|
|
 | | Re: Perl rules!
|
| (...) I do, quite regularly. Windows NT 4.0, Service Pack 5. The last reboot was about two weeks ago when I upgraded from SP3 to SP5; before then, my workstation was up for about three weeks. I have a cow-orker who's had Linux up without a reboot (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Perl rules!
|
| (...) Well, I've been running Emacs on a P150 system with 643MB harddisk for three years now. That's smaller than a CD, right? Or were you refering to transporting the Emacs sources on a CD? I've used a set of 1440KB disks to do that. I needed eight (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Perl rules!
|
| Don Heyse wrote in message ... (...) What, Eighteen Megs And Constantly Swapping? Ever tried putting emacs on anything smaller than a CD? (...) Apparently the latest Caldera is quite good for that - all-GUI install, no reboots and autodetection of (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Perl rules!
|
| (...) A little exercise every day should take care of that, Lar. :-P Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 20-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Perl rules!
|
| (...) CP/M, I think. My TRS 80 model 1 which used an OS (called DOS)(1) which was CP/M derived, had it. 1 - once you started running the floppy. Before that you were just in the ROM BASIC interpreter all the time. I had 2 floppies. 11 hundred bucks (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Perl rules!
|
| (...) Wait a minute. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but the segmented memory architecture allowed you to create absolutely *tiny* programs that did wonderful things. And you could fit tons of these programs on an affordable *floppy* disk. I (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Perl rules!
|
| (...) And why did IBM stick all the ROM and system stuff in high memory (>640K), rather than low memory? If they had done that, it would have been (more) possible to extend the address space without totally losing backwards compatibility. Or if (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Perl rules!
|
| [removed lugnet.off-topic.debate from crosspost list] (...) I'd say, back in 1983, the lack of virtual memory and the 640KB limit was no big deal (in the PC industry). By 1989, it was becoming unfortunate. By 1991, it was getting really bad. And by (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Perl rules!
|
| (...) The 1000-line limit in LEdit was a programming limitation. Nothing to do with anything evil in the OS, unless you consider lack of virtual memory evil (rather than just bad). Was the 8.3 file format originated with MS or DOS? I thought it was (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Perl taint checking and CGI
|
| Hey Perl fans, Does anyone use the taint checking features of Perl for CGI scripts? Is the only way to turn it on with the -T command-line option? Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 19-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
|
