Re: encapsulating directory operations

Liste des GroupesRevenir à l c 
Sujet : Re: encapsulating directory operations
De : mutazilah (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Paul Edwards)
Groupes : comp.lang.c
Date : 26. May 2025, 00:01:54
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <10107h5$1kbn1$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3
User-Agent : Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
"Keith Thompson" <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:875xhojp5n.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com...

And if you want to talk
about coercing or bribing members of the C committee or any similar
antisocial behaviors

I'm not really antisocial. They are theoretical possibilities
that can't be ruled out. No matter how absurd you believe
them to be - and I would tentatively agree - but I have
been burnt too many times to pretend that I can predict
the future.

In more practical terms, it is as per the original article I
posted from Jeff. He - like me - believes that the IT
industry is a case of the inmates are running the asylum.

I sense an opportunity - possibly a commercial opportunity -
here.

The existing software is too complicated to maintain, and
systems are failing. Have you seen the movie "Idiocracy"?
I believe it is already happening.

PDOS is basically as simple as I can make it. That also
means it has the most chance of being maintainable.

The supporting infrastructure has one thing that is too
complicated to maintain - gcc.

That can currently be treated as a black box. cc64 is
in the same boat.

We have been attempting for years/decades to stand
up a replacement, but it hasn't happened yet.

At some point I may be able to run bank software,
where my bank software is on a fully understood by
normal programmers  - not a few freaks that are dying
out - system, and so some bank that uses my software
is more competitive than other banks that use the
latest 2048-bit system with 5000 Tbps fiber optic
connections, that is permanently broken at the software
side - or even if it is on the hardware side - no-one
can detect that, because they can't prove - or even
report - it - via software - to the hardware engineers
so that they can correct it.

I've seen that first hand. On a POSIX system, we were
getting intermittent hangs on the software side. And I
think we didn't even know whether it was on the disk
or network side.

I told them this is not something for us application
programmers to solve - we need systems programming
support, who will then liase with the OS, 3rd party
software, and hardware manufacturers as required.

"what's a system programmer?".

(that's a term familiar on MVS)

It was a complete clown show. Again - I'm not alone.
Jeff in the original link expressed it very nicely.

I think it was solved when multiple bits of third party
software were downgraded.

As far as I know, the problem was never isolated and
reported to a vendor.

Certainly whenever Windows freezes on me, I don't
report it to Microsoft.

You can report PDOS bugs to me easily though, and
at least to date, they are investigated without charge.

You can sort of do that with any bugs in MVS (z/OS)
too.

That's the only competitor to PDOS I'm aware of,
and indeed, I would encourage you to use my
competitor, rather than PDOS, for now.

I am already aware that your (non-specific reader)
mileage varies, but you're welcome to repeat that
anyway. And it will be ignored, as usual. I already
know we (non-specific) have different goals too.

BFN. Paul.



Date Sujet#  Auteur
20 May07:06 * encapsulating directory operations160Paul Edwards
20 May08:27 +* Re: encapsulating directory operations21Lawrence D'Oliveiro
20 May10:33 i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations20Paul Edwards
21 May01:10 i `* Re: encapsulating directory operations19Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 May01:23 i  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations18Paul Edwards
21 May04:37 i   `* Re: encapsulating directory operations17Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 May11:00 i    +* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Paul Edwards
22 May07:49 i    i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
22 May08:02 i    i `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Kaz Kylheku
22 May00:51 i    `* Re: encapsulating directory operations13James Kuyper
22 May06:04 i     `* Re: encapsulating directory operations12Lawrence D'Oliveiro
22 May19:13 i      `* Re: encapsulating directory operations11James Kuyper
22 May23:46 i       `* Re: encapsulating directory operations10Lawrence D'Oliveiro
23 May00:07 i        `* Re: encapsulating directory operations9James Kuyper
23 May00:15 i         `* Re: encapsulating directory operations8Kaz Kylheku
23 May00:26 i          +* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Paul Edwards
23 May01:44 i          i+- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Kaz Kylheku
24 May03:26 i          i`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
23 May01:10 i          `* Re: encapsulating directory operations4James Kuyper
23 May03:08 i           `* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Kaz Kylheku
24 May00:29 i            `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2James Kuyper
24 May01:08 i             `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Kaz Kylheku
20 May10:18 +* Re: encapsulating directory operations58Keith Thompson
20 May10:33 i+* Re: encapsulating directory operations14Richard Heathfield
20 May10:45 ii+- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Paul Edwards
20 May12:42 ii+- Re: encapsulating directory operations1David Brown
20 May14:55 ii+* Re: encapsulating directory operations7Kaz Kylheku
20 May15:05 iii`* Re: encapsulating directory operations6Richard Heathfield
20 May15:09 iii +* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Muttley
20 May15:15 iii i`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Paul Edwards
20 May15:48 iii `* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Paul Edwards
20 May16:02 iii  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Richard Heathfield
20 May16:28 iii   `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Paul Edwards
23 May13:43 ii`* Re: encapsulating directory operations4Tim Rentsch
23 May14:27 ii `* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Richard Heathfield
24 May06:32 ii  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Tim Rentsch
24 May06:54 ii   `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Richard Heathfield
20 May10:36 i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations43Paul Edwards
20 May13:23 i +* Re: encapsulating directory operations39David Brown
20 May14:47 i i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations38Paul Edwards
20 May15:37 i i +* Re: encapsulating directory operations10Richard Heathfield
20 May16:11 i i i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations9Paul Edwards
20 May16:43 i i i `* Re: encapsulating directory operations8Richard Heathfield
20 May22:15 i i i  +* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Paul Edwards
20 May23:50 i i i  i`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Kaz Kylheku
21 May02:11 i i i  +- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 May03:40 i i i  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations4James Kuyper
21 May05:50 i i i   `* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Richard Heathfield
21 May09:06 i i i    `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2David Brown
21 May09:27 i i i     `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Richard Heathfield
20 May17:19 i i `* Re: encapsulating directory operations27David Brown
20 May17:43 i i  +* Re: encapsulating directory operations6Richard Heathfield
20 May18:14 i i  i+* Re: encapsulating directory operations4Kaz Kylheku
20 May18:20 i i  ii`* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Richard Heathfield
20 May19:50 i i  ii +- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Richard Heathfield
20 May20:34 i i  ii `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Kaz Kylheku
21 May09:09 i i  i`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1David Brown
20 May17:51 i i  +- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Kaz Kylheku
20 May18:09 i i  +* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Richard Heathfield
20 May19:34 i i  i`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Richard Heathfield
20 May22:41 i i  +* Re: encapsulating directory operations4Paul Edwards
20 May23:02 i i  i+- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Keith Thompson
21 May02:05 i i  i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 May10:23 i i  i `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Paul Edwards
20 May22:51 i i  +* Re: encapsulating directory operations9Paul Edwards
21 May05:31 i i  i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations8Richard Heathfield
21 May11:08 i i  i `* Re: encapsulating directory operations7Paul Edwards
21 May11:28 i i  i  +- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Richard Heathfield
21 May16:00 i i  i  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations5David Brown
21 May16:37 i i  i   `* Re: encapsulating directory operations4Richard Heathfield
21 May18:21 i i  i    +- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Michael S
22 May11:37 i i  i    `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2James Kuyper
22 May18:53 i i  i     `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Kaz Kylheku
20 May23:09 i i  +- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Paul Edwards
21 May09:27 i i  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations3David Brown
21 May11:46 i i   `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Paul Edwards
21 May15:46 i i    `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1David Brown
21 May01:12 i `* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 May01:25 i  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Paul Edwards
21 May02:03 i   `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
20 May14:53 +* Re: encapsulating directory operations75Kaz Kylheku
20 May15:12 i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations74Paul Edwards
20 May22:41 i `* Re: encapsulating directory operations73Keith Thompson
20 May23:38 i  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations72Paul Edwards
21 May00:09 i   +* Re: encapsulating directory operations5Paul Edwards
21 May00:22 i   i+- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Keith Thompson
21 May01:18 i   i+* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Kaz Kylheku
21 May01:31 i   ii`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Paul Edwards
21 May02:02 i   i`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 May00:18 i   +* Re: encapsulating directory operations57Keith Thompson
21 May00:57 i   i+* Re: encapsulating directory operations49Paul Edwards
21 May06:41 i   ii`* Re: encapsulating directory operations48Keith Thompson
21 May11:41 i   ii +* Re: encapsulating directory operations43Paul Edwards
21 May19:06 i   ii i+* Re: encapsulating directory operations40Keith Thompson
21 May19:22 i   ii ii+- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Keith Thompson
22 May22:10 i   ii ii+* Re: encapsulating directory operations35Paul Edwards
22 May23:32 i   ii iii+* Re: encapsulating directory operations33Keith Thompson
23 May00:16 i   ii iiii+* Re: encapsulating directory operations18Paul Edwards
23 May02:38 i   ii iiiii+* Re: encapsulating directory operations5Keith Thompson
25 May23:12 i   ii iiiiii`* Re: encapsulating directory operations4Paul Edwards
25 May23:34 i   ii iiiiii `* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Keith Thompson
23 May03:28 i   ii iiiii+* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Kaz Kylheku
23 May06:08 i   ii iiiii`* Re: encapsulating directory operations10Janis Papanagnou
23 May16:09 i   ii iiii`* Re: encapsulating directory operations14Richard Harnden
22 May23:44 i   ii iii`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Paul Edwards
22 May23:06 i   ii ii`* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Paul Edwards
21 May20:31 i   ii i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Kaz Kylheku
22 May22:52 i   ii `* Re: encapsulating directory operations4Paul Edwards
21 May03:21 i   i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations7Kaz Kylheku
21 May03:26 i   +* Re: encapsulating directory operations7James Kuyper
21 May22:19 i   `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Waldek Hebisch
21 May03:35 +* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Janis Papanagnou
22 May19:34 +- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Bonita Montero
25 May06:10 `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Tim Rentsch

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal