469,318 Members | 1,937 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,318 developers. It's quick & easy.

Question on device driver ?

Hi to All,

In linux device driver programming Why we insert obj. file [module] not
..exe file in to the Kernel ?

Sep 16 '07 #1
78 2832
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 14:21:47 +0200 (CEST), P Shetty <ps@nospam.com>
wrote in comp.lang.c:
Hi to All,

In linux device driver programming Why we insert obj. file [module] not
.exe file in to the Kernel ?
This is not a C language question, it is a Linux operating system
question. Ask in one of the news:comp.os.linux.development.* groups.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.club.cc.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html
Sep 16 '07 #2
In article <f5********************************@4ax.com>,
Jack Klein <ja*******@spamcop.netwrote:
>On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 14:21:47 +0200 (CEST), P Shetty <ps@nospam.com>
wrote in comp.lang.c:
>Hi to All,

In linux device driver programming Why we insert obj. file [module] not
.exe file in to the Kernel ?

This is not a C language question, it is a Linux operating system
question. Ask in one of the news:comp.os.linux.development.* groups.
Actually, it's not really a question at all, in any meaningful sense of
the word. It is pretty much equivalent to:

Why do dogs have 10 legs?

Sep 16 '07 #3
I don't understand what you mean by that!

Does no one here at all write device drivers ?!?!?!?

:(
On 16 Sep 2007 at 18:51, Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article <f5********************************@4ax.com>,
Jack Klein <ja*******@spamcop.netwrote:
>>On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 14:21:47 +0200 (CEST), P Shetty <ps@nospam.com>
wrote in comp.lang.c:
>>Hi to All,

In linux device driver programming Why we insert obj. file [module] not
.exe file in to the Kernel ?

This is not a C language question, it is a Linux operating system
question. Ask in one of the news:comp.os.linux.development.* groups.

Actually, it's not really a question at all, in any meaningful sense of
the word. It is pretty much equivalent to:

Why do dogs have 10 legs?

Sep 16 '07 #4
On 16 Sep, 20:21, P Shetty <p...@nospam.comwrote:
Does no one here at all write device drivers ?!?!?!?
Probably some people here do. However, they don't talk about it here -
they talk aboput it in newsgroups relating to their operating systems.
Jack has pointed some suitable ones out for you. Here, people just
talk about the standard C language. And moan about people who put
their replies in front of the text they are replying to.

Sep 16 '07 #5

"P Shetty" <ps@nospam.comwrote in message
news:sl********************@nospam.invalid...
Hi to All,

In linux device driver programming Why we insert obj. file [module] not
.exe file in to the Kernel ?
EXEs are "stand alone" units, applications. They
run at a higher level with respect to the Kernel.
EXEs have a "main" function, OBJs may not have
one. OBJs are pieces of code. Being pieces of
code they are well suited to be used as extensions
for different kind of cores (kernels being one)

Sep 16 '07 #6
In article <sl********************@nospam.invalid>,
P Shetty <ps@nospam.comwrote:
>In linux device driver programming Why we insert obj. file [module] not
.exe file in to the Kernel ?
By definition, an operating system kernel is a single program.
(Though QNX and Plan9 might fudge on that definition.)

You are proposing to add additional *programs*, rather than
to add additional *routines*.

Besides, Linux doesn't use .exe files for its programs -- .exe files
are Windows (or some other operating systems, such as VMS.)

--
If you lie to the compiler, it will get its revenge. -- Henry Spencer
Sep 16 '07 #7
>I don't understand what you mean by that!
>
Does no one here at all write device drivers ?!?!?!?
It's off-topic for this group. Some people in this group may raise
pit bulls, but that's off-topic too. Device drivers are system-specific.
There are many C implementations that don't use *.obj or *.exe files
at all. I thought Linux was one of these.
>>>Hi to All,

In linux device driver programming Why we insert obj. file [module] not
.exe file in to the Kernel ?
Sep 16 '07 #8
P Shetty wrote:
Hi to All,

In linux device driver programming Why we insert obj. file [module] not
.exe file in to the Kernel ?
You can view the kernel as a single C program executing in a
freestanding environment, where the device drivers interface the
hardware for it.
The drivers need to handle hardware, service interrupts, there is no
time for waiting for some task manager, or wasting time on process
swapping...
In kernel space, there is only one program executing, and users like to
be able to install new drivers, without being forced to re-boot or
re-compile their system.

So, having dynamically loadable kernel modules, is a major advantage.

--
Tor <torust [at] online [dot] no>
Sep 16 '07 #9
runner wrote:
"P Shetty" <ps@nospam.comwrote in message
>In linux device driver programming Why we insert obj. file
[module] not .exe file in to the Kernel ?

EXEs are "stand alone" units, applications. They run at a higher
level with respect to the Kernel. EXEs have a "main" function,
OBJs may not have one. OBJs are pieces of code. Being pieces of
code they are well suited to be used as extensions for different
kind of cores (kernels being one)
Both EXE and OBJ files are peculiar to specific systems, mostly
Windoze, and are thus firmly off topic on c.l.c.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Sep 17 '07 #10

"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:46***************@yahoo.com...
runner wrote:
"P Shetty" <ps@nospam.comwrote in message
In linux device driver programming Why we insert obj. file
[module] not .exe file in to the Kernel ?
EXEs are "stand alone" units, applications. They run at a higher
level with respect to the Kernel. EXEs have a "main" function,
OBJs may not have one. OBJs are pieces of code. Being pieces of
code they are well suited to be used as extensions for different
kind of cores (kernels being one)

Both EXE and OBJ files are peculiar to specific systems, mostly
Windoze, and are thus firmly off topic on c.l.c.
If the OP had a clear idea of the differences bewteen
executables and object code in general, he/she wouldn't
have any problem in answering to his/her own question.
Such a difference, i guess, should still belong to comp.lang.C.

Sep 17 '07 #11
gw****@aol.com wrote:
On 16 Sep, 20:21, P Shetty <p...@nospam.comwrote:
>Does no one here at all write device drivers ?!?!?!?

Probably some people here do. However, they don't talk about it here -
they talk aboput it in newsgroups relating to their operating systems.
Jack has pointed some suitable ones out for you. Here, people just
talk about the standard C language. And moan about people who put
their replies in front of the text they are replying to.
I did.
on a pdp 7 18 bit 8K computer,pdp 11-3, arc310, bbc_b , xt, at, pentium ,
in assembler,fortran, basic, c and(reluctantly) in c++(486 and higher).
And I am happy to forget about most of them.
But that is totally system dependent, and as such of course not portable.
As long as you work on only 1 system, read manuals, search for
examples of drivers, and dont count on much support of this newsgroup.
Try to find newsgroups closer to your platform, because it is impossible
to advise you on a general newsgroup.
Sep 17 '07 #12
runner wrote, On 17/09/07 01:19:
"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:46***************@yahoo.com...
>runner wrote:
>>"P Shetty" <ps@nospam.comwrote in message

In linux device driver programming Why we insert obj. file
[module] not .exe file in to the Kernel ?
EXEs are "stand alone" units, applications. They run at a higher
level with respect to the Kernel. EXEs have a "main" function,
OBJs may not have one. OBJs are pieces of code. Being pieces of
code they are well suited to be used as extensions for different
kind of cores (kernels being one)
Both EXE and OBJ files are peculiar to specific systems, mostly
Windoze, and are thus firmly off topic on c.l.c.

If the OP had a clear idea of the differences bewteen
executables and object code in general, he/she wouldn't
have any problem in answering to his/her own question.
Possibly true.
Such a difference, i guess, should still belong to comp.lang.C.
I definitely disagree with this. It is no more to do with C than it is
Fortran, Pascal or many other language. Either a more general group than
comp.lang.c would be appropriate if discussing general principals or a
group dedicated to the specific target if talking about a specific
target. Groups of both types exist for good reasons.
--
Flash Gordon
Sep 17 '07 #13

"Flash Gordon" <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote in message
news:88************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk...
runner wrote, On 17/09/07 01:19:
"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:46***************@yahoo.com...
runner wrote:
"P Shetty" <ps@nospam.comwrote in message

In linux device driver programming Why we insert obj. file
[module] not .exe file in to the Kernel ?
EXEs are "stand alone" units, applications. They run at a higher
level with respect to the Kernel. EXEs have a "main" function,
OBJs may not have one. OBJs are pieces of code. Being pieces of
code they are well suited to be used as extensions for different
kind of cores (kernels being one)
Both EXE and OBJ files are peculiar to specific systems, mostly
Windoze, and are thus firmly off topic on c.l.c.
If the OP had a clear idea of the differences bewteen
executables and object code in general, he/she wouldn't
have any problem in answering to his/her own question.

Possibly true.
Such a difference, i guess, should still belong to comp.lang.C.

I definitely disagree with this. It is no more to do with C than it is
Fortran, Pascal or many other language. Either a more general group than
comp.lang.c would be appropriate if discussing general principals or a
group dedicated to the specific target if talking about a specific
target. Groups of both types exist for good reasons.
--
Flash Gordon
If an OP cannot tell the difference between a couple of
concepts (because that's what he/she's looking for), it would
be harder for him/her to find the right place to ask the question.

Sep 17 '07 #14
runner wrote, On 17/09/07 21:58:
"Flash Gordon" <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote in message
news:88************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk...
>runner wrote, On 17/09/07 01:19:
<snip off topic stuff>
>>Such a difference, i guess, should still belong to comp.lang.C.
I definitely disagree with this. It is no more to do with C than it is
Fortran, Pascal or many other language. Either a more general group than
comp.lang.c would be appropriate if discussing general principals or a
group dedicated to the specific target if talking about a specific
target. Groups of both types exist for good reasons.
--
Flash Gordon
Please don't quote signatures, the bit typically after the "-- " unless
you are actually commenting on them.
If an OP cannot tell the difference between a couple of
concepts (because that's what he/she's looking for), it would
be harder for him/her to find the right place to ask the question.
So? Are you claiming you don't know the difference between the concepts
and so find it hard to find the correct place as well? Someone that does
not know anything about string theory might find it harder to find the
right place to ask, it does not make that topical here either. In any
case, at least one person did suggest where the question would be more
appropriate.
--
Flash Gordon
Sep 17 '07 #15
"runner" wrote:
If an OP cannot tell the difference between a couple of
concepts (because that's what he/she's looking for), it would
be harder for him/her to find the right place to ask the question.
"Flash Gordon" wrote:
So? Are you claiming you don't know the difference between the concepts
and so find it hard to find the correct place as well? Someone that does
not know anything about string theory might find it harder to find the
right place to ask,
Ok
it does not make that topical here either.
I never said it does. I just dropped the "Is It Off Topic?"
thing because i didn't want to start another long thread
about what is off topic and what is not.

Executables and object code are general concepts
belonging to several programming languages.
Loops are general concepts belonging to several
programming languages, but they are not off topic.
In any
case, at least one person did suggest where the question would be more
appropriate.
I saw that.

--
Sep 17 '07 #16
P Shetty wrote:
>
I don't understand what you mean by that!

Does no one here at all write device drivers ?!?!?!?
[...]

I did, long ago. However, device drivers are, by there very nature,
very platform-specific. And, as such, any discussion about how to
write a device driver belongs in a group devoted to programming on
that platform.

As someone else pointed out, there is an enture tree of such groups
under comp.os.linux.development.
>In linux device driver programming Why we insert obj. file
[module] not .exe file in to the Kernel ?
And you'll probably get better answers if you use the proper
terminology. I don't believe that Linux use ".obj" and ".exe"
files. (Or, at least, it doesn't call them by those names.)

--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | #include |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | <std_disclaimer.h|
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:Th*************@gmail.com>

Sep 18 '07 #17
runner wrote, On 18/09/07 00:56:
"runner" wrote:
>>If an OP cannot tell the difference between a couple of
concepts (because that's what he/she's looking for), it would
be harder for him/her to find the right place to ask the question.

"Flash Gordon" wrote:
>So? Are you claiming you don't know the difference between the concepts
and so find it hard to find the correct place as well? Someone that does
not know anything about string theory might find it harder to find the
right place to ask,

Ok
OK is not an answer to the question.
>it does not make that topical here either.

I never said it does. I just dropped the "Is It Off Topic?"
thing because i didn't want to start another long thread
about what is off topic and what is not.
You said, "Such a difference, i guess, should still belong to
comp.lang.C." This reads like a claim that you think it is topical and
is certainly very different from "Is It Off Topic?" which is a question.
Executables and object code are general concepts
belonging to several programming languages.
Loops are general concepts belonging to several
programming languages, but they are not off topic.
Only the subset of possible loop constructs supported by the C language
are topical here. Executable and object files are not topical here.
Never heard of C interpreters?
>In any
case, at least one person did suggest where the question would be more
appropriate.

I saw that.
So did you not just accept it when it was pointed out to you that it is
off topic here?
--
Flash Gordon
Sep 18 '07 #18
In article <9m************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>,
Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote:
>runner wrote, On 18/09/07 00:56:
>"runner" wrote:
>>>If an OP cannot tell the difference between a couple of
concepts (because that's what he/she's looking for), it would
be harder for him/her to find the right place to ask the question.

"Flash Gordon" wrote:
>>So? Are you claiming you don't know the difference between the concepts
and so find it hard to find the correct place as well? Someone that does
not know anything about string theory might find it harder to find the
right place to ask,

Ok

OK is not an answer to the question.
Rest of drivel - deleted.

Just how long has it been since you've seen the sun or smelled a flower?

I suggest you look into it - getting a life and all that.

Sep 18 '07 #19

"Flash Gordon" <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote in message
news:9m************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk...
runner wrote, On 18/09/07 00:56:
"runner" wrote:
>If an OP cannot tell the difference between a couple of
concepts (because that's what he/she's looking for), it would
be harder for him/her to find the right place to ask the question.
"Flash Gordon" wrote:
So? Are you claiming you don't know the difference between the concepts
and so find it hard to find the correct place as well? Someone that
does
not know anything about string theory might find it harder to find the
right place to ask,
Ok

OK is not an answer to the question.
You replied to your own question and i simply stated
that your answer is a good one.
it does not make that topical here either.
I never said it does. I just dropped the "Is It Off Topic?"
thing because i didn't want to start another long thread
about what is off topic and what is not.

You said, "Such a difference, i guess, should still belong to
comp.lang.C." This reads like a claim that you think it is topical and
is certainly very different from "Is It Off Topic?" which is a question.
I'm not so haughty to make any claim. I said, it "should still
belong" and i didn't say, it "**definitely** belongs". (See also
"i guess")
Executables and object code are general concepts
belonging to several programming languages.
Loops are general concepts belonging to several
programming languages, but they are not off topic.

Only the subset of possible loop constructs supported by the C language
are topical here. Executable and object files are not topical here.
The next time i will get an "index" of a C Language reference.
Never heard of C interpreters?
What should i say !? You're striking.
In any
case, at least one person did suggest where the question would be more
appropriate.
I saw that.

So did you not just accept it when it was pointed out to you that it is
off topic here?
It's not a matter of accepting.

1) I gave my reply to the OP.
2) It was pointed out that "Executables & Co." were off topic.
3) I had the impression that talking about Device Drivers
were definitely off topic but talking about "Ex & Co."
might still be tolerated *every now and then* .

I'm not expecting that "Ex & Co." will become topical here,
and i just couldn't care less.

Sep 18 '07 #20
runner wrote:
"Flash Gordon" <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote:
.... snip ...
>>
So did you not just accept it when it was pointed out to you that
it is off topic here?

It's not a matter of accepting.

1) I gave my reply to the OP.
Usenet is not a private message system - that is what e-mail is
normally used for. Everything published here is totally public.
To keep things reasonable each newsgroup has a defined area of
topicality, and posting outside this sort of subject are frowned
upon. You ignored that, which does not gain you great respect or
admiration.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Sep 19 '07 #21
"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.coma écrit dans le message de news:
46***************@yahoo.com...
runner wrote:
>"Flash Gordon" <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote:
... snip ...
>>>
So did you not just accept it when it was pointed out to you that
it is off topic here?

It's not a matter of accepting.

1) I gave my reply to the OP.

Usenet is not a private message system - that is what e-mail is
normally used for. Everything published here is totally public.
To keep things reasonable each newsgroup has a defined area of
topicality, and posting outside this sort of subject are frowned
upon. You ignored that, which does not gain you great respect or
admiration.
Guess what? Talking about netiquette is off topic here, talking about taking
or not talking about topicality too. This forum is dedicated to the C
language. The number meta-posts greatly outnumber the regular
questions/answers about C. Could we cut down on this waste?

--
Chqrlie.
Sep 19 '07 #22
"Charlie Gordon" <ne**@chqrlie.orgwrote:
"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.coma écrit dans le message de news:
46***************@yahoo.com...
Usenet is not a private message system - that is what e-mail is
normally used for. Everything published here is totally public.
To keep things reasonable each newsgroup has a defined area of
topicality, and posting outside this sort of subject are frowned
upon. You ignored that, which does not gain you great respect or
admiration.

Guess what? Talking about netiquette is off topic here, talking about taking
or not talking about topicality too.
Wrong. Topicality is _always_ on-topic in any group.

Richard
Sep 19 '07 #23
In article <46*****************@news.xs4all.nl>,
Richard Bos <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nlwrote:
>Wrong. Topicality is _always_ on-topic in any group.
A convention that would be worth changing, I think.

-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
Sep 19 '07 #24
Charlie Gordon wrote:
"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.coma écrit:
.... snip ...
>
>Usenet is not a private message system - that is what e-mail is
normally used for. Everything published here is totally public.
To keep things reasonable each newsgroup has a defined area of
topicality, and posting outside this sort of subject are frowned
upon. You ignored that, which does not gain you great respect or
admiration.

Guess what? Talking about netiquette is off topic here, talking
about taking or not talking about topicality too. This forum is
dedicated to the C language. The number meta-posts greatly
outnumber the regular questions/answers about C. Could we cut
down on this waste?
I'm afraid you are wrong here. Discussions of topicality are
always on topic, in any newsgroup, and similarly netiquette. The
point is that it is necessary to advise contravenors of their
errors.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Sep 19 '07 #25
ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
In article <46*****************@news.xs4all.nl>,
Richard Bos <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nlwrote:
Wrong. Topicality is _always_ on-topic in any group.

A convention that would be worth changing, I think.
Where else, then, to dicuss the topicality of posts in foo.bar.qux,
except in foo.bar.qux itself? Or would you add an Evil Dot-d Group for
every single newsgroup in Usenet?

Richard
Sep 19 '07 #26
In article <46*****************@news.xs4all.nl>,
Richard Bos <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nlwrote:
>Wrong. Topicality is _always_ on-topic in any group.
>A convention that would be worth changing, I think.
>Where else, then, to dicuss the topicality of posts in foo.bar.qux,
except in foo.bar.qux itself?
I fail to see the problem...

-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
Sep 19 '07 #27

"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:46***************@yahoo.com...
runner wrote:
"Flash Gordon" <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote:
... snip ...
>
So did you not just accept it when it was pointed out to you that
it is off topic here?
It's not a matter of accepting.

1) I gave my reply to the OP.
>To keep things reasonable each newsgroup has a defined area of
topicality, and posting outside this sort of subject are frowned
upon.
"Frowning" is off topic, not in the C Language Reference index.
>You ignored that,
Not true. It's you that ignored my point 3) Your sentence
is too *bold* (you might solve the issue by changing your
fonts. Restarting the system is not required)
>which does not gain you great respect or admiration.
Who talked about admiration and respect?
They are off topic, after all.

Sep 19 '07 #28
CBFalconer wrote:
runner wrote:
>"Flash Gordon" <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote:
... snip ...
>>So did you not just accept it when it was pointed out to you that
it is off topic here?
It's not a matter of accepting.

1) I gave my reply to the OP.

Usenet is not a private message system - that is what e-mail is
normally used for. Everything published here is totally public.
To keep things reasonable each newsgroup has a defined area of
topicality, and posting outside this sort of subject are frowned
upon. You ignored that, which does not gain you great respect or
admiration.
You are always such a good traffic cop.
Always you point out off topic postings.

EXCEPT

When heathfield and co start posting things like a lengthy
discussion of british measures (dozens of posts)
or now another "Ode to Keith" where they hone
their writing skills you remain silent
because they are the "regulars" after all.

THEY have the RIGHT to post ANYTHING here without
being bothered. When I protested they started their
usual insulting spree.

Sep 19 '07 #29
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article <46*****************@news.xs4all.nl>,
Richard Bos <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nlwrote:
Wrong. Topicality is always on-topic in any group.
A convention that would be worth changing, I think.
Where else, then, to dicuss the topicality of posts in foo.bar.qux,
except in foo.bar.qux itself?

I fail to see the problem...
Then the only solution is to discard topicality altogether. Do you
really want to have anything and everything be topical here?


Brian
Sep 19 '07 #30
Default User wrote:
Richard Tobin wrote:
>In article <46*****************@news.xs4all.nl>,
Richard Bos <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nlwrote:
>>>>Wrong. Topicality is always on-topic in any group.
A convention that would be worth changing, I think.
Where else, then, to dicuss the topicality of posts in foo.bar.qux,
except in foo.bar.qux itself?
I fail to see the problem...

Then the only solution is to discard topicality altogether. Do you
really want to have anything and everything be topical here?


Brian
Didn't you see the thread about english measures?

Dozens of messages.

Didn't you see the "literary" thread "Ode to Keith"?

Dozens of messages. But Nooooone of all the
traffic cops here says anything against it.

Why?

Because Heathfield and Co started those.

THEY have the right to start blatantly off topic threads,
and when I protest the usual tirade of insults starts.

jacob
Sep 19 '07 #31
CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:
runner wrote:
>"Flash Gordon" <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote:
... snip ...
>>>
So did you not just accept it when it was pointed out to you that
it is off topic here?

It's not a matter of accepting.

1) I gave my reply to the OP.

Usenet is not a private message system - that is what e-mail is
normally used for. Everything published here is totally public.
To keep things reasonable each newsgroup has a defined area of
topicality, and posting outside this sort of subject are frowned
upon. You ignored that, which does not gain you great respect or
admiration.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Oh please. This is *so* c.l.c. Give us all a break and stick a sock in
it. The poster was polite and tagged his replies accordingly. Topicality
is always a little malleable. Also, there seems to be something wrong
with your .sig delimiter and I believe this has been mentioned
before. Please fix it according to the high standards you are constantly
foisting onto other less beings.
Sep 19 '07 #32
CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:
Charlie Gordon wrote:
>"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.coma écrit:
... snip ...
>>
>>Usenet is not a private message system - that is what e-mail is
normally used for. Everything published here is totally public.
To keep things reasonable each newsgroup has a defined area of
topicality, and posting outside this sort of subject are frowned
upon. You ignored that, which does not gain you great respect or
admiration.

Guess what? Talking about netiquette is off topic here, talking
about taking or not talking about topicality too. This forum is
dedicated to the C language. The number meta-posts greatly
outnumber the regular questions/answers about C. Could we cut
down on this waste?

I'm afraid you are wrong here. Discussions of topicality are
always on topic, in any newsgroup, and similarly netiquette. The
point is that it is necessary to advise contravenors of their
errors.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
And I am afraid that by not correctly setting your signature, news
readers are unable to snip your blatant fishing for work. Your job
search is most certainly Off Topic here.

Sep 19 '07 #33
In article <jv************@news.individual.net>,
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:
>CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:
>--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
>And I am afraid that by not correctly setting your signature, news
readers are unable to snip your blatant fishing for work. Your job
search is most certainly Off Topic here.
Chuck's .signature *is* correct: two dashes followed by a space
and then the end of line.

It isn't Chuck's fault if your newsreader only looks for the *last*
such instance instead of the *first* such instance. Everything
after the *first* such instance is signature, including
anything that might happen to look like the signature delimeter.

--
If you lie to the compiler, it will get its revenge. -- Henry Spencer
Sep 19 '07 #34
ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) writes:
In article <jv************@news.individual.net>,
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:
>>CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:
>>--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
>>And I am afraid that by not correctly setting your signature, news
readers are unable to snip your blatant fishing for work. Your job
search is most certainly Off Topic here.

Chuck's .signature *is* correct: two dashes followed by a space
and then the end of line.

It isn't Chuck's fault if your newsreader only looks for the *last*
such instance instead of the *first* such instance. Everything
after the *first* such instance is signature, including
anything that might happen to look like the signature delimeter.
Chuck's signature is NOT correct. The fact that his ISP adds the other
one means HIS one is not valid. You can not have two signatures. His
posts do.
Sep 19 '07 #35
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:35:52 +0200, Richard wrote:
Chuck's signature is NOT correct. The fact that his ISP adds the other
one means HIS one is not valid. You can not have two signatures. His
posts do.
Son of RFC 1036 simply states that the signature is delimited by "-- " -
it does not say that the signature itself must not contain "-- ". I would
suggest that Chuck's signatures are entirely valid, and in fact each
posting has but on signature, just one that also includes "-- ".

B.
Sep 19 '07 #36
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
[...]
Didn't you see the "literary" thread "Ode to Keith"?

Dozens of messages. But Nooooone of all the
traffic cops here says anything against it.

Why?

Because Heathfield and Co started those.
No, Wade Ward started the "Ode to Keith" thread, and I tried to stop
it.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Sep 19 '07 #37
Rob Kendrick said:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:35:52 +0200, Richard wrote:
>Chuck's signature is NOT correct. The fact that his ISP adds the other
one means HIS one is not valid. You can not have two signatures. His
posts do.

Son of RFC 1036 simply states that the signature is delimited by "-- " -
it does not say that the signature itself must not contain "-- ". I
would suggest that Chuck's signatures are entirely valid, and in fact
each posting has but on signature, just one that also includes "-- ".
Sure, it's a "valid" sig in the sense that it's synactically correct.

It does, however, exceed the max-four-lines guideline.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sep 19 '07 #38
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrites:
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
[...]
>Didn't you see the "literary" thread "Ode to Keith"?

Dozens of messages. But Nooooone of all the
traffic cops here says anything against it.

Why?

Because Heathfield and Co started those.

No, Wade Ward started the "Ode to Keith" thread, and I tried to stop
it.
add this to your .gnus.el

(defun cg-gnus-summary-ignore-thread ()
(interactive)
(let* ((hdr (gnus-summary-article-header))
(subj (aref hdr 1)))
(gnus-summary-score-entry "Subject" subj 'S' -1000
(current-time-string))
(gnus-summary-limit-to-unread)
(gnus-summary-scroll-up 0)))

(define-key gnus-summary-mode-map (kbd "<f7>") 'cg-gnus-summary-ignore-thread)

Sep 19 '07 #39
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
Rob Kendrick said:
>On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:35:52 +0200, Richard wrote:
>>Chuck's signature is NOT correct. The fact that his ISP adds the other
one means HIS one is not valid. You can not have two signatures. His
posts do.

Son of RFC 1036 simply states that the signature is delimited by "-- " -
it does not say that the signature itself must not contain "-- ". I
would suggest that Chuck's signatures are entirely valid, and in fact
each posting has but on signature, just one that also includes "-- ".

Sure, it's a "valid" sig in the sense that it's synactically correct.
No it isn't. We are not talking about some sentence. We are talking
about practical usage and common sense. He has TWO sigs.
>
It does, however, exceed the max-four-lines guideline.
It is not a valid signature. He has TWO signatures. No amount of word
games will change that. Since posts can contain "-- " then it is obvious
that the news reader would search from the END of the article and snip
the first. In fact I know of at least two newsreaders where such double
signatures cause problems. Gnus and SLRN.

If he had any conscience at all he would simply sign up to another ISP
which does not tag on that second .sig OR remove his own one. This is
not the only group where this has been nicely mentioned to him. The fact
that he is an interfering busybody and constantly net nannying other
posters makes it all the more irritating.

The bottom line is a simple one : his double sig and ONLY his double sig
causes problems when replying. No one else's causes issues.

Sep 19 '07 #40
In article <Vs*********************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>I'm not overly interested in the opinions of trolls like Richard Riley, but
if we're talking RFCs, Chuck's sig is in excess of four lines; this is a
clear violation of RFC 1855, as has been pointed out to him on
sufficiently many occasions that he should have taken the hint by now.
Richard, I *know* you can read specifications better than that.

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

- If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of thumb
is no longer than 4 lines. Remember that many people pay for
connectivity by the minute, and the longer your message is,
the more they pay.
"Rule of thumb", not "MUST".

For example, "Rule of thumb is that integer representation in C
implementations will be two's complement" is correct: it doesn't say
that other things cannot validly happen, only that it is a good
-approximation-, "in the right ballpark", true sufficiently often
to be a useful starting point.

"Rule of thumb" is not a hard-and-fast rule. The Oxford English
Dictionary indicates,

1. A method or procedure derived entirely from practice or
experience, without any basis in scientific knowledge; a roughly
practical method. Also, a particular stated rule that is based on
practice or experience.

2. attrib.
a. Of methods, etc.: Based merely upon practice or experience.
Also in predicative use.
b. Of persons: Working only by methods derived from practice.
--
"law -- it's a commodity"
-- Andrew Ryan (The Globe and Mail, 2005/11/26)
Sep 19 '07 #41
Walter Roberson said:
In article <Vs*********************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>>I'm not overly interested in the opinions of trolls like Richard Riley,
but if we're talking RFCs, Chuck's sig is in excess of four lines; this
is a clear violation of RFC 1855, as has been pointed out to him on
sufficiently many occasions that he should have taken the hint by now.

Richard, I *know* you can read specifications better than that.
<snip>
"Rule of thumb", not "MUST".
Indeed. Nobody is forcing Chuck to change his sig. Nobody is saying "must".
But by refusing to observe this rule (which, as I understand it, is
specifically designed to make Usenet cheaper for those people who are
still on dialup), he loses any moral high ground from which he might
reasonably criticise netiquette in others.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sep 19 '07 #42
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrites:
[...]
add this to your .gnus.el
[emacs lisp code deleted]

No, thanks.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Sep 19 '07 #43
In article <xN******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>Walter Roberson said:
>In article <Vs*********************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>>>but if we're talking RFCs, Chuck's sig is in excess of four lines; this
is a clear violation of RFC 1855, as has been pointed out to him on
sufficiently many occasions that he should have taken the hint by now.
>"Rule of thumb", not "MUST".
>Indeed. Nobody is forcing Chuck to change his sig. Nobody is saying "must".
Richard, you said, and I quote, "this is in clear violation of RFC 1855".
What part of RFC 1855 is it in "clear" violation of? Be specific.

I already quoted the only relevant portion of RFC 1855 that -I-
could find, and there is no "clear violation" of that section, because
that section only discusses a "rule of thumb" value, not a firm value.
But you wrote "clear violation", so either you were wrong in that
statement and the violation (if that is what it is) is *not* "clear"
or else you had some other section of RFC 1855 in mind.

>But by refusing to observe this rule (which, as I understand it, is
specifically designed to make Usenet cheaper for those people who are
still on dialup), he loses any moral high ground from which he might
reasonably criticise netiquette in others.
There -are- people still on dialup for Usenet, but I have to question
whether the amount of extra data transmitted with respect to
the terranews portion of Chuck's postings has amounted to anywhere
near the verbage we have expended in discussing the issue -- or
discussing ells and the like. Chuck isn't exactly the most verbose
poster around, nor the most frequent. (Now, *I* would be in
contention for the most verbose; though not the most frequent in -this-
newsgroup.)
--
If you lie to the compiler, it will get its revenge. -- Henry Spencer
Sep 19 '07 #44
Walter Roberson wrote:
In article <xN******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>Walter Roberson said:
>>In article <Vs*********************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>>>but if we're talking RFCs, Chuck's sig is in excess of four lines; this
is a clear violation of RFC 1855, as has been pointed out to him on
sufficiently many occasions that he should have taken the hint by now.
>>"Rule of thumb", not "MUST".
>Indeed. Nobody is forcing Chuck to change his sig. Nobody is saying "must".

Richard, you said, and I quote, "this is in clear violation of RFC 1855".
What part of RFC 1855 is it in "clear" violation of? Be specific.

I already quoted the only relevant portion of RFC 1855 that -I-
could find, and there is no "clear violation" of that section, because
that section only discusses a "rule of thumb" value, not a firm value.
But you wrote "clear violation", so either you were wrong in that
statement and the violation (if that is what it is) is *not* "clear"
or else you had some other section of RFC 1855 in mind.

>But by refusing to observe this rule (which, as I understand it, is
specifically designed to make Usenet cheaper for those people who are
still on dialup), he loses any moral high ground from which he might
reasonably criticise netiquette in others.

There -are- people still on dialup for Usenet, but I have to question
whether the amount of extra data transmitted with respect to
the terranews portion of Chuck's postings has amounted to anywhere
near the verbage we have expended in discussing the issue -- or
discussing ells and the like. Chuck isn't exactly the most verbose
poster around, nor the most frequent. (Now, *I* would be in
contention for the most verbose; though not the most frequent in -this-
newsgroup.)
In which world are you living on?

My daughter downloads Japanese films with that e-mule
software... She filled several disk drives, so now she doesn't download
them at all but just watches the movies in comics/japanese "manga"
sites...

I have a 200K/second line just for her.

And you are discussing about the few *bytes* of CBFalconer signature
?????

This is completely ridiculous
Sep 19 '07 #45
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:57:46 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
>
Didn't you see the thread about english measures?
The thread was about something completely different.
>Dozens of messages.
Dozens is ludicrous hyperbole. Perhaps one dozen - all short &
humorous, not droning on mindlessly about how mean everyone was to
them.
>Because Heathfield and Co started those.
This is a lie.
>THEY have the right to start blatantly off topic threads,
This is also a lie.
>and when I protest the usual tirade of insults starts.
What do you expect? You lie about other people, and expect them to
take it without complaint?
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
Sep 19 '07 #46
In article <46**********************@news.orange.fr>,
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
>Walter Roberson wrote:
>There -are- people still on dialup for Usenet, but I have to question
whether the amount of extra data transmitted with respect to
the terranews portion of Chuck's postings has amounted to anywhere
near the verbage we have expended in discussing the issue -- or
discussing ells and the like.
>In which world are you living on?
>My daughter downloads Japanese films with that e-mule
software...
In some of the technical groups I frequent, some of the posters
are still on dialup or lower speed lines.

Canada and the USA are huge places, and not always densely populated.
For example, the Canadian province that I live in, Manitoba
(647797 square km) is larger than the largest country in Europe
(Ukraine, 603700 square km -- though some sources include Russia in Europe,
some don't) and 18% bigger than France (547030 square km). The
population of Manitoba is, though, only 1.2 million, as compared to
France's estimated 63 million (insee.fr, Jan 1 2006). That's a
population density of less than 2 people per square km here, compared
to 115 people per square km in France. That makes it a bit difficult
to get high speed lines outside of the larger cities here.
--
I was very young in those days, but I was also rather dim.
-- Christopher Priest
Sep 19 '07 #47
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:24:28 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
>Always you point out off topic postings.

EXCEPT

When heathfield and co start posting things
You know, your posts become more and more paranoid each time.

Did you ever take a small step back and actually look at how others
see you?

--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
Sep 19 '07 #48
jacob navia wrote, On 19/09/07 22:13:
Walter Roberson wrote:
<snip>
>There -are- people still on dialup for Usenet, but I have to question
<snip>
In which world are you living on?
Walter is living in the real world, the one in which broadband is still
not universally available at a reasonable proce.
My daughter downloads Japanese films with that e-mule
software... She filled several disk drives, so now she doesn't download
them at all but just watches the movies in comics/japanese "manga"
sites...

I have a 200K/second line just for her.
So? Until recently the only broadband available to me was 50UKP per
month for a slower connection than that, this is not cheap and for many
people I know would be far too expensive. There are other places where
the only option is a *very* expensive satalite link or dial up.
And you are discussing about the few *bytes* of CBFalconer signature
?????
I agree it is not worth the amount it is discussed. I wish Chuck would
get it sorted, which is why I offered him access to my own privately run
server, but not enough for this. Note that my main reason for posting is
to point out not everyone has access to broadband even if you and I do.
This is completely ridiculous
Agreed. So is your apparent claim that everyone has access to broadband.
--
Flash Gordon
Sep 19 '07 #49
On Sep 20, 3:24 am, jacob navia <ja...@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
When heathfield and co start posting things like a lengthy
discussion of british measures (dozens of posts)
or now another "Ode to Keith" where they hone
their writing skills you remain silent
because they are the "regulars" after all.
Please stop posting this off-topic drivel.

Sep 19 '07 #50

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

10 posts views Thread by Wouter van Ooijen | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by nbhalala | last post: by
1 post views Thread by Pravin Shetty | last post: by
12 posts views Thread by Steve | last post: by
8 posts views Thread by Tony Liu | last post: by
4 posts views Thread by Anthony P. | last post: by
1 post views Thread by CARIGAR | last post: by
reply views Thread by zhoujie | last post: by
reply views Thread by suresh191 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.