473,320 Members | 2,112 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,320 software developers and data experts.

Bug/problem with lcc-win

Hi

I am using lcc-win on Windows 98. I'm writing a simple c console app, and
I need to set the background color to blue. Here's the code I've got at
the moment:

_asm ( "movb $2, %ah\n"
"movb $7, %dl\n"
"int $0x21\n"
);

But this doesn't work.

Does anyone have any suggestions?

Thanks.

Jun 27 '08
91 3284
On 9 Jun, 17:34, Eddie <nos...@nospam.comwrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:16:31 +0100, Cromulent wrote:
On 2008-06-06 16:25:47 +0100, Eddie <nos...@nospam.comsaid:
Could you confirm that your messages in this
thread are intended as an agreement for us to use your software without
charge?
Where did he say that?
What he said was he was unable to pursue you. In no way did he give you
permission to use it commercially. That is a very big legal difference

He implied it when he said "Let it be", and that it didn't bother him.
so stealing from people who can't prevent you is morally acceptable?
wow.

However, I have to say that his behavior in this forum has been completely
unprofessional, and as a result I'm going to take my business elsewhere.
!!

"you won't support your product the way I want you to, so I'll
stop stealing it from you"

maybe if there were less people like you then Mr Navia would
be able to support his compiler more fully...
Microsoft or Borland would never ignore customer feedback like lcc-win
seems to - there's still been no clear answer about licensing arrangements
or the possibility of a DOS version of lcc-win.


--
Nick Keighley
Jun 27 '08 #51
Nick Keighley <ni******************@hotmail.comwrites:
On 9 Jun, 17:34, Eddie <nos...@nospam.comwrote:
>On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:16:31 +0100, Cromulent wrote:
On 2008-06-06 16:25:47 +0100, Eddie <nos...@nospam.comsaid:
> Could you confirm that your messages in this
thread are intended as an agreement for us to use your software without
charge?
Where did he say that?
What he said was he was unable to pursue you. In no way did he give you
permission to use it commercially. That is a very big legal difference

He implied it when he said "Let it be", and that it didn't bother him.

so stealing from people who can't prevent you is morally acceptable?
wow.
He didn't say that. Look back at the history of this thread.

In the article with message-id
<Xn**********************************@216.196.97.1 36>, David Tiktin
pointed out that lcc-win32 is not free, as Eddie had assumed it was.

jacob's response, message-id <48**************@nospam.com>, was:

| You remember that song?
|
| LET IT BE.
|
| If I do not protest why should you?

At that point, jacob said nothing about not being able to prevent
Eddie from stealing. It was not unreasonable for Eddit to conclude
*from that specific followup* that jacob didn't care. (I'm at a loss
to understand why jacob wrote this.)

In <pa****************************@nospam.com>, Eddie wrote:
| Jacob,
|
| Please don't drag my name through the mud. Your compiler was recommended
| to me as a free alternative to Microsoft, and I downloaded it for free
| from your website - I hadn't read the license closely enough to realize
| that it wasn't just pure freeware.
|
| It's true that my company is a low-cost operation - that's what lets us
| keep our premiums low for our customers - but we take our legal
| responsibilies seriously. Could you confirm that your messages in this
| thread are intended as an agreement for us to use your software without
| charge?
|
| Actually, a DOS version of your compiler would be very helpful to my
| company, so we'd be prepared to fund its development. We'd pay up to $50
| per license if you make a DOS version as close as possible to the Windows
| version (initially we'd want two licenses, with the possibility of a third
| to follow).
>However, I have to say that his behavior in this forum has been completely
unprofessional, and as a result I'm going to take my business elsewhere.

!!

"you won't support your product the way I want you to, so I'll
stop stealing it from you"

maybe if there were less people like you then Mr Navia would
be able to support his compiler more fully...
It appears that Eddie honestly (and mistakenly) thought that lcc-win
was free for commercial use. (Yes, he should have read the license
more carefully.) When it was brought to his attention that it isn't,
he immediately took steps to correct the situation. He (not
unreasonably, IMHO) took jacob's bizarre and terse "LET IT BE"
response as implied permission to use it without paying for it, *but*
he took the time to verify that.

As for being personally annoyed with jacob, he's hardly the first.
You're assuming Eddie was referring only to jacob's behavior in this
thread.

You've called Eddie a thief in spite of abundant evidence to the
contrary.

[snip]

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Jun 27 '08 #52
[Articles I post via rr.com still aren't showing up on aioe.org, which
is the news server jacob uses. Since jacob is involved in this
discussion, I'm re-posting my followup through aioe.org so he can see
it, with one typo corrected. If you saw my previous followup, please
skip this one. Sorry for the repetition.]

Nick Keighley <ni******************@hotmail.comwrites:
On 9 Jun, 17:34, Eddie <nos...@nospam.comwrote:
>On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:16:31 +0100, Cromulent wrote:
On 2008-06-06 16:25:47 +0100, Eddie <nos...@nospam.comsaid:
> Could you confirm that your messages in this
thread are intended as an agreement for us to use your software without
charge?
Where did he say that?
What he said was he was unable to pursue you. In no way did he give you
permission to use it commercially. That is a very big legal difference

He implied it when he said "Let it be", and that it didn't bother him.

so stealing from people who can't prevent you is morally acceptable?
wow.
He didn't say that. Look back at the history of this thread.

In the article with message-id
<Xn**********************************@216.196.97.1 36>, David Tiktin
pointed out that lcc-win32 is not free, as Eddie had assumed it was.

jacob's response, message-id <48**************@nospam.com>, was:

| You remember that song?
|
| LET IT BE.
|
| If I do not protest why should you?

At that point, jacob said nothing about not being able to prevent
Eddie from stealing. It was not unreasonable for Eddie to conclude
*from that specific followup* that jacob didn't care. (I'm at a loss
to understand why jacob wrote this.)

In <pa****************************@nospam.com>, Eddie wrote:
| Jacob,
|
| Please don't drag my name through the mud. Your compiler was recommended
| to me as a free alternative to Microsoft, and I downloaded it for free
| from your website - I hadn't read the license closely enough to realize
| that it wasn't just pure freeware.
|
| It's true that my company is a low-cost operation - that's what lets us
| keep our premiums low for our customers - but we take our legal
| responsibilies seriously. Could you confirm that your messages in this
| thread are intended as an agreement for us to use your software without
| charge?
|
| Actually, a DOS version of your compiler would be very helpful to my
| company, so we'd be prepared to fund its development. We'd pay up to $50
| per license if you make a DOS version as close as possible to the Windows
| version (initially we'd want two licenses, with the possibility of a third
| to follow).
>However, I have to say that his behavior in this forum has been completely
unprofessional, and as a result I'm going to take my business elsewhere.

!!

"you won't support your product the way I want you to, so I'll
stop stealing it from you"

maybe if there were less people like you then Mr Navia would
be able to support his compiler more fully...
It appears that Eddie honestly (and mistakenly) thought that lcc-win
was free for commercial use. (Yes, he should have read the license
more carefully.) When it was brought to his attention that it isn't,
he immediately took steps to correct the situation. He (not
unreasonably, IMHO) took jacob's bizarre and terse "LET IT BE"
response as implied permission to use it without paying for it, *but*
he took the time to verify that.

As for being personally annoyed with jacob, he's hardly the first.
You're assuming Eddie was referring only to jacob's behavior in this
thread.

You've called Eddie a thief in spite of abundant evidence to the
contrary.

[snip]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks***@mib.org>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Jun 27 '08 #53
On 2008-06-10 13:29:29 +0100, Eddie <no****@nospam.comsaid:
Jacob,

Thanks for the reply.

I've spoken to my boss, and we would consider paying up to $500 for a DOS
version of lcc-win (compiler + IDE + debugger) if it could be developed
within 4 to 6 months. For that we'd expect unlimited-use licenses for both
DOS and Windows versions of lcc-win, but you could also sell licenses to
other customers too (my guess is that the DOS version would have a market
of several thousand companies - I don't think there'll be much slowdown in
the use of DOS for the next 10 to 15 years at least).

If interested, contact me by private email.
$500? Is that a joke?

Do you have any idea of the going rate for professional programmers?
--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right
to say it." - Voltaire

Jun 27 '08 #54
Cromulent said:
On 2008-06-10 13:29:29 +0100, Eddie <no****@nospam.comsaid:
>Jacob,

Thanks for the reply.

I've spoken to my boss, and we would consider paying up to $500 for a
DOS version of lcc-win (compiler + IDE + debugger) if it could be
developed within 4 to 6 months. For that we'd expect unlimited-use
licenses for both DOS and Windows versions of lcc-win, but you could
also sell licenses to other customers too (my guess is that the DOS
version would have a market of several thousand companies - I don't
think there'll be much slowdown in the use of DOS for the next 10 to 15
years at least).

If interested, contact me by private email.

$500? Is that a joke?

Do you have any idea of the going rate for professional programmers?
Is /that/ a joke? Do you have any idea of the going rate for DOS compilers?
About 15 years ago, I paid around 50GBP (approx $100) for Turbo C.
Nowadays, they give it away. Eddie is not offering to pay the entire cost
of the development. He is suggesting what he thinks would be a reasonable
retail price, given the existence of a viable marketplace for the product.
(Whether that marketplace truly exists is another matter.)

When you buy a tin of beans from Tesco, you don't expect to pay them
$5000000 for the cost of the canning plant.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Jun 27 '08 #55
Cromulent wrote:
On 2008-06-10 13:29:29 +0100, Eddie <no****@nospam.comsaid:
>Jacob,

Thanks for the reply.

I've spoken to my boss, and we would consider paying up to $500 for a DOS
version of lcc-win (compiler + IDE + debugger) if it could be developed
within 4 to 6 months. For that we'd expect unlimited-use licenses for both
DOS and Windows versions of lcc-win, but you could also sell licenses to
other customers too (my guess is that the DOS version would have a market
of several thousand companies - I don't think there'll be much slowdown in
the use of DOS for the next 10 to 15 years at least).

If interested, contact me by private email.

$500? Is that a joke?

Do you have any idea of the going rate for professional programmers?
Why not get the free watcom compiler? 16bit c/c++,32bit c/c++
and fortran.
And it is quite good.
Jun 27 '08 #56
On 2008-06-10 18:55:23 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidsaid:
Cromulent said:
>On 2008-06-10 13:29:29 +0100, Eddie <no****@nospam.comsaid:
>>Jacob,

Thanks for the reply.

I've spoken to my boss, and we would consider paying up to $500 for a
DOS version of lcc-win (compiler + IDE + debugger) if it could be
developed within 4 to 6 months. For that we'd expect unlimited-use
licenses for both DOS and Windows versions of lcc-win, but you could
also sell licenses to other customers too (my guess is that the DOS
version would have a market of several thousand companies - I don't
think there'll be much slowdown in the use of DOS for the next 10 to 15
years at least).

If interested, contact me by private email.

$500? Is that a joke?

Do you have any idea of the going rate for professional programmers?

Is /that/ a joke? Do you have any idea of the going rate for DOS compilers?
About 15 years ago, I paid around 50GBP (approx $100) for Turbo C.
Okay let me restate my position as it has seems to have caused some problems.

Jacob has already stated he does not have the time to develop it. The
fact that the windows compiler is given away for free would indicate
that he also does not have time to offer the support for a
proffessional product. This is of course based on assumption but I
would be surprised if it was not true.

Therefore this is effectively a commised work. Regardless of whether
Eddie allows the Jacob to sell the software afterwards it is irrelevant
as the signs indicate that support for a commercial application is a
bit far fetched.

Plus for 4 - 6 months of work a programmer would have to be damn sure
that there was a significant market for his product, which given the
DOS only nature is debatable. I do not see it as being a realist
request or price point given the economics and support requirements
that such a project would require.

Oh and I suppose support would be demanded for the unlimited licenses
that are requesting included in the price.

I stand by original question. Is this a joke?
--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right
to say it." - Voltaire

Jun 27 '08 #57
Eddie wrote:
Jacob,

Thanks for the reply.

I've spoken to my boss, and we would consider paying up to $500 for a DOS
version of lcc-win (compiler + IDE + debugger) if it could be developed
within 4 to 6 months. For that we'd expect unlimited-use licenses for both
DOS and Windows versions of lcc-win, but you could also sell licenses to
other customers too (my guess is that the DOS version would have a market
of several thousand companies - I don't think there'll be much slowdown in
the use of DOS for the next 10 to 15 years at least).

If interested, contact me by private email.
Hi Eddie

Please understand the following:
1) I need more or less a year of work to develop a 16 bit DOS
version of lcc-win. This may seem exaggerated to you but
if you consider that there are a lot of memory "models"
to support (tiny, large, medium compact, whatever), then that
the code generation needs an assembler, a linker and a debugger...
A year is an optimistic estimate.

2) I see no market for a new DOS compiler since there are a LOT
of free compilers that do that already. Turboc, watcom,
and many others. This means that you would be the only
customer. I can't work a year for US$ 500. Sorry.

3) I am replying to you in this forum because you posted your
offer in this forum. I just want to set the record straight.
I thank you for your offer but I can't follow it.

Thanks for your understanding.
Since this forum is about the C language, please if you have any
further questions contact me through my mail address.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Jun 27 '08 #58

"Eddie" <no****@nospam.comschreef in bericht
news:pa****************************@nospam.com...
Thanks for the information, that seems quite simple. Is BLUE an integer
constant? Maybe I can save some space on my source files by just using the
integer value.

I think it would still be better if lcc-win supported writing directly to
video memory as well as using #tconio, this would make it much easier
when porting applications.
This thread went a long way, up to paying 500$ to turn a compiler into a 16
bit one.

isnt it much easier to just change the damn code?? As a bonus you get rid of
the assembler too.

>#include <tconio.h>
.....

textbackground(BLUE);

Please just read the doc for that function, available in the help
tab of the menu
Jun 27 '08 #59
Cromulent wrote, On 10/06/08 19:50:
On 2008-06-10 18:55:23 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalid>
said:
>Cromulent said:
>>On 2008-06-10 13:29:29 +0100, Eddie <no****@nospam.comsaid:

Jacob,

Thanks for the reply.

I've spoken to my boss, and we would consider paying up to $500 for a
DOS version of lcc-win (compiler + IDE + debugger) if it could be
developed within 4 to 6 months. For that we'd expect unlimited-use
licenses for both DOS and Windows versions of lcc-win, but you could
also sell licenses to other customers too (my guess is that the DOS
version would have a market of several thousand companies - I don't
think there'll be much slowdown in the use of DOS for the next 10 to 15
years at least).

If interested, contact me by private email.

$500? Is that a joke?

Do you have any idea of the going rate for professional programmers?

Is /that/ a joke? Do you have any idea of the going rate for DOS
compilers?
About 15 years ago, I paid around 50GBP (approx $100) for Turbo C.
However if you had asked Borland to write a version of their compiler
for a system they did not currently support (say, DOS 1.0) then they
would have charged you a *lot* more than $500 for it. Jacob's position
on this is, in my opinion, entirely reasonable.
Okay let me restate my position as it has seems to have caused some
problems.

Jacob has already stated he does not have the time to develop it. The
This would probably change if he was offered enough to not need to do
other work whilst developing it.
fact that the windows compiler is given away for free would indicate
that he also does not have time to offer the support for a proffessional
product.
No, it gives absolutely zero indication of that. Giving away a product
for free for some uses and charging money for other (normally
commercial) uses is not unheard of with professional organisations. For
all we know Jacob could be making serious money on providing high
quality professional support.
This is of course based on assumption but I would be surprised
if it was not true.

Therefore this is effectively a commised work.
All work is a compromise.
Regardless of whether
Eddie allows the Jacob to sell the software afterwards it is irrelevant
as the signs indicate that support for a commercial application is a bit
far fetched.
I believe that Jacob does offer commercial support.
Plus for 4 - 6 months of work a programmer would have to be damn sure
that there was a significant market for his product, which given the DOS
only nature is debatable. I do not see it as being a realist request or
price point given the economics and support requirements that such a
project would require.
Since Jacob is not (I think) running a company with enough funds to stop
paid work for 6 months it would not be practical for him unless he was
provided sufficient funding up front.
Oh and I suppose support would be demanded for the unlimited licenses
that are requesting included in the price.

I stand by original question. Is this a joke?
Oh, I agree, I would consider $500 to do anything more than a small
adaptation to be a joke, for a major endeavour it is ridiculous. The
unlimited licences term would just be adding insult to injury.

Jacob, if I was you I would refuse tell these guys to take a running jump.
--
Flash Gordon
Jun 27 '08 #60
Flash Gordon wrote:
Cromulent wrote, On 10/06/08 19:50:
>On 2008-06-10 18:55:23 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalid>
said:
>>Cromulent said:

On 2008-06-10 13:29:29 +0100, Eddie <no****@nospam.comsaid:

Jacob,
>
Thanks for the reply.
>
I've spoken to my boss, and we would consider paying up to $500 for a
DOS version of lcc-win (compiler + IDE + debugger) if it could be
developed within 4 to 6 months. For that we'd expect unlimited-use
licenses for both DOS and Windows versions of lcc-win, but you could
also sell licenses to other customers too (my guess is that the DOS
version would have a market of several thousand companies - I don't
think there'll be much slowdown in the use of DOS for the next 10
to 15
years at least).
>
If interested, contact me by private email.

$500? Is that a joke?

Do you have any idea of the going rate for professional programmers?

Is /that/ a joke? Do you have any idea of the going rate for DOS
compilers?
About 15 years ago, I paid around 50GBP (approx $100) for Turbo C.

However if you had asked Borland to write a version of their compiler
for a system they did not currently support (say, DOS 1.0) then they
would have charged you a *lot* more than $500 for it. Jacob's position
on this is, in my opinion, entirely reasonable.
16 bit DOS code generation is extremely complicated due to the many
memory models that DOS supports, with data pointers either 16 or 32
bits, with code pointers either 16 or 32, and all the combinations of
that, without forgetting the COM model, where everything fits in
64K.

Besides, an assembler must be developed that generates OMF obj files.
I support COFF, hence the whole assembler must be rewritten.

Then, I have to develop a linker that links the OMF files, and produces
16 bits DOS executables, not an easy task.

And to see where I went wrong I need a debugger, the compiler must
emit a new kind of debug information...

This would be a MAJOR development.
>Okay let me restate my position as it has seems to have caused some
problems.

Jacob has already stated he does not have the time to develop it. The

This would probably change if he was offered enough to not need to do
other work whilst developing it.
>fact that the windows compiler is given away for free would indicate
that he also does not have time to offer the support for a
proffessional product.

No, it gives absolutely zero indication of that. Giving away a product
for free for some uses and charging money for other (normally
commercial) uses is not unheard of with professional organisations. For
all we know Jacob could be making serious money on providing high
quality professional support.
Not really serious money but I get to earn a living more or less,
actually more less than more :-)
>This is of course based on assumption but I would be surprised if it
was not true.

Therefore this is effectively a commised work.

All work is a compromise.
>Regardless of whether Eddie allows the Jacob to sell the software
afterwards it is irrelevant as the signs indicate that support for a
commercial application is a bit far fetched.

I believe that Jacob does offer commercial support.
I do offer commercial support. I do even give support here for free, and
I indicated to Eddie how to use the compatibility library that is
developed within the 32 bit compiler to meet Eddie's needs.
>Plus for 4 - 6 months of work a programmer would have to be damn sure
that there was a significant market for his product, which given the
DOS only nature is debatable. I do not see it as being a realist
request or price point given the economics and support requirements
that such a project would require.

Since Jacob is not (I think) running a company with enough funds to stop
paid work for 6 months it would not be practical for him unless he was
provided sufficient funding up front.
Obviously. I do not see really someone buying a DOS compiler now. There
are just too many free alternatives. Watcom has excellent 16 bit
support. Turboc is free and it will be hard to beat.
>Oh and I suppose support would be demanded for the unlimited licenses
that are requesting included in the price.

I stand by original question. Is this a joke?

Oh, I agree, I would consider $500 to do anything more than a small
adaptation to be a joke, for a major endeavour it is ridiculous. The
unlimited licences term would just be adding insult to injury.

Jacob, if I was you I would refuse tell these guys to take a running jump.
I have tried to remain polite. I offered support for Eddie, and all of
that without any payment. But there are limits to what can I do.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Jun 27 '08 #61
On 2008-06-10 20:58:43 +0100, "Serve Lau" <ni***@qinqin.comsaid:
>
"Eddie" <no****@nospam.comschreef in bericht
news:pa****************************@nospam.com...
>Thanks for the information, that seems quite simple. Is BLUE an integer
constant? Maybe I can save some space on my source files by just using the
integer value.

I think it would still be better if lcc-win supported writing directly to
video memory as well as using #tconio, this would make it much easier
when porting applications.

This thread went a long way, up to paying 500$ to turn a compiler into
a 16 bit one.

isnt it much easier to just change the damn code?? As a bonus you get
rid of the assembler too.
The point was he is using it in a commercial setting which is
prohibited by the license. So changing the code or using the code in
any way is a violation of the license agreement.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right
to say it." - Voltaire

Jun 27 '08 #62

"Cromulent" <cr*******@justextrememetal.comschreef in bericht
news:2008061021465216807-cromulent@justextrememetalcom...
On 2008-06-10 20:58:43 +0100, "Serve Lau" <ni***@qinqin.comsaid:
>>
"Eddie" <no****@nospam.comschreef in bericht
news:pa****************************@nospam.com. ..
This thread went a long way, up to paying 500$ to turn a compiler into a
16 bit one.

isnt it much easier to just change the damn code?? As a bonus you get rid
of the assembler too.

The point was he is using it in a commercial setting which is prohibited
by the license. So changing the code or using the code in any way is a
violation of the license agreement.
I know the dollar is weak but paying 30euro for a license is still a lot
less than 500$

Jun 27 '08 #63
Cromulent said:

<snip>
Jacob has already stated he does not have the time to develop it.
Yes, absolutely. And I'm not getting on his case about this. He is under no
obligation to support any platforms that he doesn't want to support. I'm
just trying to explain the rationale behind Eddie's pricing estimate. When
he realises that to get his DOS beans from this supplier he'll have to pay
the cost of building a bean-can factory, he will either change his tastes
or change his supplier.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Jun 27 '08 #64
On 2008-06-10 22:04:07 +0100, "Serve Lau" <ni***@qinqin.comsaid:
>
"Cromulent" <cr*******@justextrememetal.comschreef in bericht
news:2008061021465216807-cromulent@justextrememetalcom...
>On 2008-06-10 20:58:43 +0100, "Serve Lau" <ni***@qinqin.comsaid:
>>>
"Eddie" <no****@nospam.comschreef in bericht
news:pa****************************@nospam.com.. .
This thread went a long way, up to paying 500$ to turn a compiler into
a 16 bit one.

isnt it much easier to just change the damn code?? As a bonus you get
rid of the assembler too.

The point was he is using it in a commercial setting which is
prohibited by the license. So changing the code or using the code in
any way is a violation of the license agreement.

I know the dollar is weak but paying 30euro for a license is still a
lot less than 500$
if you read the thread you'll know that the $30 was for the Windows
compiler. Eddie wanted a DOS compiler developed and offered $500 for
that to be done.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right
to say it." - Voltaire

Jun 27 '08 #65
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
Cromulent said:

<snip>
>Jacob has already stated he does not have the time to develop it.

Yes, absolutely. And I'm not getting on his case about this. He is under no
obligation to support any platforms that he doesn't want to support. I'm
just trying to explain the rationale behind Eddie's pricing estimate. When
he realises that to get his DOS beans from this supplier he'll have to pay
the cost of building a bean-can factory, he will either change his tastes
or change his supplier.
*If* producing a DOS version of lcc-win32 were just on the edge of
being potentially profitable, due to the potential demand from other
paying customers, it's not inconceivable that an offer of $500 would
be enough to encourage jacob to do the necessary work. It wouldn't be
necessary for Eddie to pay the full cost of the bean-can factory; it
would pay for itself in the long run because other people would buy
beans.

Obviously jacob doesn't feel that this is the case, and he's probably
right. Eddie asked, and jacob said no (quite politely). IMHO that
should be the end of it.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Jun 27 '08 #66
Keith Thompson wrote:
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
>Cromulent said:

<snip>
>>Jacob has already stated he does not have the time to develop it.

Yes, absolutely. And I'm not getting on his case about this. He is
under no obligation to support any platforms that he doesn't want to
support. I'm just trying to explain the rationale behind Eddie's
pricing estimate. When he realises that to get his DOS beans from
this supplier he'll have to pay the cost of building a bean-can
factory, he will either change his tastes or change his supplier.

*If* producing a DOS version of lcc-win32 were just on the edge of
being potentially profitable, due to the potential demand from other
paying customers, it's not inconceivable that an offer of $500 would
be enough to encourage jacob to do the necessary work. It wouldn't be
necessary for Eddie to pay the full cost of the bean-can factory; it
would pay for itself in the long run because other people would buy
beans.

Obviously jacob doesn't feel that this is the case, and he's probably
right. Eddie asked, and jacob said no (quite politely). IMHO that
should be the end of it.
Actually this whole conversation should have been moved to
comp.compilers.lcc or private email after it became clear that it was
going to be a dialogue between a implementor and potential client.

Jun 27 '08 #67

"Cromulent" <cr*******@justextrememetal.comschreef in bericht
news:2008061022284916807-cromulent@justextrememetalcom...
On 2008-06-10 22:04:07 +0100, "Serve Lau" <ni***@qinqin.comsaid:
>>
"Cromulent" <cr*******@justextrememetal.comschreef in bericht
news:2008061021465216807-cromulent@justextrememetalcom...
>>On 2008-06-10 20:58:43 +0100, "Serve Lau" <ni***@qinqin.comsaid:
"Eddie" <no****@nospam.comschreef in bericht
news:pa****************************@nospam.com. ..
This thread went a long way, up to paying 500$ to turn a compiler into
a 16 bit one.

isnt it much easier to just change the damn code?? As a bonus you get
rid of the assembler too.

The point was he is using it in a commercial setting which is prohibited
by the license. So changing the code or using the code in any way is a
violation of the license agreement.

I know the dollar is weak but paying 30euro for a license is still a lot
less than 500$

if you read the thread you'll know that the $30 was for the Windows
compiler. Eddie wanted a DOS compiler developed and offered $500 for that
to be done.
AND change the freaking lines of assembler. Thats why this all started! The
guy has a little problem with a blue console background and doesnt want to
change the code so he ends up offering 500$ to change a complete compiler
system. I read the thread very well it seems other people have trouble
reading here. He could have changed the code and pay 30 euro's for a license
and be done. Its not like code that turns the background blue is spread all
over the software its only a few lines to change.....

Jun 27 '08 #68
jacob navia wrote, On 10/06/08 21:33:
Flash Gordon wrote:
<snip>
This would be a MAJOR development.
<snip>
Not really serious money but I get to earn a living more or less,
actually more less than more :-)
<snip>
>Jacob, if I was you I would refuse tell these guys to take a running
jump.

I have tried to remain polite. I offered support for Eddie, and all of
that without any payment. But there are limits to what can I do.
Agreed. I'm on your side on this one.
--
Flash Gordon
Jun 27 '08 #69
santosh said:

<snip>
Actually this whole conversation should have been moved to
comp.compilers.lcc or private email after it became clear that it was
going to be a dialogue between a implementor and potential client.
In an ideal world, perhaps it should - but it ain't an ideal world. Note,
too, that it wasn't a dialogue but a multilogue (if there is such a word);
the more people involved in a thread, the harder it is to shift it to the
right place.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Jun 27 '08 #70
On 2008-06-10 23:16:34 +0100, "Serve Lau" <ni***@qinqin.comsaid:
>
"Cromulent" <cr*******@justextrememetal.comschreef in bericht
news:2008061022284916807-cromulent@justextrememetalcom...
>On 2008-06-10 22:04:07 +0100, "Serve Lau" <ni***@qinqin.comsaid:
>>>
"Cromulent" <cr*******@justextrememetal.comschreef in bericht
news:2008061021465216807-cromulent@justextrememetalcom...
On 2008-06-10 20:58:43 +0100, "Serve Lau" <ni***@qinqin.comsaid:

>
"Eddie" <no****@nospam.comschreef in bericht
news:pa****************************@nospam.com ...
This thread went a long way, up to paying 500$ to turn a compiler into
a 16 bit one.
>
isnt it much easier to just change the damn code?? As a bonus you get
rid of the assembler too.

The point was he is using it in a commercial setting which is
prohibited by the license. So changing the code or using the code in
any way is a violation of the license agreement.

I know the dollar is weak but paying 30euro for a license is still a
lot less than 500$

if you read the thread you'll know that the $30 was for the Windows
compiler. Eddie wanted a DOS compiler developed and offered $500 for
that to be done.

AND change the freaking lines of assembler. Thats why this all started!
The guy has a little problem with a blue console background and doesnt
want to change the code so he ends up offering 500$ to change a
complete compiler system. I read the thread very well it seems other
people have trouble reading here. He could have changed the code and
pay 30 euro's for a license and be done. Its not like code that turns
the background blue is spread all over the software its only a few
lines to change.....
Ah yes, sorry. I completely misread your post :(.
--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right
to say it." - Voltaire

Jun 27 '08 #71
I believe Jacob is making the wrong decision, but obviously it's up to
him. People have been predicting the death of DOS for the last 20 years,
and it's still going strong - maybe Jacob could do some market research
company to find out whether there's a viable market. I believe there would
be.

In my experience, most freeware/shareware programs would be lucky to get
$500 in donations/registration fees for the entire lifetime of the
product, so I don't think it's a bad offer for a couple months development
activity.
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:50:36 +0100, Cromulent wrote:
On 2008-06-10 18:55:23 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidsaid:
>Cromulent said:
>>On 2008-06-10 13:29:29 +0100, Eddie <no****@nospam.comsaid:

Jacob,

Thanks for the reply.

I've spoken to my boss, and we would consider paying up to $500 for a
DOS version of lcc-win (compiler + IDE + debugger) if it could be
developed within 4 to 6 months. For that we'd expect unlimited-use
licenses for both DOS and Windows versions of lcc-win, but you could
also sell licenses to other customers too (my guess is that the DOS
version would have a market of several thousand companies - I don't
think there'll be much slowdown in the use of DOS for the next 10 to 15
years at least).

If interested, contact me by private email.

$500? Is that a joke?

Do you have any idea of the going rate for professional programmers?

Is /that/ a joke? Do you have any idea of the going rate for DOS compilers?
About 15 years ago, I paid around 50GBP (approx $100) for Turbo C.

Okay let me restate my position as it has seems to have caused some problems.

Jacob has already stated he does not have the time to develop it. The
fact that the windows compiler is given away for free would indicate
that he also does not have time to offer the support for a
proffessional product. This is of course based on assumption but I
would be surprised if it was not true.

Therefore this is effectively a commised work. Regardless of whether
Eddie allows the Jacob to sell the software afterwards it is irrelevant
as the signs indicate that support for a commercial application is a
bit far fetched.

Plus for 4 - 6 months of work a programmer would have to be damn sure
that there was a significant market for his product, which given the
DOS only nature is debatable. I do not see it as being a realist
request or price point given the economics and support requirements
that such a project would require.

Oh and I suppose support would be demanded for the unlimited licenses
that are requesting included in the price.

I stand by original question. Is this a joke?
Jun 27 '08 #72
Eddie wrote:
I believe Jacob is making the wrong decision

Please don't top-post. Your replies belong following or interspersed
with properly trimmed quotes. See the majority of other posts in the
newsgroup, or:
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>
Jun 27 '08 #73
Eddie <no****@nospam.comwrites:
I believe Jacob is making the wrong decision, but obviously it's up to
him. People have been predicting the death of DOS for the last 20 years,
and it's still going strong - maybe Jacob could do some market research
company to find out whether there's a viable market. I believe there would
be.

In my experience, most freeware/shareware programs would be lucky to get
$500 in donations/registration fees for the entire lifetime of the
product, so I don't think it's a bad offer for a couple months development
activity.
I have an opinion on that, but I don't have enough information to
support it so I won't bother to mention it.

What I will mention is this.

Eddie, if you're going to be posting here, *please* stop top-posting.

The following links explain what top-posting is and why not to do it:

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/topposting.php

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Jun 27 '08 #74
Hey, screw you, you little worm. I'll post how I goddamn want, is that
clear? Just change the damn record.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:50:54 +0000, Default User wrote:
Eddie wrote:
>I believe Jacob is making the wrong decision


Please don't top-post. Your replies belong following or interspersed
with properly trimmed quotes. See the majority of other posts in the
newsgroup, or:
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>
Jun 27 '08 #75
Eddie <no****@nospam.comwrites:
Hey, screw you, you little worm. I'll post how I goddamn want, is that
clear? Just change the damn record.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:50:54 +0000, Default User wrote:
>Eddie wrote:
>>I believe Jacob is making the wrong decision


Please don't top-post. Your replies belong following or interspersed
with properly trimmed quotes. See the majority of other posts in the
newsgroup, or:
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>
Congratulations, "Eddie", you've just blown any chance of anybody here
being willing to help you.

Bye.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Jun 27 '08 #76
Eddie wrote:
>
Hey, screw you, you little worm. I'll post how I goddamn want, is
that clear? Just change the damn record.

Default User wrote:
>Eddie wrote:
>>I believe Jacob is making the wrong decision

Please don't top-post. Your replies belong following or interspersed
with properly trimmed quotes. See the majority of other posts in the
newsgroup, or:
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>
Congratulations. You have attained the PLONK list. Bye.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Jun 27 '08 #77
On 12 Jun, 00:44, Eddie <nos...@nospam.comwrote:
Hey, <expletive>, you little worm. I'll post how I <expletivewant, is that
clear? Just change the <expletiverecord.
plonk.

oh, and please don't top-post
Jun 27 '08 #78
Keith Thompson wrote:
Eddie <no****@nospam.comwrites:
>Hey, screw you, you little worm. I'll post how I goddamn want, is
that clear? Just change the damn record.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:50:54 +0000, Default User wrote:
>>Eddie wrote:

I believe Jacob is making the wrong decision
Please don't top-post. Your replies belong following or interspersed
with properly trimmed quotes. See the majority of other posts in the
newsgroup, or:
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>

Congratulations, "Eddie", you've just blown any chance of anybody here
being willing to help you.
Personally I was suspicious right from the very first post of the OP.
For several months now there have been a steady stream of anonymous
posters asking questions on lcc-win, seemingly to drag jacob through
the mud. My suspicions were confirmed the moment when the OP offered
$500 for developing a compiler, plus a debugger, plus an IDE, and
wanted unlimited use licenses too. Also his insistence on continuing
the discussion in clc, when any serious client would've switched to
private channels.

Jun 27 '08 #79

"Eddie" <no****@nospam.comschreef in bericht
news:pa****************************@nospam.com...
>I believe Jacob is making the wrong decision, but obviously it's up to
him. People have been predicting the death of DOS for the last 20 years,
and it's still going strong - maybe Jacob could do some market research
company to find out whether there's a viable market. I believe there would
be.

In my experience, most freeware/shareware programs would be lucky to get
$500 in donations/registration fees for the entire lifetime of the
product, so I don't think it's a bad offer for a couple months development
activity.
Suppose that compiler got done what then?? Dont you think that a large
percentage of your so called big market would just be staying with their old
compiler because that has worked for so many years already and is free
anyway?

Do you have your blue background by now by the way?

>

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:50:36 +0100, Cromulent wrote:
>On 2008-06-10 18:55:23 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalid>
said:
>>Cromulent said:

On 2008-06-10 13:29:29 +0100, Eddie <no****@nospam.comsaid:

Jacob,
>
Thanks for the reply.
>
I've spoken to my boss, and we would consider paying up to $500 for a
DOS version of lcc-win (compiler + IDE + debugger) if it could be
developed within 4 to 6 months. For that we'd expect unlimited-use
licenses for both DOS and Windows versions of lcc-win, but you could
also sell licenses to other customers too (my guess is that the DOS
version would have a market of several thousand companies - I don't
think there'll be much slowdown in the use of DOS for the next 10 to
15
years at least).
>
If interested, contact me by private email.

$500? Is that a joke?

Do you have any idea of the going rate for professional programmers?

Is /that/ a joke? Do you have any idea of the going rate for DOS
compilers?
About 15 years ago, I paid around 50GBP (approx $100) for Turbo C.

Okay let me restate my position as it has seems to have caused some
problems.

Jacob has already stated he does not have the time to develop it. The
fact that the windows compiler is given away for free would indicate
that he also does not have time to offer the support for a
proffessional product. This is of course based on assumption but I
would be surprised if it was not true.

Therefore this is effectively a commised work. Regardless of whether
Eddie allows the Jacob to sell the software afterwards it is irrelevant
as the signs indicate that support for a commercial application is a
bit far fetched.

Plus for 4 - 6 months of work a programmer would have to be damn sure
that there was a significant market for his product, which given the
DOS only nature is debatable. I do not see it as being a realist
request or price point given the economics and support requirements
that such a project would require.

Oh and I suppose support would be demanded for the unlimited licenses
that are requesting included in the price.

I stand by original question. Is this a joke?
Jun 27 '08 #80

"santosh" <sa*********@gmail.comschreef in bericht
news:g2**********@registered.motzarella.org...
Personally I was suspicious right from the very first post of the OP.
For several months now there have been a steady stream of anonymous
posters asking questions on lcc-win, seemingly to drag jacob through
the mud. My suspicions were confirmed the moment when the OP offered
$500 for developing a compiler, plus a debugger, plus an IDE, and
wanted unlimited use licenses too. Also his insistence on continuing
the discussion in clc, when any serious client would've switched to
private channels.
and all that so he doesnt have to change some assembler to make a background
blue

Jun 27 '08 #81
Eddie wrote:
Hey, screw you, you little worm.
And we know what comes next.

*plonk*


Brian
Jun 27 '08 #82
santosh said:
Keith Thompson wrote:
>Eddie <no****@nospam.comwrites:
>>Hey, screw you, you little worm. I'll post how I goddamn want, is
that clear? Just change the damn record.
<snip>
>>
Congratulations, "Eddie", you've just blown any chance of anybody here
being willing to help you.

Personally I was suspicious right from the very first post of the OP.
For several months now there have been a steady stream of anonymous
posters asking questions on lcc-win, seemingly to drag jacob through
the mud.
If that was the intent, it failed on this occasion. Nobody in their right mind
- not even his most strident critics (and I suppose I are one) - would
seriously expect Jacob Navia to feel obliged to port his compiler to MS-DOS.

In fact, Mr Navia came out of this thread smelling of roses. At least he
doesn't top-post.
My suspicions were confirmed the moment when the OP offered
$500 for developing a compiler, plus a debugger, plus an IDE, and
wanted unlimited use licenses too. Also his insistence on continuing
the discussion in clc, when any serious client would've switched to
private channels.
My own view is that Hanlon's Razor applies (to the OP, on this occasion).

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Jun 27 '08 #83
On 11 Jun 2008 at 23:44, Eddie wrote:
Hey, screw you, you little worm. I'll post how I goddamn want, is that
clear? Just change the damn record.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:50:54 +0000, Default User wrote:
[snip same old same old]

Default Loser is a troll who makes no positive contribution to this
group. I wouldn't take his tedious net-nannying very seriously.

Jun 27 '08 #84
On 11 Jun 2008 at 21:47, Eddie wrote:
In my experience, most freeware/shareware programs would be lucky to get
$500 in donations/registration fees for the entire lifetime of the
product, so I don't think it's a bad offer for a couple months development
activity.
I believed you have misconstrued Jacob's situation. As I understand it,
lcc-win is not a little freeware hobby project of his, but rather his
full-time job and principal source of income. Could you get by for a
year on $500?

Jun 27 '08 #85
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrites:
Eddie wrote:
>I believe Jacob is making the wrong decision


Please don't top-post. Your replies belong following or interspersed
with properly trimmed quotes. See the majority of other posts in the
newsgroup, or:
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>
Would you *please* stop polluting this group with your tiresome whinging,
whining and uncalled for net nannying. It's bad enough having to trawl
through Falconer's nonsense without you adding to the noise.
Jun 27 '08 #86
Richard<rg****@gmail.comwrites:
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrites:
>Eddie wrote:
>>I believe Jacob is making the wrong decision


Please don't top-post. Your replies belong following or interspersed
with properly trimmed quotes. See the majority of other posts in the
newsgroup, or:
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>

Would you *please* stop polluting this group with your tiresome whinging,
whining and uncalled for net nannying. It's bad enough having to trawl
through Falconer's nonsense without you adding to the noise.
Are you unable to use a killfile?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Jun 27 '08 #87
Keith Thompson wrote:
Richard<rg****@gmail.comwrites:
Would you please stop polluting this group with your tiresome
Are you unable to use a killfile?
Well, he's a troll. He knows perfectly well that I killfiled HIM long
ago, yet he continues to reply to my posts. He also knows about the
"-TPA" flag, but chooses not to filter it. Why? Because he wants to
that as another reason to cause trouble on the group.

He should be roundly ignored or killfiled.

Brian
Jun 27 '08 #88
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrites:
Keith Thompson wrote:
>Richard<rg****@gmail.comwrites:
Would you please stop polluting this group with your tiresome

>Are you unable to use a killfile?

Well, he's a troll. He knows perfectly well that I killfiled HIM long
ago, yet he continues to reply to my posts. He also knows about the
"-TPA" flag, but chooses not to filter it. Why? Because he wants to
that as another reason to cause trouble on the group.

He should be roundly ignored or killfiled.

Brian
Because I think you and a couple of others are ignorant big heads with
nothing better to do than harass people with real issues in this group,
does not make me a troll. All you ever do is lecture people on
topicality. Once or twice is fine. The amount you do it is, frankly,
tedious.

Jun 27 '08 #89
Default User wrote:
Keith Thompson wrote:
>Richard<rg****@gmail.comwrites:
>>Would you please stop polluting this group with your tiresome

>Are you unable to use a killfile?

Well, he's a troll. He knows perfectly well that I killfiled HIM long
ago, yet he continues to reply to my posts. He also knows about the
"-TPA" flag, but chooses not to filter it. Why? Because he wants to
that as another reason to cause trouble on the group.

He should be roundly ignored or killfiled.
It's bad enough to publicly announce who you killfile, but please stop
telling others what to do in this respect.

Bye, Jojo
Jun 27 '08 #90
On 13 Jun 2008 at 16:38, Default Loser wrote:
He also knows about the "-TPA" flag, but chooses not to filter it.
This ridiculous "TPA flag" always makes me think of the rednecks who say
things like "Now I'm not racist, but...".

"TPA" is like saying "I'm not a prissy net-nanny with nothing useful to
say, but..."

Jun 27 '08 #91
Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:
On 13 Jun 2008 at 16:38, Default Loser wrote:
>He also knows about the "-TPA" flag, but chooses not to filter it.

This ridiculous "TPA flag" always makes me think of the rednecks who say
things like "Now I'm not racist, but...".

"TPA" is like saying "I'm not a prissy net-nanny with nothing useful to
say, but..."
Which is exactly what Default Bwian is.
Jun 27 '08 #92

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

4
by: Zeng Dinghao | last post by:
could anybody explain the term "in memory compilation" to me ? thanks
98
by: jacob navia | last post by:
<< QUOTE It is NOT a C compiler, because it doesn't conform to any commonly accepted C specification (K&R, C89, C99). You have no right to call it a C compiler until you get it to conform quote...
14
by: vittorio | last post by:
While I can compile the program below under freebsd via a simple: gcc prog1.c -o prog1 and it runs smoothly, I'm experiencing annoying problems with lcc-win32 under windows xp pro. In fact, under...
2
by: comp.lang | last post by:
Hello, I am a newbie, trying to compile LCC on windows xp with VS.Net when I give this command nmake -f makefile.nt HOSTFILE=etc/win32.c lcc I get NMake Error cannot find stdio.h
35
by: strictly_mk | last post by:
Hi all, forgive me if there is a simple solution for this. I am going through the following piece of code which simply calculates factorials out of a book, but when i run it I get the answer 0 for...
73
by: Markus | last post by:
Hi, I can't understand why this code causes a "memory read exception" at int x=**a; void pass(int** a) { int x=**a; } void main()
20
by: Army1987 | last post by:
Under Linux (gcc) this works OK, but under Windows (lcc-win32) p.Blue always is zero. Within the function itself, result.Blue is correct (either 0, 255, or the floor of the expression assigned to...
67
by: Nimmi Srivastav | last post by:
Apologies if my cross posting has offended anyone.... For a pure hobbyist C/C++ programmer, who wants to develop applications to run on Windows, what would be a better choice to install: Visual...
13
by: Albert | last post by:
Hi I'm using the lcc compiler for win32. I tried compiling a program but there's an error stating: "cpp: Can't open input file clrscr()" I don't get it - I've included <tcconio.h>. (strange why...
0
by: DolphinDB | last post by:
The formulas of 101 quantitative trading alphas used by WorldQuant were presented in the paper 101 Formulaic Alphas. However, some formulas are complex, leading to challenges in calculation. Take...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
1
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
0
by: Vimpel783 | last post by:
Hello! Guys, I found this code on the Internet, but I need to modify it a little. It works well, the problem is this: Data is sent from only one cell, in this case B5, but it is necessary that data...
0
by: jfyes | last post by:
As a hardware engineer, after seeing that CEIWEI recently released a new tool for Modbus RTU Over TCP/UDP filtering and monitoring, I actively went to its official website to take a look. It turned...
0
by: CloudSolutions | last post by:
Introduction: For many beginners and individual users, requiring a credit card and email registration may pose a barrier when starting to use cloud servers. However, some cloud server providers now...
0
by: Shællîpôpï 09 | last post by:
If u are using a keypad phone, how do u turn on JavaScript, to access features like WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram....
0
by: af34tf | last post by:
Hi Guys, I have a domain whose name is BytesLimited.com, and I want to sell it. Does anyone know about platforms that allow me to list my domain in auction for free. Thank you
0
by: Faith0G | last post by:
I am starting a new it consulting business and it's been a while since I setup a new website. Is wordpress still the best web based software for hosting a 5 page website? The webpages will be...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.