insults now .... ? I'm not trashing your byte-saving fix - just cautioning. I've done the same thing, when it is safe. I've had a rich and varied career, and apparently you have too. Seems we've learned some different Truths however, variations on said experiences. You've seen some stuff, I've seen other stuff. The Truth doesn't even lie between here - it's ALL true, within certain context. Sorry, but I don't do flame wars or insults. They've ruined usenet. The only offset, 'wokeism'/flames/disinfo and such have ruined all the OTHER , big-$$$, 'social media' too :-) Maybe there's some Estonian BBS out there that's still decent ... Anyway, I've provided details in all this stuff some ignorant troll just can't fake. Requires hands-on experience from latter 1970s on. How many here now have even held a stack of IBM cards in their hands, know how they feel, dropped them all on the floor ? Heard the Tat-Tat-Tat of a teletype terminal that's not some movie sound effect ? Threaded mag-tapes ? Had to use panel switches to boot a system ? Dealt with RAM measured in BYTES ? Seen a paper tape get shredded ? This is Lost Knowledge at this point. I know, you know, but how many others ? It was where we came from, shapes where we are and will even shape tomorrow. The CompuVerse builds on itself, often more evolutionary than truly 'revolutionary'. The only 'revolution' seems to be quantum, but even after bragging for a decade+ they can BARELY make it work - will NOT be coming to your desktop like EVER. Would still like my own IBM/360 though - 0.1 mHz, lots of switches and blinky lights. The ads always showed some hot-looking women running the things, a 60s/70s flair on "Desk Set", but I mostly encountered Dilberts :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-09 07:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <shcab3$aah$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33193 |
On 09/09/2021 06:53, SevenOverSix wrote: > On 9/8/21 2:46 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 08/09/2021 06:36, SevenOverSix wrote: >>> Oh, I'll give due credit. Your code IS a good byte-saver. >>> However I've always had a good sense of how bits of code >>> can go wrong. You code is perfectly good - but within a >>> certain context/environment. As I said, WHICH stack are >>> you popping from ? >> I answered that: >> The stack that is owned by the current thread > > IF you carefully code it that way. But as a "general fix" > I'd still be wary. If you use GOTOs for a bunch of subs > it may NOT be the current thread/isr you're popping from. > The others may get, well, a tad upset .... > > Not using subs AT ALL ... then it's far easier/safer > to use the GOTO fixes. There's usually only ONE > frame then. > >> The fact that you cannot understand why that makes your comment >> irrelevant worries me greatly. Do you work for Boeing? > > > Are we going to get into insults now .... ? > No, I am genuinely concerned that you are coding real time software without apparently understanding how multitasking context switching works. > I'm not trashing your byte-saving fix - just > cautioning. I've done the same thing, when it > is safe. > > I've had a rich and varied career, and apparently you > have too. Seems we've learned some different Truths > however, variations on said experiences. You've seen > some stuff, I've seen other stuff. The Truth doesn't > even lie between here - it's ALL true, within certain > context. > > Sorry, but I don't do flame wars or insults. They've > ruined usenet. > > The only offset, 'wokeism'/flames/disinfo and such have ruined > all the OTHER , big-$$$, 'social media' too :-) > Dont change the subjectt > Maybe there's some Estonian BBS out there that's still decent ... > > Anyway, I've provided details in all this stuff some ignorant > troll just can't fake. Requires hands-on experience from > latter 1970s on. How many here now have even held a stack of > IBM cards in their hands, know how they feel, dropped them > all on the floor ? Heard the Tat-Tat-Tat of a teletype terminal > that's not some movie sound effect ? Threaded mag-tapes ? Had > to use panel switches to boot a system ? Dealt with RAM measured > in BYTES ? Seen a paper tape get shredded ? This is Lost Knowledge > at this point. I know, you know, but how many others ? It was where > we came from, shapes where we are and will even shape tomorrow. > > The CompuVerse builds on itself, often more evolutionary > than truly 'revolutionary'. The only 'revolution' seems to be > quantum, but even after bragging for a decade+ they can > BARELY make it work - will NOT be coming to your desktop > like EVER. > > Would still like my own IBM/360 though - 0.1 mHz, lots > of switches and blinky lights. The ads always showed some > hot-looking women running the things, a 60s/70s flair on > "Desk Set", but I mostly encountered Dilberts :-) > Yawn -- “The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.” Herbert Spencer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SevenOverSix <hae274c.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-10 01:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <UNmdnWYZDO42b6f8nZ2dnUU7-evNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #33195 |
On 9/9/21 2:41 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 09/09/2021 06:53, SevenOverSix wrote: >> On 9/8/21 2:46 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 08/09/2021 06:36, SevenOverSix wrote: >>>> Oh, I'll give due credit. Your code IS a good byte-saver. >>>> However I've always had a good sense of how bits of code >>>> can go wrong. You code is perfectly good - but within a >>>> certain context/environment. As I said, WHICH stack are >>>> you popping from ? >>> I answered that: >>> The stack that is owned by the current thread >> >> IF you carefully code it that way. But as a "general fix" >> I'd still be wary. If you use GOTOs for a bunch of subs >> it may NOT be the current thread/isr you're popping from. >> The others may get, well, a tad upset .... >> >> Not using subs AT ALL ... then it's far easier/safer >> to use the GOTO fixes. There's usually only ONE >> frame then. >> >>> The fact that you cannot understand why that makes your comment >>> irrelevant worries me greatly. Do you work for Boeing? >> >> >> Are we going to get into insults now .... ? >> > > No, I am genuinely concerned that you are coding real time software > without apparently understanding how multitasking context switching works. Ummmmm ... did it for 30 years ... some of my product was used for a decade+ without issues. I must grasp SOMETHING ... For MICROCONTROLLERS it's all much simpler. You can have basically ONE context. An ISR might create two, but they're BRIEF. However if you have TWO+ ISRs, device-driven plus TIME driven, it can get weird. For a modern MICROPROCESSOR it gets a LOT more complicated. I suspect SOME of our "disagreement" revolves around the TERMINOLOGY we use. "Context" means something different to you and I. Anyway, my stuff WORKED. I got the paycheck. The customers were HAPPY. Didn't even over-charge them because development was FUN. >> I'm not trashing your byte-saving fix - just >> cautioning. I've done the same thing, when it >> is safe. >> >> I've had a rich and varied career, and apparently you >> have too. Seems we've learned some different Truths >> however, variations on said experiences. You've seen >> some stuff, I've seen other stuff. The Truth doesn't >> even lie between here - it's ALL true, within certain >> context. >> >> Sorry, but I don't do flame wars or insults. They've >> ruined usenet. >> >> The only offset, 'wokeism'/flames/disinfo and such have ruined >> all the OTHER , big-$$$, 'social media' too :-) >> > Dont change the subjectt Drifted in there .... not entirely without reason ... > >> Maybe there's some Estonian BBS out there that's still decent ... >> >> Anyway, I've provided details in all this stuff some ignorant >> troll just can't fake. Requires hands-on experience from >> latter 1970s on. How many here now have even held a stack of >> IBM cards in their hands, know how they feel, dropped them >> all on the floor ? Heard the Tat-Tat-Tat of a teletype terminal >> that's not some movie sound effect ? Threaded mag-tapes ? Had >> to use panel switches to boot a system ? Dealt with RAM measured >> in BYTES ? Seen a paper tape get shredded ? This is Lost Knowledge >> at this point. I know, you know, but how many others ? It was where >> we came from, shapes where we are and will even shape tomorrow. >> >> The CompuVerse builds on itself, often more evolutionary >> than truly 'revolutionary'. The only 'revolution' seems to be >> quantum, but even after bragging for a decade+ they can >> BARELY make it work - will NOT be coming to your desktop >> like EVER. >> >> Would still like my own IBM/360 though - 0.1 mHz, lots >> of switches and blinky lights. The ads always showed some >> hot-looking women running the things, a 60s/70s flair on >> "Desk Set", but I mostly encountered Dilberts :-) >> > Yawn Yea, yawn .... guess there's no reason to listen to your "philosophizing" anymore. I'll stick with the practical programmers - the people who Make It Work. Screw 'philosophy', these are MACHINES. They don't have civil rights, don't "identify" as anything (yet), they are just THINGS. Bend them to your will. The application is the application and the boss INSISTS it work - like yesterday.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web