Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Nullifies Differences Between Bash, Csh
Andreas(R) writes "Red Hat Software has revealed that future versions of the distribution will hide the differences between command-line user interfaces, creating a 'more unified shell prompt experience'. 'I don't mind if they rebrand and unify the GNOME and KDE interfaces,' said one Linux longhair. 'Frankly, I rarely use GUIs. But when they start messing with my CLI, then it's personal. I'm not going to sit here and let Red Hat infect my beloved tcsh with those annoying quirks from bash." Ah, nothing like satire that only a small group will truly grok. *grin*
Please don't let RedHat make emacs like vi
?-|||-----x<*))))><
Read the link. This is FAKE news designed to humor us. Can't believe Slashdot would even post this...
Humorix? Hello, McFly?
though I wish this was really true, but unfortunately, it is just a joke.
does mean in bash I can say `setenv PATH ~/bin:${PATH}' or even `set path (~/bin $path)' or the other way around, in csh `EXPORT PATH=~/bin:$PATH'?
/bin/false
It really is much more secure.
-- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
First thing I read in the article:
Fake News written by James Baughn on September 25, 2002
from the let-the-flame-wars-continue! dept.
I think the -Fake News- part might reveal some insight on the credibility of the story!
Who cares if they change the shell? As long as they publish API's for the middleware pieces, how could we possibly complain?
Because most of the people who read this site need to LIGHTEN UP FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!!!!
Because Hemos liked the link and wanted it there.
There's no mission statement for this site other than something like "the editors will post whatever stories or articles they like."
What did YOU think slashdot was?
Read the FAQ.
If you hadn't noticed it's under the "funny/humour" catogory. Turn this catagory off in your preferences if you dont want it.
I honestly can't tell.
They both suck.
zsh all the way, mofos.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
What's funnier is that some people here haven't quite gotten the fact that it IS a joke.
/me sits back patiently and watches the crowd reaction as they flame Red Hat, bitch about their beloved csh or bash, or just kick Coyboy Neal in the nuts for posting such useless drivel. :-)
Come on people, read the article...
$ man woman *
-bash:
M-x viper-mode.
Geesh. I'm glad for it, it brightened my day.
---
the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword is mightier than the court, the court is mightier than the pen.
As stated in some other thread as well, read the first 2 lines of the atleast : "Fake News written by James Baughn". And still, if you wish to speculate on the matter. Speculate on whether you are still capable of choosing your favorite /bin/l33t if you are capable of speculating on this speculative hoax?
I've never seen such a collection of knee-jerk humorless reactionaries in my life!!! I think the responses to this article are funnier than the article itself.
Warning: serious reactions to this article will go on your permanent record!!!
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
To be sure, I give the fuckers /dev/random. If lucky, it'll screw their terminal and they won't bother me.
fucktard is a tenderhearted description
The article itself, or the fact that it seems like the majority of posters have failed to:
A) RTFA
B) Notice that this is "from the funny-funny-haha dept."
C) Read the editors comment Hemos left in the little blurb once again clueing them into the fact that the article is a joke just like the ignorant fools who have started to bitch already.
That said, I don't mind much, I just found it rather strange that something like this were to be posted to the main page (less surprising would have been non-main page), still funny though.
This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
This bit had me rolling on the floor..
The head of the Emacs Flame War Re-enactment Society (a group that re-enacts the great Usenet emacs versus vi flames wars of the 20th Century) said, "Red Hat is destroying our cultural heritage!
Ahh.. I know guys who belong to war re-enactment societies.. and this about sums them up..
I love it when Slashdot posts stuff like this. All the morons that don't read the articles look stupid when they go off on a tangent.
It's like April 1st but better.
For the record, I can be caught not reading the articles from time to time - but I never said I wasn't a moron.
LoRider
_But when they start messing with my CLI, then it's personal. I'm not going to sit here and let Red Hat infect my beloved tcsh with those annoying quirks from bash._
... :-p )
The solution is quite simple: don't use redhat and quit whining. You don't own bash or csh and you sure as hell don't even remotely have the right to complain about the modifications redhat is making. It's free software and nobody is forcing you to use it.
*blink**blink* Henh?
Ohhh.... Is this thing on? Good. *AHEM*
Here ladies and gentlemen we have the common Nolifeium Nonhumourum Slashdoticus. Notice the serious countenance, the white skin and it's most distinctive marking, the flat, bald forehead from all of the jokes that go flying just over it. This particular species is closely related to the Userum Newbius Nocluseies, who also are prone to spouting off at the mouth with no clue and are usually just as humour impared. Please move along now, there's lot's more to see.
Soko
(Like the Smarticus Assunum Typesum
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
how are they going to manage to avoid the thousands of #!/bin/bash scripts?
/bin/rh-shell or somesuch, which 'unifies' shell differences (?why?) but how are you they going to do this without the headaches?
/bin/bash" and switch EVERYTHING in RedHat GNU/Linux to it.
its one thing to say they want to *create* another unified shell say,
they would be further ahead to just say "we use
"Dude, you are right, it's a fake story! It's Satire! THEY ARE NOT REALLY DOING THIS SO CALM DOWN! Dind't the foot as the Icon give you Clue #2? :x:q or was that ^q? Damn Vimacs!"
I think the real comedy here isn't the satirical write-up, but the responses to it.
I hope this link is enough to convince them.
I also hope that page ends the debates once and for all!
Am I a hipster-doofus?
Yeah, it's one gigantic game of "Spot the Looney".
I'm not sure what're funnier, the article, or the people who either didn't read the article, or who didn't get that it was satire.
I think RH is limiting choice now.
Too many options is bad sometimes. I mean what would happen if a news oriented website were to give you the option of reading both regular news and satirical news on the same page?!
Oh wait..
by at least one cd, if they removed emacs.
I told a coworker of mine that the 2.4.x kernel cannot support a statically compiled emacs, because of the 2TB file limit.
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
.. and it's actually pretty good, especially for newbies. For instance, "redhat-list-my-files-in-current-directory" is a little heavily branded, but it makes a lot more sense than "ls" to a new user. And the "Are you sure you want to run 'xyz' (Y/n)" prompts after every command saved my ass a couple times. Getting rid of all commands that can delete files is also great for security, and that's definitely an advantage over other distros.
The only thing that really tripped me up was that Red Hat mapped "delete character" to the "d" key (probably to fix the whole backspace/delete confusion once and for all). And the character D is mapped to ^X-F4 which is a little hard to type at first but you get used to it. Since they made this change system-wide I learned it pretty fast.
All in all a step in the right direction. Of course power users can always use another distro, or just type their system's source code onto the hard drive from scratch or whatever it is they do for fun on Saturday nights.
It's all configurable by toggling a GConf key. Unfortunately the next release of Red Hat will continue the trend by making all their configuration tool GUIs, and move to a database format for their GConf keys, so... .. you will need a GUI to change your TUI!
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
They could, of course, also just have installed a standards-compliant non-bloated shell in /bin/sh, where $DEITY wanted it, but noo..
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
you should, 'cause in the next version of RH I predict bash will depend on kmail and nautilus
It really is much more secure.
Actually, in some old *nixes, that absolutely was NOT the case. If the shell in
Not that this behavious persists today, but just to be safe, use
Don't sweat the petty things. But do pet the sweaty things.
The new language doesn't have a name yet, but you can be sure that few will like the idea, many will have an opinion, and noone will read the actual announcement.
Give a hand, not a hand-out.
And especially so when you complement its use with the /dev/null video accelerator.
Life-free geeks who care about this stuff all use Debian or Slackware anyway."
:-)
from the article, 'nuff said
Seriously, I often have vi running in the left window and emacs in the right hand one. It's a good mental exercise to switch back and forth between them frequently. I wish I could train myself to use my right hand for emacs and the left for vi, but I'm not there yet. Maybe I could do it with two chord keyboards?
Like, say, the group that actually uses the word 'grok' in conversation?
Free Java games for your phone: Tontie, Sokoban
/bin/false
That is simply not true...
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
Worst...misuse...of..."grok"...ever.
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
Bob Hutzfield has put a dozen copies of "Red Hat Linux 10.0" up for auction at eBay.com. He claims that his toilet is the portal to a "temporal vortex singularity" and that the toilet periodically spits out items from the future. Last week, a package containing twelve Red Hat Linux 10.0 shrink-wrapped boxes materialized at the toilet vortex. Hutzfield is now offering them at auction with a minimum bid of US$1000.
The following press release was taken from the eBay auction page. Hutzfield claims that he found this press release inside the package that emerged from his toilet vortex.
Click here RH10.0Linux for the toilet
Why would they even *want* to do this. Like 90% of all Linux users I use the shell chosen by my distro. That's almost 100% Bash. I've done some pretty techie stuff with my system and tend to be a pretty advanced RedHat user but the thought of changing my shell never even occurred to me. After all, it works just great, why would I care? It seems to me only total techie geeks would reject the Bash shell and if they're so damn techie why create a distro that limits this ability. Am I missing something here???
from http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed.msg.html
i found the original alt.religion.emacs post here: groups.google.com
... nevermind, there is no way this post is making it past the lameness filter. too bad, read the link.
With all of the gaps being closed in being able to pick one distribution over the next, I give the bounty to the first distribution to NOT include Emacs in the "default install" button. Oh yea, and include blackbox/fluxbox as one of the "default" window managers. (they can put KDE and GNOME on the "options" or "Contributed" CD). And why they are at it, they can decide on 1 font manager (xfstt) for the whole distribution VS. the 1 font manager for each app you see nowdays. That should be a pretty cool distro that I could throw at this old assed hardware that I have.
PS -- The article made me laugh hard, and miss satirewire even more.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
Hover your mouse pointer over the Monty Python foot at the top of the article. What does it say?
"It's funny. Laugh."
Hell, the foot itself ought to be a clue as to the nature of the article. If you're a humorless ass, just pass on this article and others like it. The rest of us won't miss you.
"And now for something completely different..."
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Hopefully I will never see this behavior. I doubt I'll ever work on anything old enough, though. I put /bin/true in /etc/shells so I can assign it to a user so they can ftp but not log in; I use /bin/false to not even let them log in (but still let them authenticate.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
.NET has had this implemented from the word go and what do we get from Red Hat? A hopeless kludge attempting to reverse-engineer the behavior. Linux advocates should stop trying to push compliance with The-Other-OS and develop new strategies instead.
Several German laboratories have already developed innovative foot-pedal interfaces to the kernel and I'd really prefer to see people installing them on their own systems and sending bug reports to the developers.
For one fleeting moment I thought someone was doing that seriously. The screenshots page says enough, freakin' hilarious. Ideally there'd be some way to install that so it launched unsuspectingly on some poor coworker.
Hmmmm.... what's this extra window...
"Are you sure you want to move left?"
WTF!? yes I'm sure... [Much time passes]AH!... that should close it...
"Are you sure you don't want to close the Vigor asistant?"
Yes I'm sure I want to close it... huh!
-finally notices the laughing in the background-
- If you thought this was real: silly monkey, pay attention next time.
- If you thought this was real and proceeded to post with that assumption: you have shown the way of the dumb monkey.
- If you thought this was real and flamed as a result: dumb ass.
- You understood this was humorous and proceeded to flame for that reason: kill yourself.
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
In the end Red Hat shall rule supreme, replacing Microsoft as the One true OS.
Have you read my journal today?
RTFA ;-)
Setup Clisp as their login shell. No I'm not kidding it actually is possible, see http://clisp.cons.org/clash.html
:-)
Although it is security through obscurity, you'll be hard pressed find a more amusing setup, and to top it off it's more painful for the user. By security by obscurity standards you'll be hard pressed to do much better - they have to solve the chicken egg problem of getting to the man pages to figure out the command prompt. And that's the advanced users.
I have this great mental image of a black hat trying to run his newfangled worm on a machine with a clisp prompt...
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
"Over the years, we've received nearly 1,000 technical support calls from people that have accidentally started vi and couldn't figure out how to do anything -- or even how to quit."
I resent that! I know how to quit when using vi! ALT-F2! kill -9 vi!
-- Jim
I always thought the standard for false was zero and true was non-zero. Is if different for those two?
I'm still using the clunky yet compatible QWERTY, but one nice trick to simultaneous mouse/keyboard operation is using the mouse with your left hand (if you're right handed). There are several advantages:
- With only one hand to type with, it's better to use the more dexterous
one.
- If you have a desktop keyboard with a number pad, your hands will be
closer together and probably more comfortable.
- Using the mouse isn't too complicated for the left hand. Your
right-hand dexterity would be wasted on this simple activity.
- Your right hand is naturally closer to the right edge of the keyb,
where the arrows and other controls are. Great for web surfing.
I've had it this way for years. Of course for proper touch typing you'll like using both hands, at least with qwerty.--
If you moderate this, then your children will be next.
The default behaviour for unix is to check for failure. Hence false returns !false to indicate that it failed to fail. true returns false to indicate that it did failed to succeed.
In a recent move to reduce the confusing differences in pronounciations of the word "potato", Red Hat pissed off both the "po-tay-to" and "po-tah-to" factions by decreeing that the word "potato" will now be pronounced "starchy self-reproducing tuber with eyes".
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
You can't be a 'windows nerd' - it's an oxymoron....
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As p3d0 said, shells behave the opposite. (Although there once was an odd bug in - what was it, Ultrix? - where csh behaved the opposite, i.e. didn't behave the opposite, i.e. was buggy, with regards to the && and || short-circuit operators. But then, csh history is replete with odd bugs.)
But to expand on the point: in Unix, the exit status of a program is an integer (7 unsigned bits, anyway: trying to use more is not portable). Convention dictates that 0 is normal termination, non-zero is abnormal, and anything over 128 means it was killed by a signal rather than the exit() function. (Which signal? Subtract 128 to find out.) Furthermore, many programs document their various abnormal exit status numbers to mean various failure cases.
Note that even MS-DOS (and all of its misshapen get) uses the zero / greater-than-zero convention. In DOS, a process's return value is called the "errorlevel", which indeed more accurately describes its main purpose.
This convention also goes a little deeper in Unix. Most system calls and many C library functions (remember, the standard C library was first defined on Unix) return 0 for success (or similar concepts: "equality" in the string compare function strcmp()) and non-zero for failure ("inequality" in strcmp()). Even system calls which return other meaningful integers (open(), for example) generally use >=0 for success and -1 for failure.
So it may make no sense from a boolean logic point of view but zero==true is surprisingly widespread. Mostly because there is often only one way to succeed at a task but many ways to fail, and it's useful to be able to report specific failure modes.
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
... so of course I have to intrude... :)
;)
Maybe the reason everyone is looking up vi on google is because it is so *intuitive* and *easy-to-learn*?
Then again, I personally think emacs is a tool of the devil....
http://www.textpad.com - all the editor you'll ever need
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
>> To be sure, I give the fuckers /dev/random. If lucky, it'll screw their terminal and they won't bother me.
/dev/random.
But if you're supremely unlucky, it'll drop them to a SUID root perl process. Do not taunt
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
The home page is whatever Malda wants to make it. Slashdot started as Rob Malda's pet project, and that's basically what it will always be. It's an obscenely popular project and makes some money (maybe) now, but it's still his personal project.
Deal with it. No one, especially Rob, cares what you think "should" be on the main page.
I had to learn a new Language...
Braaahh... New Language, New Language.
This
It won't work. /dev/random isn't usually marked as executable. Even if it were, it wouldn't even get to run anything unless by some miracle the random string was a valid ELF header. Of course, the random string could also be something like "#!/bin/bash", thereby giving them a shell.
/dev/random
What you want to do is make a script like:
#!/bin/sh
cat
Then make that script their shell. When they log in, they'll just get lots of random crap.
My other first post is car post.
I have an idea. Why don't these IDIOTS at Red Hat just get rid of all the shells and install ONE shell. Just decide on one... whether it is bash or ksh or fuckyoush or whatever, and leave us alone. And do the same for the graphical interface. Fucking idiots.
kdesh
Though you were probably making a joke with all that 32million minimum stuff, but DtKsh?
When I was learning UNIX programming and C++ (on Solaris), we were taught how to code (nothing quite like Stevens' APUE, RIP Richard) but nothing about how to edit, not even a tipsheet/survival guide thing. I hated vi so much, I felt like an idiot because I don't know how to quit it. I programmed most of my stuff on a mac and ftp'ed stuff over. I used Alpha on the Mac, glad it's still around at least in some form. Still the best editor I've used, though NEdit (my current fave) comes close. Me has to start looking at new editors, I kind of like the idea of the folding editors, but they all seem to be too heavy with resources. For those with recommendations of emacs, see last statement about too much resources.
Check out Mandrake, Lindows, or Lycoris.
They are all designed with the user firmly in mind. Other distros focus on the capabilities, and are often superior on technical merits or for specific purposes, but those three get high marks for ease of use. Heck, I saw a screenshot of Lycoris and first thought was "How long til MS sues them for copying the XP look and feel". IT was damn near identical. ANd MAndrake is phenomenal, though severely bloated(to MS levels unfortunately) in their default installations.
The true power of Linux is that you have these choices. They share a common base, so they can all run the same software, yet each distribution focuse on taking that base into a specific direction, allowing you to decide what- Stability, light load on the system, small space required, raw speed, ease of use, etc- that is most important to you, and you can get exactly what you want from the OS.
thats funny, I have been using linux now for years, and I still cant quit vi! That has happened to me, accidentally starting vi and issuing a killall command after a worthless ^X-C frenzy, lol. That, belive it or not was what made me used emacs, which I actually ended up learning a completly non-standard way of controlling.
What signature defines me as a person?
All slashdotting Open Sourcers should help out in creating the Porn Again SHell, the project doesn't seem to have much activity. Maybe his hands are cramped from ....
I agree 100%. Ksh is the best shell out there for universal script development. I can't stand using the up and down arrows to scroll thru my command history either... reminds me too much of NT/2000 cmd.exe, I'd much rather use [ESC]j and [ESC]k and also export EDITOR=vi so I can use my good old familiar vi editing on the command line too .
You have users??
SlashSig Karma: Excellent (mostly affected by moderatio
common denominator..In a problem situation IT WILL ALWAYS WORK, even over a FSCK'n PALM into the A port. Use what you like for everyday, but KNOW basic VI or have a good cheatsheet for when the excrement hits the fan.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
if you have ever taken ANY C class you will remember that line at the end of your function 'return 0;' that meant 'everything's fine'
fear is the mind killer
Or better, for safety, 'exec /bin/cat /dev/random'.
-30-
Too many options is bad sometimes. I mean what would happen if a news oriented website were to give you the option of reading both regular news and satirical news on the same page?!
I'd imagine a Chinese state-run newspaper would use it as their prime news source.
Oh wait..
But RPM will, naturally, report the dependency as being on "libneverheardofyou.0.0.53.0," and figuring out which package to install will be left as an exercise for the reader.
I write in my journal
Actually, we _do_ have the right to complain.
Oh, now, at the risk of getting just the slightest bit serious on you here, I'd have to say that the ability to complain isn't so much a right as it is a privilege. You're lucky enough to live in a (city|country|world|whatever) where people who complain about stuff they didn't work on and didn't pay for are only rarely dragged out into the street and beaten within an inch of their lives by angry mobs armed with torches and pitchforks. Don't take that for granted.
I write in my journal
Maximum debugging information..
You are talking about the .a file, which is not very unlike a .tar file. I.e. this is not a library that is needed by any running program. /usr/lib/libc.a" and you will see that there are about 1200 packages in there with full debugging information and unstripped. It comes from glibc-devel.
Do a "ar -tv
Having a huge libc.a simply means that you have lots of development libraries in there. The linker will extract those needed and add if to your binary.
I think the original poster meant /lib/libc.so which is 1.2 MB on my RH7.1
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
It's a Mac Thing. You wouldn't understand.
See, it's a new era on slashdot. We used to spout off at the mouth after not reading the article's linked to the slashdot summary. Now we don't even read the slashdot summary! After all, it wastes valuable posting time! You don't want someone else to beat you to a +5 insightful, now, do you?
Best quotes: HUMORIX WORLD HEADQUARTERS -- Two Humorix unpaid interns were injured earlier today as the result of mass panic induced by an unexpected attack of the dreaded Slashdot Effect.
The two injured interns are actually specially bred chickens trained to peck the reboot button on our two Windows PCs when the screen turns blue
"I just want to USE my computer no have to worry about all the moving parts under the hood."
So how do you distinguish between bits you "use" and are obviously therefore the only worthwhile bits for the rest of the world, and bits that we happen to like to use, or to choose between?
And why do you install tcsh if you're not going to use it? Do you have no idea what you're doing when you install a machine, and somehow that's the upstream distribution's fault for providing things that you have to choose to use or not, and you just can't be arsed making a choice yourself?
Stay with Windows. Please. For the sake of the kittens...
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
I resent that! I know how to quit when using vi! ALT-F2! kill -9 vi!
Heh; you got off easy. Hard core vi users have to join support groups and sometimes take prozac for months before they are ready to quit. It's always the same, sad story. "I just picked it up out of curiousity, thought I'd try it once. A few minutes experimenting with command mode and I was hooked. It took a few weeks before I started using it every day, but after that it was any excuse I could get to fire it up. Write a letter? vi. Web page? vi. Grocery list? vi. I kept it to myself at first but after a while I was doing it in public, even talking about it openly. People would point and laugh, or cluck sadly at me, but I didn't care. It didn't matter to me if it was right or wrong, I just kept doing it and doing it, no matter what anyone said."
Yeah, I always return that in the end of the malloc function if it is succesfull.
ObDisclaimer: Yes, I know what you mean, but this was actually the first thing that came to my mind...
IMHO the time has come to pick the best of bread and go with one shell. Others should be around as "extras", but we should all decide what the primary shell for all UNIX and UNIX-like systems should be.
Most users seem to use bash under Linux. [t]csh is most popular under Solaris. ksh is the HP/UX fav. *BSD users tend to stick with the csh-shells.
And then, of course there's zsh, which I use sometimes at work because there's a cluster of zsh geeks who have added some nice dotfile goodies for it.
What's the best shell? It really doesn't mater. Quoting is saner in the sh-variants. Command-line editing, history etc is better in zsh and bash. Variable syntax is nicer in (especially arrays) in *csh. Functions are most powerful in the later-day *sh variants. POSIX specifies a subset of most sh implementations.
Personally, I think bash should take over the world just because it's what lots of Linux systems expect as the root shell, it ties for best of many features with zsh. Has most, if not all, of ksh and ships with most platforms as included or optional add-on.
#include <stdio.h>
void main(){
printf("Hello, World!\n");
}
Why it is so hard for educators and book-authors to actually read the standard is beyond me...
There's an even simpler way:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I'm sure this would be modded much higher if everyone knew the full story.
I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
That is perfectly valid C. On most systems, that will even link and run without complaint. Some systems with ancient preludes won't take it. Such systems generally won't like the perfectly valid int main(int argc, char **argv, char **env) convention either.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
That's just messed up.
Female Prison Rape in NY
No, it isn't. Neither ANSI nor ISO C allows main to return anything but an int.
On most systems, that will even link and run without complaint.
I shudder to think about what you consider acceptable C, if you have to qualify "link and run without complaint" with "even".
But your system isn't the C standard, and the fact that it runs there doesn't mean it is valid C. Most systems allow i = i++ += ++i as well. The result is undefined, and that means that anything is allowed to happen (including program crash, spontaneous massive existence failure, making demons run out of your nose, or simply set i to some guessable value).
The fact that most calling conventions are sane enough for it not to matter defining a function returning nothing when the run-time-system really expects one returning success or failure as an integer, doesn't mean that it is valid (or that it makes sense, i.e.: what will your C program return to the OS after running?)
Some systems with ancient preludes won't take it.
So what you are saying is that, even though it is explicitly not allowed by the standard, it also doesn't work at all on some systems?
Such systems generally won't like the perfectly valid int main(int argc, char **argv, char **env) convention either.
Surprise. It isn't perfectly valid C. I'm not even shure if it's POSIX (although extern char **environ is). But it is pretty common among unixes.
ITYM, kill -9 -1
Windows users should try out gvim - definitely now my editor of choice under Windows...
M-x viper has some of the keybindings of vi, but misses out on all the colon-prompt commands (actually ex commands). I'll take :%s/findme/replace/g any day over emacs's "Let's bind most of the useful versions of functions to keys your keyboard doesn't have, or better yet not bind them at all and let you try to wade through info pages to figure out how to give them a binding, but the pages that show you the lisp code to write don't have links pointing you to something telling you WHERE these things are supposed to go" mentality.
Configuring a simple keybinding shouldn't require hours of documentation reading.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
viper mode doesn't emulate the colon prompt well. It is not a drop-in replacment for using vi, although someone who only uses vi casually wouldn't notice the difference.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
It isn't standard C.
(Although in practice you would be hard pressed to find a unix where it isn't supported (I would probably go so far as to say that it wouldn't really be unix then...))
> The Windows versions of edit.com is vastly improved over the edit.com
> in older MS operating systems, allowing you to open 9 files at once
Ooooh, nine files at once. It's not as if the editor I used in the
days of DOS 3 allowed me to open nine files at once and switch
between them quickly, and split the screen between two of them, and
copy lines, ranges, or regtangular blocks back and forth between them...
> not to mention the ability to open fairly large files
Wow, now I'm certainly impressed.
> You should check it out.
Believe me, I'm already quite familiar with the pain of working
with it. Pretty much every time I have to reinstall Windows on
one of the PCs at work, I end up using edit.com for something or
another, usually to get Windows to see the CD-ROM drive (WHY does
Windows 9x need drivers for an ATAPI CD-ROM? They're all the
_same_...) so I can install the drivers for the network card so
I can download a decent text editor and browser and drivers so I
can finish the installation. If it's a system I'll barely ever
have to touch, I just install PFE as a drop-in replacement for
notepad. If it's a system I'm going to have to use with any
frequency at all, I also install Emacs. If it's a system I'm
going to use a _lot_, I install several megabytes of sitelisp.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Hey do you think you could change your url to point to http://www.utacm.org? acm.csres.utexas.edu has been deprecated and may stop working sometime soon. I'm the webmaster for utacm.org and have been trying to get any links to the old page updated (I noticed your link on our tracker). Thanks.
"A good conspiracy is an unprovable one." -Conspiracy Theory