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 427 — 27 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: 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 Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-24 12:06 +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 13 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 22 Next page →
| From | Helmut Waitzmann <nn.throttle@erine.email> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-21 00:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <83se20c7ao.fsf@helmutwaitzmann.news.arcor.de> |
| In reply to | #94089 |
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com>:
> On 2026-10-17 22:47, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> I've just done this ("a script change while it's running") [*]
>
> [*] What I've done was to run the following script "dynchg.sh"
>
> while read ; do
> echo $REPLY
> done
>
> and change it (from another terminal) while it runs by
>
> sed -i '2p' dynchg.sh
>
As the "-i" option is not defined by the POSIX standard but by GNU
sed, I assume that your example uses GNU sed.
GNU sed's "-i" option does not edit the file in place. Rather it
sends its output to a new file (instead of to standard output),
then removes (or renames) the name of the original file.
Finally, the name of the new file is renamed to be the no more
existing name of the original file.
=> GNU sed doesn't modify the original shell script, which has
been opened by the shell.
Therefore the shell won't see anything of the new file but rather
stick to the already opened original file (even, if that original
file hasn't got any file name).
> I could even remove that file from the directory and it still
> processes data as expected.
>
Yes. As long as the shell doesn't close the file descriptor
accessing the original file, it will continue to access the
original unmodified file.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-23 18:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11bg381$1bjd2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94433 |
On 2026-10-21 00:54, Helmut Waitzmann wrote:
> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com>:
>> On 2026-10-17 22:47, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>> I've just done this ("a script change while it's running") [*]
>>
>> [*] What I've done was to run the following script "dynchg.sh"
>>
>> while read ; do
>> echo $REPLY
>> done
>>
>> and change it (from another terminal) while it runs by
>>
>> sed -i '2p' dynchg.sh
>>
>
> As the "-i" option is not defined by the POSIX standard but by GNU sed,
> I assume that your example uses GNU sed.
Yes. (I've just used '-i' for simplicity.)
A better example would have been to issue (from another shell window)
the command
echo "echo END" >> dynchg.sh
and we then see that after terminating the above loop the "END" will
be printed.
(I'm testing with ksh but suppose that in bash it would be similar.)
Janis
> [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-23 23:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <RH-dnS_Dp6SSsEH3nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #94620 |
On 10/23/26 12:50, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 2026-10-21 00:54, Helmut Waitzmann wrote:
>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com>:
>>> On 2026-10-17 22:47, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>> I've just done this ("a script change while it's running") [*]
>>>
>>> [*] What I've done was to run the following script "dynchg.sh"
>>>
>>> while read ; do
>>> echo $REPLY
>>> done
>>>
>>> and change it (from another terminal) while it runs by
>>>
>>> sed -i '2p' dynchg.sh
>>>
>>
>> As the "-i" option is not defined by the POSIX standard but by GNU
>> sed, I assume that your example uses GNU sed.
>
> Yes. (I've just used '-i' for simplicity.)
>
> A better example would have been to issue (from another shell window)
> the command
>
> echo "echo END" >> dynchg.sh
>
> and we then see that after terminating the above loop the "END" will
> be printed.
>
> (I'm testing with ksh but suppose that in bash it would be similar.)
KSH and BASH are "mostly compatible". Minor diffs but
nothing hard to get around. Anything you can do in KSH
can be done in BASH.
There are MANY shells, of course. CSH and ZSH are 'more
different' for example and it'd be a more complicated
translation. Not impossible, just more work.
If KSH works for you then stick with it. Note however
that MOST distros default to BASH now - so if you plan
to 'distribute' your work it'd be better to move your
stuff over to BASH. Most distros, users would have to
intentionally install KSH and scripts would need a
shebang at the top to specify which shell to use.
(good practice, always add the shebang)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-24 11:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11bhv61$1bjd2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94632 |
On 2026-10-24 05:59, c186282 wrote: > > KSH and BASH are "mostly compatible". Minor diffs but > nothing hard to get around. Anything you can do in KSH > can be done in BASH. This is not correct. While Bash has over time adopted quite some features from Ksh - but sadly needed often far too many years for that - there's still a lot substantial functions in Ksh that Bash has not implemented (or substituted by some equivalent feature). > [...] > > If KSH works for you then stick with it. I use Ksh meanwhile for ~35 years, and since I use a lot of Ksh features that Bash just doesn't support there's certainly no reason to switch. (Also its speed is a criterion, BTW. And back then there were no Bash versions on commercial Unixes; but commercial Linuxes haven't the prevalence any more today, and play no role now in my private systems context.) > Note however that MOST distros default to BASH now - Yes, Linux often has Bash as its default. > so if you plan > to 'distribute' your work it'd be better to move your > stuff over to BASH. Certainly not. And this is short-sighted. If _portability_ is an issue you'd better stick with the POSIX subset of both, Ksh and Bash. (Sadly, as we observe, especially "Linux kiddies" often don't know what that POSIX subset actually is; in their scripts they are writing #!/bin/sh and using some bash-specific syntax not realizing that there's a difference, and that Bash is not the [portable] *standard*.) > Most distros, users would have to > intentionally install KSH and scripts would need a > shebang at the top to specify which shell to use. I don't recall to have ever "intentionally installed" Ksh on Linux. Earlier Linuxes had just a (sub-optimal!) PD-ksh that you could use out of the box. Later they provided also the much better "original" [AT&T] Ksh, and meanwhile you find on (some?) Linuxes ksh93u+m, Martijn Dekker's improved version. Of course you can call shell scripts with the executable-flag set and with a she-bang line on top. Personally I run most shell scripts with the interpreter explicitly provided, as in ksh my-script flags arguments allowing easy debugging by adding '-x' without explicit 'set' command in the script. Only if some script gets the status of a "standard-command" I regularly use I set the shebang. YMMV. (So you don't "need" a shebang line, but it's useful.) > (good practice, always add the shebang) Yes, if you are running your scripts executable script (or if you want to give your editor a hint for syntax highlighting, what shell is actually used, or just for specification purpose; but note, as said above, that we see many people have no clear idea about what a "/bin/sh" is and where /bin/bash or /bin/ksh differ from the standard. Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-24 12:10 +0000 |
| Subject | Taking Speedy too seriously (Was: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI) |
| Message-ID | <11bi77v$20c1p$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #94648 |
In article <11bhv61$1bjd2$2@dont-email.me>, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: >On 2026-10-24 05:59, c186282 wrote: >> >> KSH and BASH are "mostly compatible". Minor diffs but >> nothing hard to get around. Anything you can do in KSH >> can be done in BASH. > >This is not correct. While Bash has over time adopted quite >some features from Ksh - but sadly needed often far too many >years for that - there's still a lot substantial functions >in Ksh that Bash has not implemented (or substituted by some >equivalent feature). I think you're taking Speedy way too seriously here. All of your points are valid, of course, but it should not be necessary to respond to the troll. BTW, you assert that there are (many) features of Ksh that are not (yet) present in bash. I'm not doubting you, but I am curious about examples. It seems to me that if you assert something like that, you should give examples. -- Rich people pay Fox people to convince middle class people to blame poor people. (John Fugelsang)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-24 18:53 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Taking Speedy too seriously (Was: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI) |
| Message-ID | <11binqk$1bjd2$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94654 |
On 2026-10-24 14:10, Kenny McCormack wrote: > In article <11bhv61$1bjd2$2@dont-email.me>, > Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 2026-10-24 05:59, c186282 wrote: >>> >>> KSH and BASH are "mostly compatible". Minor diffs but >>> nothing hard to get around. Anything you can do in KSH >>> can be done in BASH. >> >> This is not correct. While Bash has over time adopted quite >> some features from Ksh - but sadly needed often far too many >> years for that - there's still a lot substantial functions >> in Ksh that Bash has not implemented (or substituted by some >> equivalent feature). > > I think you're taking Speedy way too seriously here. All of your points > are valid, of course, but it should not be necessary to respond to the > troll. Oh, I didn't knew that he's considered a troll. His post looked just uninformed, or opinionated, not trollish. > > BTW, you assert that there are (many) features of Ksh that are not (yet) > present in bash. I'm not doubting you, but I am curious about examples. > It seems to me that if you assert something like that, you should give > examples. Mind that his post says "Minor diffs"; and I was not (not primarily) addressing the absolute number of features but those features that are hard(er) or in practice impossible [based on existing functions] to substitute. Off the top of my head I had been thinking of discipline functions, or the "type system" - these are very closely embedded in the shell. Note that while these features are probably not widely used there's also many often used details I used, functions and options, that Bash doesn't have as I noticed over the time. I've occasionally mentioned those in some posts that where about such functionality, but I'm too lazy to create a list or something, which would require to re-test every features whether one or another has meanwhile been implemented; that would be too much effort.[*]) Janis [*] After finishing writing the post I remembered that we could ask a search machine AI, but strangely it had no or found any substantial information, not even the obvious examples; so we have to rely on the experts or own experience here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-24 13:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6adcb580$0$7075$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #94648 |
Le 24-10-2026, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> a écrit : > On 2026-10-24 05:59, c186282 wrote: >> Note however that MOST distros default to BASH now - > > Yes, Linux often has Bash as its default. I just keep this because I guess, if I don't consider it to be wrong because I know what it exactly means, I believe it's often a source of confusion. Because it can mean two different things and three different things must be considered when speaking about the default shell. Mostly, BASH is the default for the three things, one of them can be changed effortlessly, one of them would be very difficult to change in the long term and the last one depend on the interaction with others. The first thing is the way by which you interact directly with your SHELL, a kind of REPL. It's just a field in the /etc/passwd file, it's easy to change and if you prefer any SHELL, just install it, change the field and it rocks. It's just a matter of taste, nothing can go wrong by changing it. The second thing is the shell used by the distro to run its script. This one is clearly often BASH, changing it can be challenging. And things can go wrong in a lot of ways, from the shebang poorly defined to some specificities expected by the distro. But really, I'm not sure it's a real issue because I'm not sure there are reason to change it. The fact that systemd doesn't need any shell script is a reason why it's nit that important. One can want to change the default provided by the distro, but changing the script shell provided by the distro mean each time an update is done, the changes will be removed. And they will need special care. When there are ways to change the default without changing the scripts provided by the distro. The last one is the shell you choose to write your scripts. It doesn't need to be the same one than the one you are using to interact with your shell. As long as the shebang is correctly defined, it depends more on the people with whom you share it than with any default choice made by any distro. Because people can be more or less comfortable with different specificities, even if they can install any available shell. Unlike the choice of the default bootloader or the choice of the default init system can can have huge impacts, I really don't see how the choice of the default shell by a distro can be important (for the end user because for the contributor, it has some implications). -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-24 21:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <skdvqmxgvc.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #94657 |
On 2026-10-24 15:41, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > Le 24-10-2026, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> a écrit : >> On 2026-10-24 05:59, c186282 wrote: >>> Note however that MOST distros default to BASH now - >> >> Yes, Linux often has Bash as its default. > > I just keep this because I guess, if I don't consider it to be wrong > because I know what it exactly means, I believe it's often a source of > confusion. Because it can mean two different things and three different > things must be considered when speaking about the default shell. > > Mostly, BASH is the default for the three things, one of them can be > changed effortlessly, one of them would be very difficult to change in > the long term and the last one depend on the interaction with others. > > The first thing is the way by which you interact directly with your > SHELL, a kind of REPL. It's just a field in the /etc/passwd file, it's > easy to change and if you prefer any SHELL, just install it, change the > field and it rocks. It's just a matter of taste, nothing can go wrong by > changing it. > > The second thing is the shell used by the distro to run its script. This > one is clearly often BASH, changing it can be challenging. And things > can go wrong in a lot of ways, from the shebang poorly defined to some > specificities expected by the distro. But really, I'm not sure it's a > real issue because I'm not sure there are reason to change it. The > fact that systemd doesn't need any shell script is a reason why it's nit > that important. One can want to change the default provided by the > distro, but changing the script shell provided by the distro mean each > time an update is done, the changes will be removed. And they will need > special care. When there are ways to change the default without changing > the scripts provided by the distro. I don't see any reason to change the shell used by system scripts. If the shebang is /bin/sh, and bad things happen if you uninstall bash and they are forced to use ksh, well, it is their fault and it is a bug. They should have specified the proper shebang. Just report it. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-24 22:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11bjbu4$340l8$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94657 |
On 24 Oct 2026 13:41:20 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > The second thing is the shell used by the distro to run its script. > This one is clearly often BASH, changing it can be challenging. And > things can go wrong in a lot of ways, from the shebang poorly > defined to some specificities expected by the distro. Debian (and I guess its derivatives as well) long ago moved away from the assumption that “/bin/sh” meant the same thing as “/bin/bash”. They introduced a new, very vanilla, POSIX-compliant shell called dash(1) <https://manpages.debian.org/dash(1)>, which is the shell that is invoked when your script says “/bin/sh”. So if you want bash, you have to explicitly ask for bash.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-24 12:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bi3f0$2kv20$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94632 |
On 2026-10-24, c186282 wrote: > KSH and BASH are "mostly compatible". Minor diffs but > nothing hard to get around. Anything you can do in KSH > can be done in BASH. Now that sounds like something Greg Sullivan of Microsoft would say. -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 05:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11ascn8$312c3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93794 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 00:00:58 -0400, c186282 wrote: > On 10/15/26 23:26, Leroy H wrote: >> It is amazing how knowledge of basic CS is absent in most programmers, >> both professional and amateur alike. While "vibe coding" is all the >> rage, a silent disaster is also creeping. > > 99+ percent of us got by just fine without any "computer science" > crapola. "Got by just fine" at doing _what_, exactly? The state of software would make one think that very few people are "getting by just fine", incidentally...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 10:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11asph1$33n8m$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93800 |
On 16/10/2026 06:29, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 00:00:58 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> On 10/15/26 23:26, Leroy H wrote: >>> It is amazing how knowledge of basic CS is absent in most programmers, >>> both professional and amateur alike. While "vibe coding" is all the >>> rage, a silent disaster is also creeping. >> >> 99+ percent of us got by just fine without any "computer science" >> crapola. > > "Got by just fine" at doing _what_, exactly? > > The state of software would make one think that very few people are > "getting by just fine", incidentally... That is because software development teams don't bother with the most basic elements of quality control. Largely because computer science doesn't teach it It is however a major part in the degree course in *software engineering*. Computers science is not what you think it is. What you think it is, is actually called software engineering. A PRACTICAL discipline teaching how to write good code, test it and manage teams of people effectively and break projects into manageable chunks that can be offloaded to separate teams of individuals, tested and quality inspected, and integrated into te final product ===================================================== Software Engineering Tutorial Last Updated : 13 Aug, 2026 "Software Engineering is the systematic process of designing, developing, testing, and maintaining software to create reliable, efficient, and high-quality applications. It applies engineering principles, methods, and tools to develop software in a systematic manner. It supports teamwork, planning, documentation, testing, and maintenance to ensure successful software development throughout its lifecycle. It helps create software that meets user requirements while ensuring reliability, security, efficiency, and maintainability." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Computer Science Key Concepts in Programming & Problem Solving Algorithms: Step-by-step instructions or logic rules designed to solve a specific problem or complete a task. Data Structures: Specialized formats for organizing and storing data efficiently, such as arrays, linked lists, stacks, queues, and trees. Programming Languages: Tools like Python, C++, and Java that let humans write code in readable text, which is then translated into machine-executable binary. You can explore structured guides through platforms like Codecademy or introductory breakdowns on Boot.dev. Control Flow: The order in which individual instructions, conditional statements (if/else), and loops (for/while) execute in a program" Now decide which you would rather have in your team of application developers. -- Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 09:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11asqn0$31lan$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93822 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 10:07:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > That is because software development teams don't bother with the most > basic elements of quality control. > > Largely because computer science doesn't teach it And why should it, being... computer science? It has, and should not have, more than a passing interest in industrial applications. It can at best, and it does, teach you what properties of a program are provable and give you a theoretical framework for correctness. And you're clearly not gonna formally prove your web app, you use those to prove the avionics at AirBUS or other mission critical systems. And they actually do! IIRC the Astree static analyzer was commissioned by AirBUS itself. And, again IIRC, funnily the end users are old timer plane designers who don't understand code, so as far as I'm aware they design the avionics with a point&click thing which then outputs code which is _then_ verified vs. specs. The kind of thing Boeing neglected to do lately, see: 737 MAX. > It is however a major part in the degree course in *software > engineering*. As it should be. > Computers science is not what you think it is. Funnily, I have a degree in computer science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 11:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11asu45$33n8m$24@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93828 |
On 16/10/2026 10:28, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 10:07:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> That is because software development teams don't bother with the most >> basic elements of quality control. >> >> Largely because computer science doesn't teach it > > And why should it, being... computer science? > It has, and should not have, more than a passing interest in industrial > applications. > > It can at best, and it does, teach you what properties of a program are > provable and give you a theoretical framework for correctness. > > And you're clearly not gonna formally prove your web app, you use those to > prove the avionics at AirBUS or other mission critical systems. > No. you dont. That's why Airbus has duplicate computers running different code. Because CS has utterly failed to be able to validate code in the real world, And so software engineers came up with pragmatic solutions that accept the indecidability of Turing style problems, and engineer around it with redundancy. > And they actually do! IIRC the Astree static analyzer was commissioned by > AirBUS itself. Anything more complex than a finite state machine cannot be validated. > > And, again IIRC, funnily the end users are old timer plane designers who > don't understand code, so as far as I'm aware they design the avionics > with a point&click thing which then outputs code which is _then_ verified > vs. specs. > Christ on a bike. You have no idea do you? > The kind of thing Boeing neglected to do lately, see: 737 MAX. > They relied on CS style theoretical solutions. >> It is however a major part in the degree course in *software >> engineering*. > > As it should be. > >> Computers science is not what you think it is. > > Funnily, I have a degree in computer science. Indeed. And it shows -- Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. Groucho Marx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 10:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11asvsk$31lan$12@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93843 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 11:26:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> It can at best, and it does, teach you what properties of a program are >> provable and give you a theoretical framework for correctness. >> >> And you're clearly not gonna formally prove your web app, you use those >> to prove the avionics at AirBUS or other mission critical systems. >> > No. you dont. Oh! I must have been lied to by people connected to the project. I apologize for spreading misinformation. In which case, I guess you don't formally prove avionics either. Maybe you don't prove anything at all outside of academia. I don't have a problem with that. > Anything more complex than a finite state machine cannot be validated. Surely that's an interesting computer science result that you'd want to know before attempting to allocate some budget to do just that? (Or before you allocate some budget to build a finite state machine that you can later, theoretically, validate.) > Christ on a bike. You have no idea do you? Again, I am only sharing the anecdotes of people familiar with the work. I can't 100% rule out it's Santa and his elves making the planes. >> The kind of thing Boeing neglected to do lately, see: 737 MAX. >> > They relied on CS style theoretical solutions. Don't suppose you have a source for that? It would be really funny to apply "CS style theoretical solutions" to a plane (and not in the sense of the _avionics_, or the on-board enteirtanment, but the plane itself... after chopping off its tail). >>> Computers science is not what you think it is. >> >> Funnily, I have a degree in computer science. > > Indeed. And it shows Thank you, I'll wear the compliment with pride.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 12:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11at2fv$33n8m$35@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93845 |
On 16/10/2026 11:56, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 11:26:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >>> It can at best, and it does, teach you what properties of a program are >>> provable and give you a theoretical framework for correctness. >>> >>> And you're clearly not gonna formally prove your web app, you use those >>> to prove the avionics at AirBUS or other mission critical systems. >>> >> No. you dont. > > Oh! > I must have been lied to by people connected to the project. > I apologize for spreading misinformation. > > In which case, I guess you don't formally prove avionics either. > Maybe you don't prove anything at all outside of academia. > > I don't have a problem with that. > >> Anything more complex than a finite state machine cannot be validated. > > Surely that's an interesting computer science result that you'd want to > know before attempting to allocate some budget to do just that? > > (Or before you allocate some budget to build a finite state machine that > you can later, theoretically, validate.) > >> Christ on a bike. You have no idea do you? > > Again, I am only sharing the anecdotes of people familiar with the work. > I can't 100% rule out it's Santa and his elves making the planes. > >>> The kind of thing Boeing neglected to do lately, see: 737 MAX. >>> >> They relied on CS style theoretical solutions. > > Don't suppose you have a source for that? > Its all in the industry press. Everywhere. They had to tilt the engines up to get them to fit. That changed the aicrafts handling. So they patched some other software that wasn't related, to compensate and make it more or less feel like the old 737 so pilots did not have to get re certified. This worked, until speficic setss of circumstances that clearly were not envisaged by the CS people who recoded it, appeared and crashed the planes > It would be really funny to apply "CS style theoretical solutions" to a > plane (and not in the sense of the _avionics_, or the on-board > enteirtanment, but the plane itself... after chopping off its tail). > >>>> Computers science is not what you think it is. >>> >>> Funnily, I have a degree in computer science. >> >> Indeed. And it shows > > Thank you, I'll wear the compliment with pride. Another CS flaw noted -- To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 11:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11at2r8$31lan$17@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93850 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 12:40:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> The kind of thing Boeing neglected to do lately, see: 737 MAX. >>>> >>> They relied on CS style theoretical solutions. >> >> Don't suppose you have a source for that? >> > Its all in the industry press. > Everywhere. > > They had to tilt the engines up to get them to fit. > > That changed the aicrafts handling. > > So they patched some other software that wasn't related, to compensate > and make it more or less feel like the old 737 so pilots did not have to > get re certified. I'm familiar with that part. I'm less familiar with the part where "CS" comes in. Which I don't think it did at any point. I don't think it was a "CS person"'s decision to do it like that, given that we're talking about planes and not compilers (happy to be proven wrong and show that Boeing had a PhD in CS with executive power on it). I don't have evidence that any "CS person" got a formal spec and failed to conform to it either (and if they did, they'd need _more_ science, not less!). If anything, this looks like an utter project management failure, due to lack of (formal) communication and a lot of offshore programmers from Synechron and Tata, with about zero CS people involved. I would, however, appreciate a correction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 13:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11at5ua$33n8m$41@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93851 |
On 16/10/2026 12:46, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 12:40:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > >>>>> The kind of thing Boeing neglected to do lately, see: 737 MAX. >>>>> >>>> They relied on CS style theoretical solutions. >>> >>> Don't suppose you have a source for that? >>> >> Its all in the industry press. >> Everywhere. >> >> They had to tilt the engines up to get them to fit. >> >> That changed the aicrafts handling. >> >> So they patched some other software that wasn't related, to compensate >> and make it more or less feel like the old 737 so pilots did not have to >> get re certified. > > I'm familiar with that part. > I'm less familiar with the part where "CS" comes in. > Which I don't think it did at any point. > > I don't think it was a "CS person"'s decision to do it like that, given > that we're talking about planes and not compilers (happy to be proven > wrong and show that Boeing had a PhD in CS with executive power on it). > What I am saying is that the whole approach was theoretical and not practical Just as CS is, > I don't have evidence that any "CS person" got a formal spec and failed to > conform to it either (and if they did, they'd need _more_ science, not > less!). > > If anything, this looks like an utter project management failure, due to > lack of (formal) communication and a lot of offshore programmers from > Synechron and Tata, with about zero CS people involved. > Hardly fits with your claim that aerospace software is designed and guaranteed perfect by CS phds of the highesr calibre :-) > I would, however, appreciate a correction. I'd appreciate a consistent stance. Apart from "when its works, its computer scientists, when it doesn't its offshore programmers" Is rather say 'when it works, engineers have designed it, when it fucks up, computer scientistss have designed it' -- "A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding". Marshall McLuhan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 12:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11at6es$31lan$22@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93864 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 13:39:38 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> I don't have evidence that any "CS person" got a formal spec and failed >> to conform to it either (and if they did, they'd need _more_ science, >> not less!). >> >> If anything, this looks like an utter project management failure, due >> to lack of (formal) communication and a lot of offshore programmers >> from Synechron and Tata, with about zero CS people involved. >> > Hardly fits with your claim that aerospace software is designed and > guaranteed perfect by CS phds of the highesr calibre My claim is that there EXIST aerospace application for abstract interpretation that I'm aware of firsthand. My claim is NOT that every aerospace application is handled by every aerospace company with the utmost scientific rigour in every department for every part of the project. Logic 101 would teach you to mind the direction of the implication. > I'd appreciate a consistent stance. Here you go: "If it's proven correct to a spec, it's either correct to the spec or there is an error in the proof that can be found. If there is no spec or the spec is wrong, ex falso quodlibet." Please prove inconsistency. > Is rather say 'when it works, engineers have designed it, when it fucks up, computer scientistss have designed it' Computer scientists don't "design" things, they merely prove their impossibility, which is a much noble purpose. Taht said, what _I'd_ frankly rather say is that you don't seem to be in the field, unless you moonlilght in workshops while holding a day job at IBM. Your experience is limited even for being anecdotal. Please let it go already.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 09:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11asmgi$33n8m$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93794 |
On 16/10/2026 05:00, c186282 wrote: > CS is all math/stats. Has almost nothing to > do with the real-world these days. Maybe in > the 1940s ....... Yes. I had been writing code years before I read Knuth. It was a revelation. Massively overcomplicated approach to the simplest things. CS is great for people writing compilers, designing chips, or cracking enigma codes, but the reality of writing pragmatic workmanlike maintainable and well documented code on time and on budget is software engineering, not CS CS is actually against the goals of this. It leads to over complexity and adoption of elegant, rather than functional design. E.g. "All the problems of C++ would have been avoided if we had written it in C". -- “It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into, we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a power-directed system of thought.” Sir Roger Scruton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web