Re: OT: This city is dumping Microsoft Office and Windows for OnlyOffice and Linux

On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 10:16 PM Timothy M Butterworth < timothy.m.butterwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 3:49 PM Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > > > It appears US President Trump is good for Linux. > > > > >From "This city is dumping Microsoft Office and Windows for OnlyOffice > > and

Re: OT: This city is dumping Microsoft Office and Windows for OnlyOffice and Linux

On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 3:49 PM Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > It appears US President Trump is good for Linux. > > >From "This city is dumping Microsoft Office and Windows for OnlyOffice > and Linux - here's why", >

Re: OT: This city is dumping Microsoft Office and Windows for OnlyOffice and Linux

On 01.07.25 21:48, Jeffrey Walton wrote: It appears US President Trump is good for Linux. From "This city is dumping Microsoft Office and Windows for OnlyOffice and Linux - here's why",

OT: This city is dumping Microsoft Office and Windows for OnlyOffice and Linux

It appears US President Trump is good for Linux. >From "This city is dumping Microsoft Office and Windows for OnlyOffice and Linux - here's why", : Is it something in the water? Fi

Re: OT: Malware that causes insertion point to move randomly?

rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, on one of my computers, something was going on that caused my > insertion point to move, quite often, in an incorrect manner. > > Often, on typing any letter, the insertion point would move behind the > character I just typed (such that the next characte

Re: OT: Malware that causes insertion point to move randomly?

This isn't malware. Given that the KVM is known to be damaged that's the first place I'd look. -- John Hasler j...@sugarbit.com Elmwood, WI USA

OT: Malware that causes insertion point to move randomly?

Has anyone here seen or heard of any kind of malware that causes the insertion point to move (somewhat) randomly? On Saturday, on one of my computers, something was going on that caused my insertion point to move, quite often, in an incorrect manner. Often, on typing any letter, the insertion p

Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

Why dose this thread continue? Do you realize that you are on the Debian Linux Reflector! You cant  be more off topic! On 6/14/2025 1:59 AM, gene heskett wrote: On 6/7/25 21:56, Van Snyder wrote: On Sat, 2025-06-07 at 17:23 -0400, Lee Winter wrote: Based on those documents, can you describe

Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

On 6/7/25 21:56, Van Snyder wrote: On Sat, 2025-06-07 at 17:23 -0400, Lee Winter wrote: Based on those documents, can you describe "how it works"?  The documents don't.  They just assert that all radiation reduces the mass of the black hole.  How is that reduction accomplished? Radation has

Re: OT - The impossibility of impossibility - Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

On 6/7/25 1:58 PM, Bret Busby wrote: "Engineers once believed flying at the speed of sound would be impossible" I've been following this thread intermittently during my vacation. And almost immediately, this quote from Arthur C. Clarke came to mind: If an elderly but distinguished scientist

Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

please observe the code of conduct On June 8, 2025 11:46:24 AM EDT, Nicholas Geovanis wrote: >On Sat, Jun 7, 2025, 9:56 PM gene heskett wrote: > >> >> My next door neighbor about 20 years >> younger took the first shot and within about 90 days lost half a lung. >> Today there are folks in

Re: OT - The impossibility of impossibility - Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

On Saturday, June 07, 2025 04:58:04 PM Bret Busby wrote: > "Engineers once believed flying at the speed of sound would be impossible" > - https://www.history.com People once believed that a person could not travel on an (old fashioned steam engine train) as at such high speeds (20-30 mph??) the b

Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

On Sat, Jun 7, 2025, 9:56 PM gene heskett wrote: > > My next door neighbor about 20 years > younger took the first shot and within about 90 days lost half a lung. > Today there are folks in their 40's and 50's here in northern WV falling > over at 2 to 4 a day, twice the rate compared to a de

Re: OT - The impossibility of impossibility - Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

On 2025-06-07, Bret Busby wrote: >> >> No amount of wishful thinking will persuade the universe to change the laws >> of >> physics. >> > "Engineers once believed flying at the speed of sound would be impossible" > - https://www.history.com It seems wormholes are theoretically possible and con

Community Team: End this thread, please WAS Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such

An immediate end to this thread, please. There have been two complaints to the Community Team recently about conduct on this list and, specifically, within this thread. Please stop contributing to this thread immediately. Please do not attempt to revive it. One of the important principles on th

Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

It's bad enough that this small group of selfish people feel that the rest of us and the archives needs tens of messages of them debating relativity with each other, but… On Sat, Jun 07, 2025 at 10:55:20PM -0400, gene heskett wrote: > Considering that shot has killed well over a million to date …

Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

On Sat, Jun 7, 2025, 9:56 PM gene heskett wrote: > On 6/7/25 19:14, Van Snyder wrote: > > On Sat, 2025-06-07 at 13:19 -0400, gene heskett wrote: > >> People who make you > >> actually think are the best. Not because they teach facts, but > >> because > >> they make you think and reach your own op

Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

On 6/7/25 19:14, Van Snyder wrote: On Sat, 2025-06-07 at 13:19 -0400, gene heskett wrote: People who make you actually think are the best. Not because they teach facts, but because they make you think and reach your own opinion. Read John Droz Jr's columns about critical thinking at https://cri

Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

Van Snyder writes: >Radation has mass, as can be seen from m = E/c^2. Radiation has momentum but no mass. The correct full equation is E^2 = (p^2)*(c^2) + (m^2)*(c^4) where E is energy, p is momentum, c is the speed of light in a vacuum, and m is rest mass. For massive particles moving at low

Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

On Sat, 2025-06-07 at 17:23 -0400, Lee Winter wrote: > Based on those documents, can you describe "how it works"?  The > documents don't.  They just assert that all radiation reduces the > mass of the black hole.  How is that reduction accomplished?  Radation has mass, as can be seen from m = E/c

Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

On Sat, 2025-06-07 at 14:05 -0400, Lee Winter wrote: > An example of that kind of dislocation is Steven Hawking. > > Clearly he was quite brilliant.  But just as clearly (according to > me) he was quite WRONG about what is now known as "Hawking > radiation". > > The issue is that he predicted the

Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

On Sat, 2025-06-07 at 13:19 -0400, gene heskett wrote: > People who make you > actually think are the best. Not because they teach facts, but > because > they make you think and reach your own opinion. Read John Droz Jr's columns about critical thinking at https://criticallythinking.substack.com

Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

Based on those documents, can you describe "how it works"? The documents don't. They just assert that all radiation reduces the mass of the black hole. How is that reduction accomplished? On Sat, Jun 7, 2025 at 4:45 PM John Hasler wrote: > Lee Winter writes: > > The issue is that he predicted

Re: OT - The impossibility of impossibility - Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

On 7/6/25 21:05, Alain D D Williams wrote: On Sat, Jun 07, 2025 at 08:32:55PM +0800, Bret Busby wrote: You could not reach the speed of light Ah, yes, ... and man can never fly... We are bound by the laws of physics, just because you really, really, really want to dodge round them does not

Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

Lee Winter writes: > The issue is that he predicted the "evaporation" of black holes by > some quantum events near the event horizon. But if you look at it > carefully you have some quantum recipe for depositing some exotic > (negative mass) objects into the black hole. It doesn't have to be > ma

Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

On 6/7/25 06:30, Bret Busby wrote: On 7/6/25 18:14, Bret Busby wrote: On 7/6/25 17:26, gene heskett wrote: On 6/7/25 02:52, Bret Busby wrote: It is all relative... Yes it is, but you would be amazed at the supposedly intelligent people who will argue the a 5 foot long low uhf band klystro

Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

An example of that kind of dislocation is Steven Hawking. Clearly he was quite brilliant. But just as clearly (according to me) he was quite WRONG about what is now known as "Hawking radiation". The issue is that he predicted the "evaporation" of black holes by some quantum events near the event

Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

On 6/7/25 06:16, Bret Busby wrote: On 7/6/25 17:26, gene heskett wrote: On 6/7/25 02:52, Bret Busby wrote: It is all relative... Yes it is, but you would be amazed at the supposedly intelligent people who will argue the a 5 foot long low uhf band klystron amplifier as used until the 1985 ti

Re: OT - The impossibility of impossibility - Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

On Sat, 2025-06-07 at 14:05 +0100, Alain D D Williams wrote: > No one ever said that talking computers were impossible. Yes: we did > not know > how to do it, tech has since progressed. So how is this relevant ? IBM introduced the 7770 and 7772 Audio Response Units in January 1964. The computer to

Re: OT - The impossibility of impossibility - Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

On Sat, Jun 07, 2025 at 09:22:11PM +0800, Bret Busby wrote: > > No amount of wishful thinking will persuade the universe to change the laws > > of > > physics. > > > > So, you contend that "the universe" is a cognitive entity? No. My use of the word "persuade" was figurative. -- Alain Willia

Re: OT - The impossibility of impossibility - Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

On Sat, Jun 7, 2025, 7:34 AM Bret Busby wrote: > > And, remember - the breaking of the enigma code, was regarded as > impossible, and, without the trying to break the code, and, the actions > of Alan Turing and Joan Clark and their team, we would not have these > devices named electronic computer

Re: OT - The impossibility of impossibility - Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

On 7/6/25 21:05, Alain D D Williams wrote: On Sat, Jun 07, 2025 at 08:32:55PM +0800, Bret Busby wrote: You could not reach the speed of light Ah, yes, ... and man can never fly... We are bound by the laws of physics, just because you really, really, really want to dodge round them does not

Re: OT - The impossibility of impossibility - Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

On Sat, Jun 07, 2025 at 08:32:55PM +0800, Bret Busby wrote: > > You could not reach the speed of light > > Ah, yes, ... and man can never fly... We are bound by the laws of physics, just because you really, really, really want to dodge round them does not mean that you can. This is not politics

OT - The impossibility of impossibility - Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

On 7/6/25 18:56, Alain D D Williams wrote: On Sat, Jun 07, 2025 at 06:14:55PM +0800, Bret Busby wrote: According to the Doppler theory (I believe it was - this is from some decades ago), if you would be travelling toward a set of traffic lights, at the speed of light, You could not reach the

Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

On 7/6/25 19:42, Thomas Schmitt wrote: (There is a Nobel prize waiting for those who can explain why the Higgs bosons jostle so much around fast moving objects of non-zero rest mass ...) That seems like a mutiny by Higgs' bosun... ;) .. Bret Busby Armadale West Australia (UTC+0800) ...

Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

Hi, Bret Busby wrote: > if you would be travelling toward a set of traffic lights, at > the speed of light, and the traffic lights were red, the Doppler effect > would cause them to appear green, Your don't need to travel with full lightspeed to make red light green. The wavelength change would b

Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

On Sat, Jun 07, 2025 at 06:14:55PM +0800, Bret Busby wrote: > According to the Doppler theory (I believe it was - this is from some > decades ago), if you would be travelling toward a set of traffic lights, at > the speed of light, You could not reach the speed of light > and the traffic lights

Re: OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

On 7/6/25 18:14, Bret Busby wrote: On 7/6/25 17:26, gene heskett wrote: On 6/7/25 02:52, Bret Busby wrote: It is all relative... Yes it is, but you would be amazed at the supposedly intelligent people who will argue the a 5 foot long low uhf band klystron amplifier as used until the 1985 ti

OT- Relativistic mechanics and such - was - Re: tbird problem

On 7/6/25 17:26, gene heskett wrote: On 6/7/25 02:52, Bret Busby wrote: It is all relative... Yes it is, but you would be amazed at the supposedly intelligent people who will argue the a 5 foot long low uhf band klystron amplifier as used until the 1985 time frame, is immune to E=MV2 math.

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

> This looks strange for me, as I would think, the AP on the computer > would also need some processing time for recognition, correction and > routing to the host. Try it! If you notice an important performance penalty, *then* come back with the numbers and the details of your setup, so someone c

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

Hans writes: > This looks strange for me, as I would think, the AP on the computer > would also need some processing time for recognition, correction and > routing to the host. Every packet is routed by the kernel. There is no seperate "AP". How much delay matters? Ping should be under a millis

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 15:40:07 +0200 Hans wrote: > > Then use NGINX with RTMP-module listening on its standard port and > streaming with RTMP from Computer A to Computer B to the standard > port. > > Everything without any AP or router between. > > The stream can then be made visible with VLC

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

Hans writes: > yes, I already am aware of this, but this I wanted to avoid. It will be then > again a new hop, which causes delay (and I suppose, a software router is > sklower than a hardware device). I haven't tried this, but take a look at: https://wiki.debian.org/WiFi/AdHoc https://help.u

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

On 2025-03-30, John Hasler wrote: > Hans writes: >> This looks strange for me, as I would think, the AP on the computer >> would also need some processing time for recognition, correction and >> routing to the host. > > Every packet is routed by the kernel. There is no seperate "AP". > > How much

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

Am Sonntag, 30. März 2025, 21:41:30 CEST schrieb debian-u...@howorth.org.uk: > Timothy M Butterworth wrote: > > [snip] > > > If you make the storage server the access point > > What storage server? > I thought this was about live video display from a drone? Oh sorry, maybe I did the wrong expr

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

On Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 9:29 AM Hans wrote: > Am Samstag, 29. März 2025, 19:21:39 CEST schrieb Stefan Monnier: > > >> You need to make one PC an access point. I think most guides are > > > > > > yes, I already am aware of this, but this I wanted to avoid. It will > > > be then again a new hop, w

Re: OT: Re: Web server access

On 4/3/25 21:43, Van Snyder wrote: On Thu, 2025-04-03 at 15:16 +0200, john doe wrote: On 4/3/25 01:19, Van Snyder wrote: On Wed, 2025-04-02 at 15:24 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: I added port 443 only because my router converted the port 80 request to a port 443 request. I eventually worked

Re: OT: Re: Web server access

On Thu, 2025-04-03 at 15:16 +0200, john doe wrote: > On 4/3/25 01:19, Van Snyder wrote: > > On Wed, 2025-04-02 at 15:24 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > > > > I added port 443 only because my router converted the port 80 > > request > > to a port 443 request. I eventually worked out the reason f

OT: Re: Web server access

On 4/3/25 01:19, Van Snyder wrote: On Wed, 2025-04-02 at 15:24 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: I added port 443 only because my router converted the port 80 request to a port 443 request. I eventually worked out the reason for that was because my server had started running a firewall that blocke

[SOLVED] Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

Hi folks, thank you very much for all your respose! It was so hepfull amnd I have again again a lot. You showed me different ways using software AP, ad-hoc and gave me many informations. I will test all these things now, what will take me some time. All my questions are fully answered and so

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

Timothy M Butterworth wrote: [snip] > If you make the storage server the access point What storage server? I thought this was about live video display from a drone?

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

On Sun 30 Mar 2025 at 15:40:07 (+0200), Hans wrote: > > What new hop? You said you had the setup: > > > > hostA≡E--cat5/6--cable--∃≡hostB > > no, I have no cable setup, I just said, I know, how to setup when using a > cable. Maybe I did not use the correct English idiom... Yes

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 15:40:07 +0200 Hans wrote: > Hi David, > > > What new hop? You said you had the setup: > > > > hostA≡E--cat5/6--cable--∃≡hostB > > > > no, I have no cable setup, I just said, I know, how to setup when > using a cable. Maybe I did not use the correct Eng

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

Hi David, > What new hop? You said you had the setup: > > hostA≡E--cat5/6--cable--∃≡hostB > no, I have no cable setup, I just said, I know, how to setup when using a cable. Maybe I did not use the correct English idiom... > where E and ∃ are ethernet sockets. (You don't norm

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

Am Samstag, 29. März 2025, 19:21:39 CEST schrieb Stefan Monnier: > >> You need to make one PC an access point. I think most guides are > > > > yes, I already am aware of this, but this I wanted to avoid. It will > > be then again a new hop, which causes delay (and I suppose, > > a software router

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 16:37:39 +0100 Hans wrote: > > You need to make one PC an access point. I think most guides are > > designed to then connect that AP to the rest of the network, so > > that the AP is useful to wifi-only devices, but you can just > > ignore that. > > > > Example at: > > > >

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

>> You need to make one PC an access point. I think most guides are > yes, I already am aware of this, but this I wanted to avoid. It will > be then again a new hop, which causes delay (and I suppose, > a software router is sklower than a hardware device). No, if one of the PCs is the AP, then c

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

On Sat 29 Mar 2025 at 16:37:39 (+0100), Hans wrote: > > You need to make one PC an access point. I think most guides are > > designed to then connect that AP to the rest of the network, so > > that the AP is useful to wifi-only devices, but you can just > > ignore that. > > > > Example at: > > >

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

> You need to make one PC an access point. I think most guides are > designed to then connect that AP to the rest of the network, so > that the AP is useful to wifi-only devices, but you can just > ignore that. > > Example at: > > http://souktha.github.io/misc/create-ap-linuxpc/ > > Cheers, >

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

On 29/3/25 23:41, Hans wrote: It is not important, if a router is givng the devices an IP-address. So I do not need any dhcp. The IP-addresses can of course be set manually by me. The more problem I see, will be the encryption and passkey-exchange, if needed. However, I do not need encryption,

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

To clarify the access point will typically assign a subset of a class-C > range for DHCP. It will usually be O.K. to assign static addresses in > the same class C but out of the DHCP range > > An alternative depending on the router is to configure the router to > have fixed DHCP addresses based o

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

On 29/3/25 23:01, jeremy ardley wrote: On 29/3/25 22:53, Hans wrote: But is this possible with wifi, too? My idea was working with fixed IP`s and give computer A the IP-address from computer B as gateway, and the other way round. Of course I my thinking was wrong (otherwise it would have be

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

On 29/3/25 22:53, Hans wrote: But is this possible with wifi, too? My idea was working with fixed IP`s and give computer A the IP-address from computer B as gateway, and the other way round. Of course I my thinking was wrong (otherwise it would have been worked). The WiFi router usually assi

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

On Sat 29 Mar 2025 at 15:53:01 (+0100), Hans wrote: > > just a question: Is it possible, to connect two computers with linux via wlan > without any router? > > I know, it is working with ethernet cable and crossover-cable. > > But is this possible with wifi, too? My idea was working with fixed

OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

Dear list, just a question: Is it possible, to connect two computers with linux via wlan without any router? I know, it is working with ethernet cable and crossover-cable. But is this possible with wifi, too? My idea was working with fixed IP`s and give computer A the IP-address from computer

SOLVED (Was: Re: OT what is META_ATTENDEES_DBSPAM1?)

Hellow Hanno, On Mon, 2025-03-17 at 13:28 +0100, Hanno 'Rince' Wagner wrote: > Hi Jonathan, > > On Mon, 17 Mar 2025, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > > Looking at e.g. <877c4p5503@thinkpad-e495.home.arpa> which has > > almost no > > words in it, yet has META_ATTENDEES_DBSPAM1=10; can you confirm

Re: OT what is META_ATTENDEES_DBSPAM1?

On Mon Mar 17, 2025 at 10:49 AM GMT, Hanno 'Rince' Wagner wrote: because spammer use some words quite often and we use these words as detection of spammers. Looking at e.g. <877c4p5503@thinkpad-e495.home.arpa> which has almost no words in it, yet has META_ATTENDEES_DBSPAM1=10; can you con

OT what is META_ATTENDEES_DBSPAM1?

Hellow there, For two days, i had wierd experince at Debian mailing. Actually i send mail to debian-user@lists.debian.org but that did not return to my mailbox. At that time i did try 3 times. Then the third email was successful. After investigate, i did know something. Some spam rule was so high

Re: [slowly OT, was: Does anyone use a USB 'endoscope' on Debian, which ones should work OK?]

On 2025-03-16, wrote: > >> > Not yet, I'm in the UK and the boat is in France, I'll be back there >> > in a couple weeks. :-) >> That's the dream, man, to leisurely navigate those French canals in the >> spring or summer. Good sailing to you. > I used to cycle them, also a dream. And waved to t

[slowly OT, was: Does anyone use a USB 'endoscope' on Debian, which ones should work OK?]

On Sun, Mar 16, 2025 at 01:33:08PM -, Greg wrote: > On 2025-03-15, Chris Green wrote: [...] > > Not yet, I'm in the UK and the boat is in France, I'll be back there > > in a couple weeks. :-) > > That's the dream, man, to leisurely navigate those French canals in the > spring or summer. Goo

Re: OT: Possible memory leak in an exercise of a C handbook

On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 10:51 AM Franco Martelli wrote: > > On 17/12/24 at 22:09, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > [...] > > There may be one logic error in the code -- if you insert one item, > > then you may double free the node because you free 'p' and then you > > free 'last'. > > > > I would rewrite

Re: OT: Possible memory leak in an exercise of a C handbook

On 17/12/24 at 22:09, Jeffrey Walton wrote: On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 2:39 PM Franco Martelli wrote: On 16/12/24 at 20:49, Jeffrey Walton wrote: Here's the problem: void dealloc() { for ( const DIGIT *p = first; p->next != NULL; p = p->next ) if ( p->prev != NULL )

Re: OT: Possible memory leak in an exercise of a C handbook

On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 10:45:43AM +, Kevin Chadwick wrote: > 18 Dec 2024 05:03:12 to...@tuxteam.de: > > > I'm all for concise code, but I usually revert some things in a second > > pass when they seem to hurt clarity. After all, you write your code for > > other people to read it. > > As you

Re: OT: Possible memory leak in an exercise of a C handbook

18 Dec 2024 05:03:12 to...@tuxteam.de: > I'm all for concise code, but I usually revert some things in a second > pass when they seem to hurt clarity. After all, you write your code for > other people to read it. As you wrote the code then uness that second pass is weeks or months later then cla

Re: OT: Possible memory leak in an exercise of a C handbook

Franco Martelli writes: > Peter A. Darnell, Philip E. Margolis - "C A Software Engineering Approach": > > https://www.google.it/books/edition/_/1nsS5q9aZOUC?hl=it&gbpv=0 > > Do you have it too? It's pretty old, with some typo, but it looks to > me good. Sorry, no, doesn't look familiar. I rememb

Re: OT: Possible memory leak in an exercise of a C handbook

On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 04:18:17PM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 16:09:09 -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > I would rewrite the cleanup code like so: > > > > void dealloc() > > { > > DIGIT *next, *p = head; > > while( p ) > > next = p->nex

Re: OT: Possible memory leak in an exercise of a C handbook

Hello :) Le 17/12/2024 à 12:20, Anssi Saari a écrit : Franco Martelli writes: I'd prefer a mailing-list instead, once finished all the exercises, I'd like to looking for somebody that he has my same handbook and to ask him for exchange the exercises for comparison purpose. Just curious, whi

Re: OT: Possible memory leak in an exercise of a C handbook

On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 16:09:09 -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > I would rewrite the cleanup code like so: > > void dealloc() > { > DIGIT *next, *p = head; > while( p ) > next = p->next, free( p ), p = next; > } The logic looks good, but I'm not a fan of thi

Re: OT: Possible memory leak in an exercise of a C handbook

On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 2:39 PM Franco Martelli wrote: > > On 16/12/24 at 20:49, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > Here's the problem: > > > > void dealloc() > > { > > for ( const DIGIT *p = first; p->next != NULL; p = p->next ) > > if ( p->prev != NULL ) > > free( p->prev ); >

Re: OT: Possible memory leak in an exercise of a C handbook

On 16/12/24 at 20:49, Jeffrey Walton wrote: Here's the problem: void dealloc() { for ( const DIGIT *p = first; p->next != NULL; p = p->next ) if ( p->prev != NULL ) free( p->prev ); free( last ); } You seem to be checking backwards (p->prev) but walking the list

Re: OT: Possible memory leak in an exercise of a C handbook

On 17/12/24 at 12:20, Anssi Saari wrote: Franco Martelli writes: I'd prefer a mailing-list instead, once finished all the exercises, I'd like to looking for somebody that he has my same handbook and to ask him for exchange the exercises for comparison purpose. Just curious, which handbook is

Re: OT: Possible memory leak in an exercise of a C handbook

Franco Martelli writes: > I'd prefer a mailing-list instead, once finished all the exercises, > I'd like to looking for somebody that he has my same handbook and to > ask him for exchange the exercises for comparison purpose. Just curious, which handbook is it?

Re: OT: Possible memory leak in an exercise of a C handbook

Franco Martelli wrote: ... > I'd prefer a mailing-list instead, once finished all the exercises, I'd > like to looking for somebody that he has my same handbook and to ask him > for exchange the exercises for comparison purpose. > Does anybody know a mailing-list for C language questions? comp

Re: OT: Possible memory leak in an exercise of a C handbook

On 16/12/24 at 20:49, Jeffrey Walton wrote: On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 2:22 PM Franco Martelli wrote: I'm doing the exercises of a C language handbook. I'm using Valgrind to check for memory leak since I use the malloc calls. In the past I was used to using "valkyrie" but sadly isn't available an

Re: OT: Possible memory leak in an exercise of a C handbook

On 16/12/24 at 20:42, Michael Kjörling wrote: On 16 Dec 2024 17:21 +0100, from martelli...@gmail.com (Franco Martelli): Put in something to count the number of calls to malloc() and free() respectively. Don't forget calls outside of loops. There isn't calls to malloc() or free() outside loops.

Re: OT: Possible memory leak in an exercise of a C handbook

On 16/12/24 at 17:50, Greg Wooledge wrote: On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 17:34:36 +0100, Franco Martelli wrote: void dealloc() { for ( const DIGIT *p = head; p->next != NULL; p = p->next ) if ( p->prev != NULL ) free( p->prev ); free( last ); }

Re: OT: Possible memory leak in an exercise of a C handbook

On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 2:22 PM Franco Martelli wrote: > > I'm doing the exercises of a C language handbook. I'm using Valgrind to > check for memory leak since I use the malloc calls. In the past I was > used to using "valkyrie" but sadly isn't available anymore for Bookworm > (does anybody know

Re: OT: Possible memory leak in an exercise of a C handbook

On 16 Dec 2024 17:21 +0100, from martelli...@gmail.com (Franco Martelli): >> Put in something to count the number of calls to malloc() and free() >> respectively. Don't forget calls outside of loops. > > There isn't calls to malloc() or free() outside loops. What do you mean? >From a quick re-gla

Re: OT: Possible memory leak in an exercise of a C handbook

On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 16:05:26 +0100 Franco Martelli wrote: > I'm doing the exercises of a C language handbook. By all means do the exercises in your handbook as a learning experience. After that, I have found very useful Roger Sessions, Reusable Data Structures For C, Prentice Hall (1989). -- D

Re: OT: Possible memory leak in an exercise of a C handbook

On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 17:34:36 +0100, Franco Martelli wrote: > > > void dealloc() > > > { > > > for ( const DIGIT *p = head; p->next != NULL; p = p->next ) > > > if ( p->prev != NULL ) > > > free( p->prev ); > > > free( last ); > > > } > > > > I think you might ha

Re: OT: Possible memory leak in an exercise of a C handbook

On 16/12/24 at 16:58, Greg Wooledge wrote: On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 16:05:26 +0100, Franco Martelli wrote: void add_element( unsigned int i ) { DIGIT *p; /* If the first element (the head) has not been * created, create it now. */ if ( head == NULL )

Re: OT: Possible memory leak in an exercise of a C handbook

On 16/12/24 at 16:43, Michael Kjörling wrote: On 16 Dec 2024 16:05 +0100, from martelli...@gmail.com (Franco Martelli): Is there a memory leak? What it sounds strange to me is that Valgrind reports: "total heap usage: 9 allocs, 8 frees, …" when for me the calls to "malloc" should be 8, not 9.

Re: OT: Possible memory leak in an exercise of a C handbook

On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 16:05:26 +0100, Franco Martelli wrote: > void add_element( unsigned int i ) > { > DIGIT *p; > /* If the first element (the head) has not been > * created, create it now. > */ > if ( head == NULL ) > { > head = last = (DIGIT *

Re: OT: Possible memory leak in an exercise of a C handbook

On 16 Dec 2024 16:05 +0100, from martelli...@gmail.com (Franco Martelli): > Is there a memory leak? What it sounds strange to me is that Valgrind > reports: "total heap usage: 9 allocs, 8 frees, …" when for me the calls to > "malloc" should be 8, not 9. Put in something to count the number of call

OT: Possible memory leak in an exercise of a C handbook

Hi, I'm doing the exercises of a C language handbook. I'm using Valgrind to check for memory leak since I use the malloc calls. In the past I was used to using "valkyrie" but sadly isn't available anymore for Bookworm (does anybody know for a replacement?). I suppose that Valgrind detects a

Re: OT: Re: Trolling

On 2024-11-25 01:01, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: For $DEITY's sake, folks. Try to stick to the message, not the person. Everything else makes a mailing list unlivable. Totally agree with you Tomas. Everyone's knowledge background is different, like me who is a beginner. The community should tr

Re: OT: Re: Trolling

On Sun, Nov 24, 2024 at 11:37:03AM +0100, john doe wrote: > On 11/24/24 09:51, Geert Stappers wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 10:07:57PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 03:38:56PM -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Groeten > > Geert Stappers > > > > This person

Re: OT: Re: Trolling

Hi, On Sun, Nov 24, 2024 at 11:37:03AM +0100, john doe wrote: > This person is known to try to flame a conversation and is also doing > that kind of trolling on the dnsmasq mailing list. Meanwhile over on debian-devel they are applying cluebats to screen reader users for top posting. Just not a

OT: Re: Trolling

On 11/24/24 09:51, Geert Stappers wrote: On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 10:07:57PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 03:38:56PM -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: Groeten Geert Stappers > This person is known to try to flame a conversation and is also doing that kind of trolling

Re: ot: firefox password manager

On 23/11/24 02:16, fxkl4...@protonmail.com wrote: i'm using the latest release of firefox, 132.0.2 it's very annoying i use the password manager and have a password previously firefox would ask for my password when i start it now it ask for my password every time i encounter a site login screen i

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >