On one side you're told Free Software is the future, everyone should use it, its the best thing since sliced bread, yada yada yada
It's simple; stop telling people stories.
which part of the 'NO WARRANTIES' which appears in all open source licences is so
hard to understand ?
there are ambitious individuals for whom free software is just another opportunity
to make easy bucks; they're overhyping the free horse they've chosen to ride, and have
no scruples making bombastic claims (bug-free, 100% secure, guaranteed life-long
support & compatibility, etc). When things get nasty, they just go elsewhere and
gloat at the stupidity of those who believed them.
How come now that developers that have spent years fixing bugs and security holes
for free 'owe' them anything else than a spit in the face ?
yes, you said fork() and fork() NEVER EVER worked as you describe.
I supposed you were just mixing up vague recollections about vfork() and its limitations (sharing address space until execve(), etc) with vague recollections about copy-on-write pages in the child & stuff, and you were just confused by the whole thing.
But no, you're deliberately spreading misinformation and don't care about that --
In Unix, processes were traditionally lightweight and fast to create. In fact, the original fork() call essentially created what today we call a thread, sharing address space with it's parent. Only after exec() did the address spaces split.
I fact, that is absolutely wrong.
If you read that crap in a book, burn it and go get the Unix v.6 and 7
source code.
From my experience with open source, some developpers are just dishonest. Of course they don't like to admit the mistakes they
have made. They even try to blame them on others (counting on
most people not bothering - or not having the time - to go through
ChangeLogs, commits, etc).
There's no procedure to fix that. Just make noise and expose them.
If there's some 'influential' one who's the guilty part, so much better:)
Debian comes with nvi IIRC. And the first thing I do on any linux system is install nvi. Years ago, I was spending hours writing silly snytax files for vim - so I came to hate both vim and syntax highlighting:) but code that really needs highlighting is junk, anyway.
"passes them to the process sheduler [another userland process..... often having PID=1 and capable to bring down a system if inelegantly terminated]"
nowhere in unix, linux, *bsd, etc is the process scheduler a "userland process". PID=1 is 'init' It seems you have read some educational material about Windows and made a mess out of it.
I had a good laugh, anyway. Such self-satisfied ignorance.
No. That is utter nonsense.
Perl doesn't use any bytecode at call.
Perl executes scripts simply by 'walking' the
syntax tree its yacc parser has built.
Just like (n)awk or gawk (and unlike mawk).
Slashdot Mirror
It's simple; stop telling people stories.
which part of the 'NO WARRANTIES' which appears in all open source licences is so hard to understand ?
there are ambitious individuals for whom free software is just another opportunity to make easy bucks; they're overhyping the free horse they've chosen to ride, and have no scruples making bombastic claims (bug-free, 100% secure, guaranteed life-long support & compatibility, etc). When things get nasty, they just go elsewhere and gloat at the stupidity of those who believed them.
How come now that developers that have spent years fixing bugs and security holes for free 'owe' them anything else than a spit in the face ?
yes, you said fork() and fork() NEVER EVER worked as you describe.
I supposed you were just mixing up vague recollections about vfork()
and its limitations (sharing address space until execve(), etc) with
vague recollections about copy-on-write pages in the child & stuff,
and you were just confused by the whole thing.
But no, you're deliberately spreading misinformation and don't
care about that --
Is it so humiliating to admit you're wrong ?
vfork() is not fork().
I fact, that is absolutely wrong.
If you read that crap in a book, burn it and go get the Unix v.6 and 7 source code.
From my experience with open source, some developpers are just dishonest. Of course they don't like to admit the mistakes they have made. They even try to blame them on others (counting on most people not bothering - or not having the time - to go through ChangeLogs, commits, etc).
There's no procedure to fix that. Just make noise and expose them. If there's some 'influential' one who's the guilty part, so much better :)
ponie is officially dead
Debian comes with nvi IIRC. And the first thing I do on any linux system is :) but code that really needs
install nvi.
Years ago, I was spending hours writing silly snytax files for vim - so I
came to hate both vim and syntax highlighting
highlighting is junk, anyway.
the source code of the original Bourne Shell
is something like that (macros that turn C into
Algol).
Some comments in the BSD Almquist mention that
as the original reason for the reimplementation.
"passes them to the process sheduler [another userland process ..... often having PID=1 and capable to bring down a system if inelegantly terminated]"
nowhere in unix, linux, *bsd, etc is the
process scheduler a "userland process".
PID=1 is 'init'
It seems you have read some educational
material about Windows and made a mess
out of it.
I had a good laugh, anyway.
Such self-satisfied ignorance.
I managed to get MGR up and running with all stuff
on Linux.
I had to hack it a bit - but no particularly
difficult stuff.
No. That is utter nonsense. Perl doesn't use any bytecode at call. Perl executes scripts simply by 'walking' the syntax tree its yacc parser has built. Just like (n)awk or gawk (and unlike mawk).
: su "$(${Grab})";
bullshit. that doesn't work.
and 'su' only accepts input from a terminal, anyway.
This doesn't sound like a bad idea at all.
Isn't how the "UI" of a church-organ, car or
sewing machine works ?
Many times I used my feet/toes when I had to
hack two computers in parallel, instead of
continually switching mice and keyboards.