HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.unix.misc
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
From: scott@yarc.uucp (Scott Beckstead)
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 18:07:18 GMT
Reply-To: scott@yarc.UUCP (Scott Beckstead)
Organization: Yarc Systems

In article <1992Sep8.075544.25771@news.columbia.edu> lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) writes:
>In article <MJN.92Sep5010951@pseudo.uucp> mjn@pseudo.uucp (Murray Nesbitt) writes:
>>
>>You are "apparently ignorant" of the fact that many people choose to
>>run something a little more powerful than MSDOS on top of their
>>powerful hardware.  I think this was Peter's point.
>>
>The argument is now apparent.  This group's "skewed" nature is such that it
>believes by egocentricity that it is representative of the world.  In the
>Real World (tm) the *vast* majority of PC's are running MS-DOS, DR-DOS, and
>maybe Windows on top of either of them.  A small smattering of them are
>running OS/2 as file servers for the DOS machines, typically running
>Microsoft LANmanager, or alternatively Novell Netware as a server, or a
>hodge-podge of other manufacturers' similar products (Banyan Vines, 3-COM,
>Ungerman-Bass, IBM-Token-ring, etc., not in order of usage).  There are
>*extremely few* machines running some flavor of unix/zenix.
>
>Wasn't Peter the one who said he felt no need to have/use a PC?  He therefore
>is the most appropriate person to ask about which software is used on which
>PC's that are out there.
>
>obFACT: most PC's are *not* on internet.
>
>cjl
           Well I have a need to use a PC and I only use DOS when forced
to.   The only place we seem to need DOS is in the accounting department
and that not for much longer.  Yes a  large share of the PC market uses
DOS or windows or some perverted variant.  'Extremely few' is an
inaccurate description of the  number of PC boxes running UN*X or a
variant.  PC magazine a few months ago reported that DOS and OS2 were
losing significant market share to UN*X, don't ask which one it's on the
cover and I don't often read the magazine. Check it out CJ.  DOS
qualifies as a living Fossil (DR DOS included or even more so).  You
can't even do a decent sort algorithm without resorting to a juggling
act to get around the bloody 64k segment limit.  Even with dos extenders
(ever hear of a UN*X extender??)  you still have significant problems. 
I mean Just look at the hoops you have to jump through writing TSRs they
are ridiculous.  And  you can forget simple pointer arithmetic.  Yeah
DOS has plagued us for quite a while and it will continue to slow down
PC computer software progress.    





-- 
Reply to: scott@yarc.uucp 	|  
				|	Spin my nipple nuts and send me to   
  Smoke me a kipper, I'll be	| 	Alaska.
   back for breakfast	 	|
From: jhh4889@ultb.isc.rit.edu (J.H. Huebner )
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Longtime PDP-11 users, tune in now
Date: 6 Sep 92 16:03:35 GMT
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Originator: jhh4889@ultb


When I was a ccon at CMU, we once got a call from a user who had typed
"rm -r *" in his home directory. He was very happy to hear about our
routine daily backups. (BTW someone had told him to do this as a (bad)
practivcal joke).

-John Huebner
jhh4889@ultb.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: jdavis@bordeaux.kpno.noao.edu (Jim Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Why is kermit called kermit?
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:49:28 GMT
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Sep3.214438.42769@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>I don't know where else to ask this: why is kermit called kermit?

From "Kermit: A File Transfer Protocol", by Frank da Cruz (Digital Press,
1987), page 3:

Why? Mostly because there was a Muppets calendar on the wall when we were
trying to think of a name, and Kermit is a pleasant, unassuming sort of
character.  But since we weren't sure whether it was OK to name our protocol
after this popular television and movie star, we pretended that KERMIT was
an acronym; unfortunately, we could never find a good set of words to go with
the letters, as readers of some of our early source code can attest.  Later,
while looking through a name book for his forthcoming baby, Bill Catchings
noticed that _Kermit_ was a Celtic word for _free_, which is what all Kermit
programs should be, and words to this effect replaced the strained acronyms
in our source code (Bill's baby turned out to be a girl, so he had to name
her Becky instead).  When BYTE Magazine was preparing our 1984 Kermit article
for publication, they suggested we contact Henson Associates Inc. for
permission to say that we did indeed name the protocol after Kermit the Frog.
Permission was kindly granted, and now the real story can be told.  I
resisted the temptation, however, to call the present work "Kermit the Book."
-- 
Jim Davis       | "Outside of licking dirt for a living, it was easily
jdavis@noao.edu |   the world's deadlist job."  -- Pete
From: Michael.Welch@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Michael Welch)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Sneakers
Date: 14 Sep 92 13:44:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service


  This isn't exactly a computer falacy in the film, but I _think_ I saw this:

  When the guard is firing into the ceiling, his last _almost_ shot, he
cocks the shotgun, right? If so, then when the main character pulls the
panel away, the man cocks it again and an empty shell pops out. Continuity?

Michael W.
(They need an alt.film.students newsgroup) *smile*

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.unix.misc
From: elf@ee.ryerson.ca (luis fernandes)
Subject: Re: GUIs Considered Harmful
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, Toronto
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:04:03 GMT

In article <BZS.92Sep12202920@ussr.std.com> bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>If you have a good quality photocopier you can photocopy optical mouse
>pads and use that. Someone recently posted a postscript program for
>producing optical mouse pads. 

> Some of them will work on well-worn denims.

Finally! A viable excuse to give the overlords when workplace
dress-code questions come up.

zxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzx
Luis Fernandes  <elf@ee.ryerson.ca>
-Friendly Neighbourhood X Wizard's Apprentice
zxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzx
From: IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (macphil)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: You know when you're hacking too long when...
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:07:43 GMT
Organization: IUPUI

In article <1992Sep13.170603.24419@tc.cornell.edu>
mdw@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Matt Welsh) writes:
 
>Too much report with UNIX. -grin
          ??????
 
How 'bout too much time using RPG and too much rapport /c Unix?
 
 
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: johnb@searchtech.com (John Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Mel the Real Programmer (AGAIN!)
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:12:22 GMT
Organization: Search Technology, Inc.


   Greetings, and apologies if this subject has come up lately.
   [I've been away from a.f.c for about 5 months!]


   My company is teaming up with another firm on a CS-type project, and
   I've been spending a bit of time with some of my counterparts at the
   other company.

   Amazingly, none of them have heard of Mel the Real Programmer!

   And, wouldn't you know it, when we changed our Unix hub, guess what
   I failed to archive?  Yup.   Mea culpa.


   Could someone please email me a copy?  Please, the REAL one, with the
   poetic-style formatting, NOT the one somebody piped through "fmt"!


   Thanks!

-- 
John Baldwin                                        johnb@searchtech.com
Search Technology, Inc.                             uupsi!srchtec!johnb
4725 Peachtree Corners Circle, Suite 200            johnb@srchtec.uucp
Norcross, Georgia  30092   USA
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: You know when you're hacking too long when...
    <1992Sep6.021534.17359@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz> 
    <1992Sep08.181938.130436@rrz.uni-koeln.de>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:44:38 GMT
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky

kim@vax.mpiz-koeln.mpg.dbp.de writes:
>I once wrote email greetinx from abroad, although  that  was  not
>from  a  holiday  but  from  a  conference.  The folx here in the
>institute were on the one hand amazed I had worked  my  way  into
>our  machine  from  overseas, but then they said they still would
>have preferred a real postcard...

I once received several large pieces of email without explanation.
Upon closer examination, I recognized uuencoding (I was a newbie
at that time), so I pasted them together and uudecoded appropriately.

This procedure resulted in a file whose format was alien to me.  A
bit of deduction led me to load it onto a Macintosh, where is was
finally revealed as.....a scanned image of a postcard of Stockholm.

My friend later remarked, "But I *did* send you a postcard!".....

Sheesh.

--Wes

-- 
MORGAN@UKCC         |       Wes Morgan       |        ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan 
morgan@ms.uky.edu   | Engineering  Computing |   morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
  Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E  - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.computers:13828 comp.windows.misc:1395 comp.windows.x:16455 comp.human-factors:2166
From: veck@pshrink.chi.il.us (Steve King)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.windows.misc,comp.windows.x,comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: GUIs Considered Harmful
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 18:17:54 CST
Organization: PShrink Wrap BBS, Lake Zurich IL  +1 708 540 6772

adrian@milton.u.washington.edu (Adrian Mariano) writes:
>The problem with the mice that use the LEDs and reflective mouse pads
>is that you must use the mouse pad, and you MUST have it oriented
>correctly.  If you turn it 90 degrees, the mouse won't work.  If the
>mouse pad gets rotated, then the mouse won't do what you want (or
>expect).  

Not so with the newer Mouse Systems critters.  The one I've got here
works equally well at any 90 degree orientation.  You must still, of
course, manage to keep it on the pad.  I've always thought you could make
a lot of money by producing rolls of mylar shelf paper that have a mouse
tracking grid printed on it...  :-)

I've got a feeling that the optical versus mechanic mouse battle is
the sort of holy war usually left for discussions of EMACS versus VI.


-- 
Steve King (veck@pshrink.chi.il.us)
PShrink Wrap BBS, Lake Zurich IL  +1 708 540 6772
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: peterd@tscc2.macarthur.uws.edu.au ()
Subject: Re: bogosort revisited
Organization: University of Western Sydney
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:33:55 GMT

I've been following this thread for a while, and thought that I should tell
you about the wonderful sorting routine my 15month old daughter invented
with her stacking blocks :-

(1) Randomly stack the blocks
(2) If the bottom block is the largest, remove all the other blocks,
    and randomly re-stack.
(3) Keep doing this until the stack is sorted.

For obvious reasons, I've named this `HANNAH SORT'

--
Peter Degotardi        (__)   *  University of Western Sydney, Macarthur
PC Support Programmer  /00\   *  Computing Centre.
Fax    +61 46 26-6937   oo    *  Campbelltown, New South Wales, Australia !
Email  p.degotardi@uws.edu.au *  Just in case - 'My opinions are all mine !'
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 00:04:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.051740.16218@sequent.com> dafuller@sequent.com (David Fuller) writes:
>Weinberg.  I mean really.  Get a grip, folks.  Master as many tools as
>you need and use them wisely.  

Bravo.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.unix.misc
From: david@cs.uow.edu.au (David E A Wilson)
Subject: Re: Renumbering BASIC programs (was Re: Branching in HLL vs. Assembler)
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 03:09:03 GMT

>alanb@sdl.mdcbbs.com (Alan Braggins) writes:
>On Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:53:55 GMT, david@cs.uow.edu.au (David E A Wilson) said:
>> 1000 LET N=VAL("A*1001") looks even shorter to me.

>Yes, but it also gives the wrong answer.

Yes - I stuffed that one up.

10 FOR I=1 TO 100
20 PRINT "I MUST NOT POST UNTESTED CODE EXAMPLES"
30 NEXT I

This posting breaks the above rule :-).
-- 
David Wilson				(042) 21 3802 voice, (042) 21 3262 fax
Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong	david@cs.uow.edu.au
From: pete@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: The third variable.
Date: 14 Sep 92 09:54:34 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Bob Weissman (rw@donner.Rational.COM) wrote:
: I've always heard "foo, bar, bletch, and mumble".
: 
: So what's the FIFTH variable?

Wibble.

pete
--
*Peter Fenelon -- Research Associate -- Software Safety Assessment Procedures*
Dept. of Computer Science, University of York, York, Y01 5DD (+44/0)904 433388
EMAIL: pete@minster.york.ac.uk `There's no room for enigmas in built up areas'
From: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Branching in HLL vs. Assembler (was Re: The need for an assemble
Date: 15 Sep 92 09:41:58 GMT
Reply-To: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <NHaHqB7w164w@lorc.UUCP> lowen@lorc.UUCP (Lamar Owen) writes:
>magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson) writes:

>Well, this whole thread reminds me of the Obfuscated BASIC contest held by
>80-Micro Way-Back-When(TM) for the TRS-80 dialect of MS BASIC.

Nothing can beat obfuscated APL code which generally is one-line total
anyway.  Using some arcana, it can be real fun to figure out what it's
doing.  Several "APL obstacle course" programs were written by some people
I know that appear to be doing some "innocent" things, but on closer inspection
there is some genuine strangeness to these programs of few keystrokes.

obfact: APL can produce the shortest and slowest bogosort programs.

cjl
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.computers:13636 comp.unix.misc:3521
From: bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: GOTOs
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:07:06 GMT
	<16854B809.IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU> <15232@umd5.umd.edu>
	<1992Sep3.055140.929@news.columbia.edu> <1992Sep03.104918.10823@bnr.uk>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester
In-reply-to: agc@bmdhh298.bnr.ca's message of 3 Sep 92 10:49:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep03.104918.10823@bnr.uk> agc@bmdhh298.bnr.ca (Alan Carter) writes:
   |> The same crap all over again.  Instead of a nice simple clean efficient
   |> routine, you have clumsy confusing inefficient code, which you
   |> can mindlessly 
   |> read in small sections, because someone decided that's "better" :-(.

   Or there is the C version:

   communicate()
   {
   from_the_top:
      if(!init_rs232()) goto from_the_top;
      if(!init_modem()) goto from_the_top;
      if(!dial_number()) goto from_the_top;
      if(!log_on()) goto from_the_top;
      if(!do_the_business()) goto from_the_top;
   }

   This kind of thing is a pig to do with cutesy structured loops, 
   and trying to do it that way makes the danger of introducing bugs 
   much greater.

How about the following which is a mixture of C & Pascal (just to be
perverse :-)

repeat
  done= init_rs232 && init_modem && dial_number && log_on && do_the_business
until done

Change the language and formatting to taste.


   Religious zealots tend to forget that gotos are deprecated
   because they tend to encourage complexity, leading to bugs that stop our
   programs working. No other reason. Where they encourage simplicity they
   help our programs work properly, quickly and are OK.

Fine, I'm just not sure the C code above is really an example of this
though.

bevan
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.computers:14022 comp.unix.misc:3692
From: jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.unix.misc
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
Date: 15 Sep 1992 17:37:26 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.3.202

jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost) writes:
>[BTW, most graphics people call that a 1280x1024x8 screen to keep the
>dimensions in a single unit; a 1280x1024x256 screen is what you'll
>find on the highest-end SGI's.  Still, that's only ten meg and
>still addressible within 24 bits.]

I must've been asleep when I wrote that.  It's of course forty-two
meg.

jim frost
jimf@centerline.com
From: rw@donner.Rational.COM (Bob Weissman)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: The third variable.
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:48:01 GMT

mjg51721@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael James Gebis) writes:
>Alright....the first variable is foo, and the second variable is bar.  What
>is the third?  Is is sna -->sna foo bar, or is it toe -->toe foo bar?  Is
>it something else?  Does anyone have any other creative variable names?

It's "bletch".

I've always heard "foo, bar, bletch, and mumble".

So what's the FIFTH variable?

--
-- Bob Weissman
-- Internet: rw@rational.com
-- UUCP:     uunet!igor!rw
--
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.computers:13672 comp.unix.misc:3534
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.unix.misc
Subject: Re:  The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
From: liam@durie.amigans.gen.nz (Liam Greenwood)
Date: 7 Sep 92 00:16:56 GMT+12
 <1992Aug31.162630.23913@news.columbia.edu> <1992Sep01.163246.19563@yarc.uucp> <1992Sep4.042704.21287@news.columbia.edu>
Distribution: world
Organization: It's Home, really...

In article <1992Sep4.042704.21287@news.columbia.edu> lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) writes:
>The non-portability of code to incompatible architectures is well known and
>usually an acceptable tradeoff to writers of assembly code.  The previous
>poster was attempting to take a pile of nits and claim incompatibility as
>opposed to a readily adaptible situation it actually is.
>
        #include <stdio.h>
        #include <stdlib.h>

        main()
        {
            puts("Hello World!");
            return(0);
        }
   O.K. then, the above code put onto some machines say... RS/6000, some
IBM PC or clone therof, Amiga, NCR Tower, Unisys 1100/2200, U6000, some
CP/M machine, really anything with a K&R C or ANSI C compiler. Compile it
and it will run. Please show us the code to do this on the above list of
machines in assembler.
--
 Liam Greenwood ------ liam@durie.amigans.gen.nz ------ Wanganui, N.Z.
                 Don't tell my Mother I'm a programmer,
               she thinks I'm a piano player in a brothel

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.unix.misc
From: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
Reply-To: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 07:51:51 GMT

In article <ALANB.92Sep9124227@swordfish.sdl.mdcbbs.com> alanb@sdl.mdcbbs.com (Alan Braggins) writes:
>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 1992 09:50:00 GMT, lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) said:
>
>> In article <AX0JNS5@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep4.042704.21287@news.columbia.edu> lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) writes:
>>>>The non-portability of code to incompatible architectures is well known and
>>>>usually an acceptable tradeoff to writers of assembly code.
>>>
>>>Translation:
>>>
>>>	People who write applications in assembly code are people who
>>>	are willing to trade off a factor of 10 or more in a few years
>>>	for a factor of two in a portion of the code today.
>
>> No, not a translation at all, just some self-serving words you dredged up
>> to twist my statement.
>> The truth is that for any "family" of machines, the "meat and potatoes" of
>> the code is the same for all models. 
>
>Yes, but my code runs on architectures that didn't exist 3 years ago, and has
>to to be competitive.

That's fine; if you think that they won't be obsolete in 18 months, then I
suggest you learn assembler for them to speed up where needed, and be even
more competitive; someone else likely will if you don't.  The only way you
can stay competitive in hll-only programming is if there is planned total
obsolescence.

>--
>Alan Braggins, Shape Data (A Division of EDS Ltd), Cambridge, UK +44-223-316673
>   "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
> "My employer does not necessarily share my views - but I'm working on it."

cjl

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Subject: Re: Is there a PDP-11 (or 8, or...) Emulator?
Reply-To: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 10:04:16 GMT

In article <9A5JNQD@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.095530.16240@news.columbia.edu> lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) writes:
>>>Putting the instruction set decoder in assembly makes some sense, if you don't
>>>know how to write fast code in C. It's hard to do an interpreter in C that's
>>>at all fast (not impossible, by any means, just hard). But the rest of the
>>>code is unlikley to get a significant speedup.
>
>>The peripheral code is in C already, and likely will stay that way, since it's
>>not speed-important.  The instruction decode is done by table lookup; there is
>>no faster way.
>
>You can do a branch table in C. Unfortunately, most compilers seem unable
>to remove the redundant test from the case statement so you have to filter
>the assembly output...
>
>(waits for flame about "why not do it in assembly in the first place")
>
>Because (a) the code runs, albeit about 1/2-1/3 speed (depending on how long
>the redundant range test is) without that optimization, and (b) some compilers
>*can* do this sort of thing directly.
>-- 
>                                                                `-_-'
>                         Har du kramat din varg idag?            'U`
>
>Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032

Quite simple: because you want a machine simulator to run as fast as it can,
and don't care what it takes to get it there.  That's an awful tradeoff you
suggest.  Is this your typical tradeoff for the work you provide to your
customers?  Are they aware of the design tradeoffs?

cjl

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.unix.misc