Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily

In article <vllcgq$2mphu$1@dont-email.me>,  <Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:

On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 17:19:56 -0000 (UTC)
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wibbled:

In article <vljmc6$29tkd$1@dont-email.me>,  <Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:

On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 16:02:51 -0000 (UTC)

In the kernel, it sure is.  Unix programmers have been writing
asynchronous programs (using e.g. `fork`) since 1970.

>
Thats not what we're discussion here and you know it.

>
Actually, it is.

>
Ah ok, goalposts moved. Why not some straw men while you're at it?
>

https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/bash.git/tree/sig.c?h=devel#n691

>
Basically sets flags.

>
Did you actually read and understand any of that code?

>
Did you?

Yes.  I see that the call chains invoked from that handler wind
up calling things like `malloc`.  I guess you couldn't read the
code well enough to see that for yourself.

Not a clever way to do it because an xterm and other terminal progs can
indirectly cause a whole load of SIGWINCH to be created if someone is

resizing

it and only the final one really needs the ioctl call done. Better to set a
flag then manually do a call when appropriate.

>
Ok.  You may even be right!  But tell me: where would you check
those flags?

>
Presuably a genius like you would know most terminal programs have a seperate
thread or a multiplex timeout in order to flash the cursor. You work out
the rest.

Right, handwave away those very real concerns.  We're talking
about Unix here, not code running on some microcontroller; code
might be sitting in some tight loop doing computation for
arbitrarily long.

Regardless, here you are, again, moving the goalposts in the
face of evidence that contradicted your earlier position.

>
Irony, love it.
>

There are always exceptions to every rule. You seem to be so desperate to
win this argument I can only assume your fragile ego has been burst by
someone having the temerity to disagree with you. Tough, suck it up.

>
Ah, here we go.  The classic attempt at an insult.

>
If the shoe fits.
>

Look, you made categorical, definitive statements.  Those
statements were factually incorrect.  I pointed that out.  You

>
No, I stated the majority approach to using signals. You disagree which is
fine, but don't pretent your view is THE view, it isn't.

Bluntly, I don't see any evidence that you are qualified enough
to make any statement regarding the "majority approach" to,
well, just about anything related to the domain, let alone the
industry writ large.  On the other hand, despite you assuring us
that we should just take your word for it that you're some kind
of expert, I see plenty of evidence in the form of factually
incorrect statements to conclude that you don't know what you're
about generally.

In other words, no, I'm not just taking your word for it, but
instead trusting the evidence before me.

Perhaps I am not the one with the fragile ego that needs to suck
it up when disagreed with.

>
Ego size on usenet is almost always correlated with the verbiage of a reply.

I'm not the one who started with dishing out insults at the
first person who disagreed with me.

Feel free to have the last word, but absent some actually
technical point, I'm done with you.

- Dan C.