Hi to All,
In linux device driver programming Why we insert obj. file [module] not
..exe file in to the Kernel ?
Sep 16 '07
78  3084 
Walter Roberson said:
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.
No, that's certainly the bit I had in mind. Mea culpa - evidently it wasn't
quite as clear to others as I had thought. But I think Chuck is the only
regular contributor to this group who does not observe the four-line sig
block. If we can squeeze our sigs into four lines, surely he can too?
>>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.)
Oh, I know it's a minor thing; of course it is. So are many of the
violations Chuck complains about, many of which are also not actually
violations of any particular rule, but rather of conventions that have
been established over the years.
Incidentally, here's an interesting quote from 1 Jan 2004, on a newsgroup
named comp.lang.c, from a certain CBFalconer: "Would it be too much to ask
you to remove the PGP signature and the general oversized sig block
(exceeds 4 lines)."
I rest my case.
--
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
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Rob Kendrick said:
>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.
Which is a) a guideline and b) adhered to as my post leaves here.
--
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
Mark McIntyre wrote:
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
.... snip ...
>
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
Using the word 'lie' is automatically anti-social.
To Mark: Ignore the following, it's for other people.
A 6 line sig above.
--
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
jacob navia wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
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.
Heathfield and British are normally capitalized. Omitting this is
simply a further deliberate and unnecessary insult. After about a
year of avoiding insults (and off-topic posts) you might find
yourself better accepted here.
--
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
Walter Roberson wrote:
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.
Sounds as if he muttered something. I have him plonked as an
idiotic non-contributor.
--
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
Mark McIntyre wrote:
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?
Mr McIntyre
It is with regret that I see that I am still not in your killfile.
As heathfield has suggested, a killfile is the only solution for
guys like me isn't it?
Please do so. I would be glad to no longer read your prose.
Yours sincerely
jacob navia
Flash Gordon wrote:
jacob navia wrote, On 19/09/07 22:13:
>This is completely ridiculous
Agreed. So is your apparent claim that everyone has access to broadband.
Look, suppose a 56K bit line, i.e. around 700 characters per second.
CBFalconer's signature is 147 bytes long, i.e. with just dialup
you would have to wait 210 ms for having his signature...
Noisy lines can bring even dialup to lower levels, so you loose at most
a second in a REALLY noisy line!
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote: 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.
No, his posts only have _one_ signature, which starts at the first
separator, and which is massively too long. _That_ is his fault. Using
an idiotically broken newsreader which does not understand this is
yours.
Richard
"jacob navia" <ja***@jacob.remcomp.fra écrit dans le message de news:
46**********************@news.orange.fr...
<snip>
>
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
France is a great place to surf the net, at the forefront of broadband
deployment.
More than half the total households have DSL service, a lot of them with
download speeds above 8 megabits per second, with free calls to 50 countries
and TV over IP for a flat monthly fee of USD 42.
1) Your own experience is not representative of the rest of the world.
2) Even in France, reading Usenet on a cell phone can be costly.
3) This whole discussion is so off topic and unrelated to the thread subject
;-)
--
Chqrlie.
jacob navia wrote, On 20/09/07 06:35:
Mark McIntyre wrote:
<snip>
>Did you ever take a small step back and actually look at how others
see you?
Mr McIntyre
It is with regret that I see that I am still not in your killfile.
As heathfield has suggested, a killfile is the only solution for
guys like me isn't it?
Please do so. I would be glad to no longer read your prose.
You have it backwards. If you do not want to read what someone posts
then *you* put them in *your* killfile.
--
Flash Gordon
jacob navia wrote, On 20/09/07 06:48:
Flash Gordon wrote:
>jacob navia wrote, On 19/09/07 22:13:
>>This is completely ridiculous
Agreed. So is your apparent claim that everyone has access to broadband.
Look, suppose a 56K bit line, i.e. around 700 characters per second.
That is the *maximum*. The normal situation, especially where broadband
is not available, is slower.
CBFalconer's signature is 147 bytes long, i.e. with just dialup
you would have to wait 210 ms for having his signature...
Noisy lines can bring even dialup to lower levels, so you loose at most
a second in a REALLY noisy line!
I've had to wait a few seconds for less on occasion, and if you are poor
and paying per minute, and there are many instances of this it adds up.
In any case, had you read my post you would have seen that I agreed that
all this discussion about Chuck's sig was ridiculous. What I disagreed
with, which is the point of mine quoted above, was your apparent claim
that everyone has access to broadband at a reasonable price.
--
Flash Gordon
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
[...]
Mr McIntyre
It is with regret that I see that I am still not in your killfile.
As heathfield has suggested, a killfile is the only solution for
guys like me isn't it?
Please do so. I would be glad to no longer read your prose.
Um, if you don't want to read his prose, you need to put him in *your*
killfile.
--
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"
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:43:47 +0000 (UTC), ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
(Walter Roberson) wrote:
>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".
Right.
Things change just as fast as technology changes. The C FAQ is a good
example. Just search it for "DOS" to see how out-of-date it really is
(anyone who runs their only C compiler--and arguably even any C
compiler--under DOS is certainly living in the dinosaur age).
Nevertheless, there is some good wisdom in the C FAQ that arguably
absolves its mention of DOS:
<quote>
Section 18. Tools and Resources
[NOTE: Much of the information in this section is fairly old and may
be out-of-date, especially the URLs of various allegedly
publicly-available packages. Caveat lector.]
</quote>
I can't believe that anyone in this day and age, even if they suffer
from paying for their connectivity by the minute, endures any hardship
from having to download more than four and less than some reasonable
amount of lines in a USENET post signature. If you think that five
lines of signature is crossing the line then you are not only pedantic
but you are pedantic for no good reason.
If someone wants to include five or six or seven or even 10 lines in
their signature, no one should complain. When someone posts the
complete text of Mein Kampf in their signature, that's an entirely
another matter (for several reasons, including but not limited to text
length).
Regards
--
jay http://c-faq.com/ http://www.google.com/ http://www.microsoft.com/ http://www.ubuntu.com/ http://www.gimpel.com/
jaysome said:
<snip>
If you think that five
lines of signature is crossing the line then you are not only pedantic
but you are pedantic for no good reason.
The good reason is this: Chuck likes to play netcop. That's fine - we need
netcops to keep the group from descending into chaos - but netcops should
not also be netperps. Those who crit top-posters should not top-post.
Those who crit people who begin OT threads should not themselves begin OT
threads. And those who crit 5+-line sigs should not themselves have
5+-line sigs.
Chuck has criticised others for having sigs that exceed four lines.
He can't have it both ways.
Quite frankly, I'd prefer it if the convention were something like "no more
than 16 lines, max 512 non-newline characters". A little flexibility would
be a good thing, and I'd love to have the freedom to expand my sig block
to, say, six or seven lines: I could sure use them. But the convention
we've actually got at present is four lines, and those who would seek to
enforce its observation should observe it themselves.
--
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
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
Chuck has criticised others for having sigs that exceed four lines.
I can't remember ever so doing, unless it was a minor addition.
--
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
CBFalconer said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
... snip ...
>>
Chuck has criticised others for having sigs that exceed four lines.
I can't remember ever so doing, unless it was a minor addition.
If I tell you the date of one such criticism: 1 January 2004, and the
newsgroup: comp.lang.c, you should not find it hard to pin down.
--
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
CBFalconer wrote:
To Mark: Ignore the following, it's for other people.
A 6 line sig above.
You feeling picked-on too?
Brian
Keith Thompson wrote:
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
[...]
Mr McIntyre
It is with regret that I see that I am still not in your killfile.
As heathfield has suggested, a killfile is the only solution for
guys like me isn't it?
Please do so. I would be glad to no longer read your prose.
Um, if you don't want to read his prose, you need to put him in your
killfile.
Which, I might add, helps those of us who do have Navia in the old
"bozo bin". Seeing his drivel by proxy is no more interesting than
directly.
Brian
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:43:10 -0400, in comp.lang.c , CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.comwrote:
>A 6 line sig above.
I'm assuming you refer to my sig. The actual sig is only 4 lines. The
other two are my name and the whitespace separator.
:-)
--
Mark McIntyre
"The lusers I know are so clueless, that if they were dipped in clue
musk and dropped in the middle of pack of horny clues, on clue prom
night during clue happy hour, they still couldn't get a clue."
--Michael Girdwood, in the monastery
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:30:54 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
>Mr "old wolf" (anonymous coward)
Thats a gratuitous insult. Posting using a moniker in usenet is
perfectly acceptable, and its contemptible of you to imply otherwise.
You should bear in mind that there's no proof that anyone posts using
their real name, not even 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
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:10:06 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>quite as clear to others as I had thought. But I think Chuck is the only
regular contributor to this group who does not observe the four-line sig
block.
Nope - there are plenty that sneak in 5 or 6 line sigs.
But this is a stupid debate. Chuck's sig is artificially extended by
processes outside his reasonable control. If it offends people that
much, they could killfile him. But its not like he's posting a
100-line diatribe or huge ascii art like I've seen some people do.
--
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
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:51:43 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>Chuck has criticised others for having sigs that exceed four lines.
In my memory, very very infrequently, and only in extreme cases.
>
He can't have it both ways.
Sure he can - after all, you seem to want to on occasion.
I also think its outrageous to be pillorying someone for additions
made by his news provider and which are beyond his control.
--
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
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:35:39 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
>It is with regret that I see that I am still not in your killfile.
....
>Please do so. I would be glad to no longer read your prose.
Unfortunately I find that you post incorrect information too often to
leave you killfiled. It would be unfair to newbies who would be
unaware of your personal agenda and bias.
--
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
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:26:42 +0100, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.netwrote:
>On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:30:54 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
>>Mr "old wolf" (anonymous coward)
Thats a gratuitous insult. Posting using a moniker in usenet is
perfectly acceptable, and its contemptible of you to imply otherwise.
You should bear in mind that there's no proof that anyone posts using
their real name, not even you.
Uh HUh. "Old WOlf" made a gratuitous and vile comment about
Jacob's daughter and you attack Jacob. Posting using a moniker
is indeed quite acceptable. Posting vile and gratuitous comments
is not. Using anonymity as a cover for posting vile, gratuitous
insults is particularly despicable.
YMMV.
Mark McIntyre wrote:
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>Chuck has criticised others for having sigs that exceed four lines.
In my memory, very very infrequently, and only in extreme cases.
>He can't have it both ways.
Sure he can - after all, you seem to want to on occasion.
I also think its outrageous to be pillorying someone for additions
made by his news provider and which are beyond his control.
Lo, our minds have met!
--
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
Mark McIntyre wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:35:39 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
It is with regret that I see that I am still not in your killfile.
...
Please do so. I would be glad to no longer read your prose.
Unfortunately I find that you post incorrect information too often to
leave you killfiled. It would be unfair to newbies who would be
unaware of your personal agenda and bias.
Unfortunately, you don't confine yourself to corrections of his
misstatements. You engage in protracted, acrimonious, and repetious
debate with him.
As I said, this is extremely annoying to those of his who don't wish to
read his drivel, either directly or by proxy.
Brian
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:09:03 GMT, in comp.lang.c , cr*@tiac.net
(Richard Harter) wrote:
>Uh HUh. "Old WOlf" made a gratuitous and vile comment about
Jacob's daughter and you attack Jacob.
I commented on Jacob's gratuitous and vile use of the word "coward".
Since when did two wrongs make a right?
Posting using a moniker
is indeed quite acceptable. Posting vile and gratuitous comments
is not.
Quite.
>Using anonymity as a cover for posting vile, gratuitous
insults is particularly despicable.
Old wolf however did no such thing. He (or she) has been using that
moniker for a considerable time.
--
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
On 21 Sep 2007 17:20:27 GMT, in comp.lang.c , "Default User"
<de***********@yahoo.comwrote:
>Unfortunately, you don't confine yourself to corrections of his
misstatements. You engage in protracted, acrimonious, and repetious
debate with him.
True, sadly. However when he makes egregious offtopic, offensive or
disingenuous postings which might mislead newcomers, its pretty hard
to completely ignore. When he responds with hyperbolic insults, I
guess I should post a short, pithy reply and ignore him but I do hold
out some foolish hope that eventually he'll grow up.
--
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
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:30:54 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
>>Mr "old wolf" (anonymous coward)
Thats a gratuitous insult.
[...]
Since nobody else has mentioned this:
On slashdot.org, and probably on other web forums, uses can post
comments under their own account names, or they can post anonymously
without logging in. If you post without logging in, your post is
automatically signed "Anonymous Coward". In that context, it's a mild
joke, not an insult.
I don't know whether jacob was referring to that usage, but let's all
just assume that he was and move on.
--
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" This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics | |
by: Wouter van Ooijen |
last post by:
I want to use Python to interface with an USB HID device (not a
keyboard or mouse, just something that uses the HID driver to avoid
the need for a specific driver). Is this possible in pure Python...
|
by: lester |
last post by:
a pre-beginner's question:
what is the pros and cons of .net, compared to ++
I am wondering what can I get if I continue to learn C# after I have learned
C --> C++ --> C# ??
I think there...
|
by: nbhalala |
last post by:
Hello Friends,
Hi Myself Naresh (B.E. Comp. Eng) from Mumbai...
I'm a Linux Device Driver Writer...
I would like to learn writing Driver of "USB Devices"...BUT
before that I'm presently working...
|
by: Pravin Shetty |
last post by:
Hi to All,
Can we do device driver programming in Unix and how it is diff. from
Linux device driver programming?
Thanks in Advance.
Pravin
|
by: Steve |
last post by:
I wrote a simple virtual device driver int15.sys, Is C# support load the
device driver from AP?
| | |
by: Tony Liu |
last post by:
I am having a "Null Device is Missing" compile error when compiling a c++
project.
The documentation from MSDN said it could be caused by low system resource
or the user account does not have...
|
by: Ritu |
last post by:
Hi All,
Can any body please tell me how i can write a device driver using CSharp.
Thanks,
Ritu
|
by: Al_C |
last post by:
Hve been handed the task of taking a reference USB driver and making it work
for our product.
Have a lot of ANSI C experience, and fair bit of VB express, but VC++
express is a different critter....
|
by: Anthony P. |
last post by:
Hello Everyone,
I have a piece of hardware that does not have any drivers. So, I'm
considering taking the dive into driver development and writing my own
and I'm considering doing so in C#. I'm...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
| | |
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new...
|
by: conductexam |
last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and...
|
by: TSSRALBI |
last post by:
Hello
I'm a network technician in training and I need your help.
I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs.
The...
|
by: adsilva |
last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
|
by: 6302768590 |
last post by:
Hai team
i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated ...
|
by: muto222 |
last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
| | |
by: bsmnconsultancy |
last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence...
| |
