 | | 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)
|
| |
| | The way of the Math Geek (was Re: [faq FAQ How do I format an entry in the Lugnet FAQ?]
|
|
(...) I actually believe my main reason for doing it was that I had to create hundreds of pages of HTML, and I didn't trust any of the "HTML authoring tools" to do what I wanted. Basically, I thought other people's tools would have bugs or (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jul-99, to lugnet.faq, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Perl rules!
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) OK, I'd class those as incompetent rather than poor. Not that I'm pedantic at all. (...) Most likely, as I'm good at misunderstanding things like that. It sounded to me as though you were tending towards saying (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Perl rules!
|
|
(...) Well, I think you're not going to find much love for AIX anywhere. (...) Oh my. I personally like the ability to at least have case retained, but can go either way on whether opening a file is case sensitive. But passwords sure as hell should (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | The Continuing Desecration of Perl, or, www.perl.com (Was: Perl rules!)
|
|
AAAAAAAAGH! Has anyone seen what they've done to www.perl.com today!?!?!? They've dumbed it down! It's absolutely *LOADED* with O'Reilly logos and ads! Perl is the tree, and the dog pack of O'Reilly and Associates just pissed on it! I'm more afraid (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Perl rules!
|
|
(...) Yah, no argument there. I prefer the Windows 4 GUI over almost anything else (1), and I can run a wide range of apps on my NT box. But, I know the difference between reliability and popularity, and for mission-critical apps where down time (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Perl rules!
|
|
Sproaticus wrote in message ... (...) that (...) born (...) fun (...) My current experience with UNIX is limited to IBM's AIX, but I find it infinitely more painful to use than Windows for some of the following reasons: X-Windows: sorry, in many (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Perl rules!
|
|
(...) I don't care if MS is a money-grubbing empire as long as they make great products. The problem I have with it is that they're only making good (not great) products and that, in combination with their monopolistic nature, hurts the other guys (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Perl rules!
|
|
(...) Please. Where would we be if we had nothing but Apple and Steve "I'm a megalomaniac" Jobs to depend on? I remember hearing YEARS ago how superior the Mac was to the PC because at the time all it took to "network" a couple of Macs together was (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: spamcake collection
|
|
The almighty Todd tolde us: (...) Sounds like quite a challenging problem in its extreme... :) Since there are only about 350 of 'em, and editing will probably be necessary on most of 'em anyway, I'll bet it's quicker just to pop the whole thing (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: The Results So Far (Was: spamcake collection)
|
|
(...) NOT-SPAMCAKE: changing his email address (again) *sigh* tfn, radiotitan@It'sTheAm...00juno.com when replying, Easy-Bake Spamcake oven, new from Kenner (40 watt lightbulb not included) when replying, please disinfect the spamcake. NOT-SPAMCAKE: (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
