micro_softy

"Now, it's been a few years since gcc has been able to produce a real listing..."

Can you share with readers the version number for the last gcc that can do this satisfactorily?

I have a similar issue.

Sometimes, but not every time, when I turn on a particular halogen lamp using the same outlet as a particular computer, it triggers USB detection and I get kernel messages on /dev/console as if I was plugging in a USB device.

This is a BSD kernel.

Any plans to include i386?

"... remove the Phone from the iPhone"

I read a comment on HN that said AppleTV is what you describe.

The author seems to be ignoring the Mac G3/G4/G5/Pro computers.

Apple is still in the pro audio market, aren't they?

Here's an interesting retweet from ProDOS's author last month.

   @JBrooksBSI
   [59]Aug 17
   Was MS-DOS copied from CP/M? 
   [60]embedded.com/electronics-bl...

   60. https://t.co/mOR5mLBHwC

"Slack for everyone".

(After paying some registrar and ICANN gets its 13 cents or whatever.)

Pay to play DNS aside, this is really what the "web 2.0" should have been.

IMHO, an IRC channel has always been more functional than a "website".

It makes peer to peer easy.

There are other ways to block ads besides this one solution. The web ad delivery mechanism is brittle.

But when will this game end?

Advertisers should just pay consumers (users). Why bother with a middleman?

Request for Project (RFP): Let all users sign up to be paid by advertisers. (This is not a new idea.) Sign up with enough advertisers and one can have "universal basic income".

Users should not be giving away their time for free. Every time a web advertiser distracts a user, they are "stealing" the user's time.

Advertisers pay for this privilege. But they do not pay the users. They pay off someone -- you know who -- to help them steal users' time.

Just pay the damn users. Enough of this silly game.

Added benefit: It would open up the search engine market and social networking (photo database) market to competition and innovation.

You never tried NetBSD?

If you are suggesting NetBSD has more things enabled by default than OpenBSD I would bet that is incorrect. I have tried a lot of different projects and NetBSD is the best I have seen for not enabling anything. It forces you to figure things out.

Whenever I read OpenBSD mailing lists or blogs, they often seem more aggressive in trying to make their users adhere to the default system provided. That's fine, but NetBSD generally does not do this. Users are not assumed to be idiots and are not discouraged from experimentation.

The BSD projects share more similarities than differences. None of them require anyone to use the entire base system or the defaults. Users can compile their own kernels, write their own configs e.g., based on examples provided, and cherry pick utilities.[1] In my opinion this is made just a tad easier than with Linux.

1. But if you do this with OpenBSD and advertise it, I think you may draw some criticism. Frankensystem, etc. They are not encouraging experimentation, they are encouraging conformity.

Is "Analyzing Sun Networks" out of print?

I remember this book as being quite good.

So many of those "old" Sun ideas are still around today, in one form or another.

Do web developers find ways to create work for themselves?

You allude to it below when you say "zillions of hours".

There is a significant amount of money moving through the "web development industry".

People are getting paid to write things that suck.

The internet actually has made leaps and bounds in terms of what can be delivered over it to the masses.

But the "web" has become a cesspool of redirects, overstuffed headers and pages crammed with beacons, ad server links and ad-related Javascript, accessible through ad-sales-company-sponsored software ("web browsers") to run the ad-related Javascript.

If and when users grow tired of web advertising, the entire system is a risk of a serious correction.

Again, significant and increasingly larger sums of money are moving through the web ad and user data collection cesspool so no one really cares how poor the quality of the "content" becomes.

And you want to learn to orient your mind to this "new way of thinking"?

Maybe you are not resisting change. Maybe you are resisting stupidity. Your time may be better spent focusing on backend development. Today's "backend" may be tomorrow's frontend.

All that "content" can easily be delivered without a single line of Javascript and without using search-engine-ad-sales-company-sponsored software.

"TinyOS". It's on Github.

Why I'm dropping Rust (hackernoon.com)

Why the redirect from medium.com?

What happens if a consultant approaches a company that uses Hadoop and offers them "custom data transformation" solutions for their most frequent processing jobs at lower cost and that beat Hadoop's processing times 100-fold?

The company saves money by choosing the lower cost and time by not having to wait for slow Hadoop processing.

It seems like there is competitive advantage to be gained and money to be made by taking advantage of Hadoop's inefficiencies.

But then things are not always what they seem.

What is the key difference between "central servers" and "bootstrap servers"?

I mean DHT is "decntralized" once the client has a copy, but initially a client has to get a copy of it from somehwere.

And unless every client gets the DHT from a different source, the system seems "centralized" in that sense.

I'm not much of C programmer but I think it's an approximation of an infinite loop.

   for(;;){
         if(condition) break;
   }

Reva Forth (Windows/Mac/Linux)[1] is cool but how about a Forth that does not require an OS? 1. No Plan9/BSD/etc.

The true beauty of Forth to me is the relative ease with which one can boot into a Forth REPL and start controlling hardware, without an "OS".

The idea is a computer with APL as its "OS". The project at kparc.com is closer to this idea than the one at cosy.com. What is evident in both cases that this idea has survived. And that's good.

s/envgiduid/envuidgid/

"Microsoft's software makes using an old timeshareing [sic] operating system on a PC look really great in comparison."

Amen.

I would like an APL using ASCII characters written in Forth.

  while :;do ssh ... && break; sleep 5; done

They've added doas to the ramdisk.

Naive Q: Is doas any better than envgiduid and envdir? And if so, how?

Apologies for being stupid but this does not make sense to me:

  while [ true ];do ssh user@62.141.55.117; sleep 0.1; done

  while test true; do ...; done

  while [ false ]; do ...; done

  while :; do ...; done

There is a universally accepted standard. And I believe the usual suspects have each had it implemented on their manufactured "smartphones". Each device can put its network interface into AP mode.

I think the marketing term is "WiFi Direct". But good luck getting Apple and Samsung devices to both discover and associate with each other.

If it feels like you're continually being corralled into sharing files with the person next to you via a third party's servers and an open, insecure, untrusted network ("the internet"), then maybe you are.

It is not necessary to use the internet and third parties to do something as simple as transfer files to the person sitting next to you (without using removable media), but it's easy for companies to convince users that this is the only way to do it.

And in most cases no convincing is even necessary because users fail to consider the alternatives.

"For the attacks to work, the cloud hosting the VM must have deduplication enabled so that physical pages are shared between customers."

But the vendor's cloud will not disable sharing pages of physical memory because ____.

This is a great counterpoint to the salesman trying to sell you on "cloud" anything.

Why is it less expensive to use the "cloud"?

One reason is because you do not get your own physical server, including your own RAM.

When the "cloud" buzz began to gain momentum years ago I raised the issue of not knowing who your "neighbors" were on these physical servers that customers are sharing with other customers in datacenters.

As usual, these concerns will just fade into the background... again.

Great comment.

OK, if you meant going from DOS batch to UNIX sh scripts, i.e., from one scripting language to another, as the "mental shift", then that's fair.

But using an alias for a program that may be called by a script is not going to address that.

A user can just as easily call curl.exe using BAT, WSH, etc., or PS.

As for DOS, keep in mind MS did not even write the software that became MS-DOS; they bought it.

Many believe it was a copy of the work of Gary Kildall whose CP/M was undisputedly more original and superior in quality to anything else for the "PC".

Using their usual tactics (remember "vaporware"?), MS extinguished Kildall's DR-DOS, and put his company out of business.

Later they paid a $150 million settlement for this move.

What is difficult to understand is why MS cannot make money without copying and interfering with other companies.

What's wrong with their "original" work? Can't they sell that?

Will they use the same tactics against open source projects that write software for UNIX? Maybe that is what concerns people here.

Also difficult to understand why they must force users to "upgrade" and OS that already works? Profits and revenues. Right. Rah rah Redmond.

If this behavior is what they must do in order to derive "profits and revenues" then why would you be confounded by people who would question it?

I'm all for winning in business, profits and revenues, but truthfully I am here because I like using, reading and trying to write software that is better than average.

Microsoft offers nothing in this regard.

Yes or no question: Is it deemed too difficult for a user to create their own aliases, based on their own needs?

Why should anyone have to make a "mental shift"? The answer is not because UNIX is incompatible with other systems. The answer is more likely because Microsoft Windows is a proprietary commercial product; its sales and marketing staff have traditonally sought to discredit UNIX. Having followed Windows from 3.11 onwards I would argue that it is "different" and incompatible by design. The "mental shift" is intentional and strategic, but not at all necessary.

Why were there no plans to make PowerShell free and open source and publicly available initially? That's a rhetorical question of sorts.

UNIX as the OS that generally "runs the internet" has become better known and more popular in recent years as a result of several factors. That's why MS has to make the moves they're making. keywords: "has to"

IPsec.

One is always left with the impression Microsoft thinks their users are ignorant, for lack of a better word.

Of course, along with all those users who Microsoft treats as ignorant, again for lack of a better word, there are some very sharp people who use Windows -- who will perhaps take offense at any criticism of Microsoft -- no offence intended! (I am just not smart enough to feel confident with Windows myself -- too complicated.)

What is amusing to me about this incident is that I imagine Microsoft would argue that "Monad/Powershell" is aimed at its so-called "power users". Apparently these "power users" would not notice or would need something like this?

Intentionally or not, Microsoft is targeting beginners, not "power users" -- tactics like this leverage the popularity of the curl and wget programs and at the same time prevent beginners from learning how to use those programs, not to mention the long history behind them.

Disclaimer: I prefer nc, socat and tnftp myself; I have no bias in favor of curl or wget.

Don't know much about Sandstorm but I agree with the statements.

The best software is often written by one person.

It may defy common sense but I have seen this happen again and again.

I like relatively small, open source software I can edit if I so choose.

I've been enjoying the fruits of Bell Labs and UC Berkeley.

I'm not a "dev" or even a Linux or Bash user. I like the simplest Bourne shells the best. Plan 9's rc is also good.

I've never enjoyed using Microsoft Windows. (But if they gave away the source for NT kernel I might find use for it, after a lot of work trimming it down to size.)

Maybe the size and power of UNIX has spoiled me.

MS obsessively focuses on their competition to the detriment of users and software quality.