/prog/ - Circle Jerk Thread

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 17:55

Sup /circlejerk/, whats a good book for learning /circlejerk/.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 18:01

The Structure and Implementation of Circlejerks by RMS Matthias Stalin

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 18:03

You mad.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 18:05

>>2
It features a metacirclejerk evaluator!

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 18:20

You want circlejerk? Go to a Ruby On Rails forum.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 18:22

>>3
I mad.

We all mad.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 18:41

Be nice, say thank you
And please once in a while
It's a beautiful world we live in
So give your brother a smile
Turn to a stranger
And give him a pat on the back
It's not that hard to
Maybe the friendship will last

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 19:12

>>6



    "In that direction," the Cat said, waving its right paw round, "lives a Hatter: and in that direction," waving the other paw, "lives a March Hare. Visit either you like: they're both mad."



    "But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.



    "Oh, you ca'n't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."



    "How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.



    "You must be, said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 19:43

Switching to the Mac: The Missing Manual.
Ultimate circle jerk material right there.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 20:44

>>9
Yeah, those unix fags can suck it!

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 20:54

>>10
Mac is Unix HIBT?

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 20:57

>>11
http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/xy.htm

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 20:58

>>11
they are not Unix.
macfags just say that so they can act superior and intelligent.
Macs are about as Unix as Windows with Cygwin.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 21:03

>>12
This is bullshit *BSD isn't even on that list.
This doesn't prove anything. It's exactly the same as how Apple pays for product placement in most major Hollywood films in order to make people think that anyone actually uses their products.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 21:18

>>13
It's more unix than the fucking gentoo I installed recently, shitty base package was missing basic posix commands like vi and nslookup.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 21:23

>>15
RMS/GNU/Linux.
GNU is not Unix.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 21:36

>>16
Well, that explains why it's crap. But you'd think distros would at least try to be POSIX compliant.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 22:21

>>15
gentoo I installed recently

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 22:26

>>1-17

Back to /g/, please!

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 22:49

>>19
Did you mean: /tech/?

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 22:54

>>18
I tried FBSD first but there was some bit of hardware it didn't recognize, I forget what. Not that it matters, it's just something to run a VAX emulator so I can use a real OS, namely OpenVMS.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 0:44

>>22
Did you mean: OpenVAX

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 3:53

>>19
install gentoo

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 8:39

>>17
They may well be, but unless they're certified they're not UNIX. Same goes for ShitBSD.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 9:06

>>24
All that is required to become certified is a buttload of cash.
Microsoft wants to certify Windows 7 as Unix? Sure, just pay a few million, no problem what so ever.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 9:46

>>24
Are you replying to the right person? How would an OS that doesn't meet POSIX be able to get certified?

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 9:55

>>25
Duh, that is true for everything. Rule number uno: Money rules. It's not a problem tied specifically to software or microsoft, so stop blaming either.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 9:58

>>26
because certification is not about meeting POSIX. it it was, a lot more operating systems would be certified as Unix.
It is about money

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 10:16

>>28
I know it's about money, but there are a set of standards the OS has to meet as well.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 10:50

Actually Windows is mostly POSIX. If they'd just provide wrapper functions for their stuff (mmap() around MapViewOfFile() etc.), and shipped a few standard utils in c:\bin, then they'd be there.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 11:03

>>30
A POSIX wrapper layer is very possible AFAIK. There is a POSIX subsystem implemented, but I don't know how complete it is.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 11:20

>>31
The POSIX subsystem was removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows_Services_for_UNIX

It even supports fork() too, and since the nasty Win32 subsystem is not involved, you don't have the egregious process creation cost.

Shame it's about to be discontinued for most editions of Windows.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 13:04

>>32
Anybody who has to use Windows and has a brain will get Windows 7 Enterprise/Ultimate anyway, so this doesn't matter

Name: ???????????????????? 2009-10-24 13:18

>>32
That Interix garbage is a more hacked-together mess than Cygwin.

Name: ???????????????????? 2009-10-24 13:24

>>34
Oh, have you used it? I was just guessing that since it was a proper NT subsystem of its own, instead of hacking it onto the Win32 subsystem, it would be better than cygwin. But I suppose that would be too useful.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 13:36

>>32
Forking is supported by NtCreateProcess, which is how their version of fork() works. Too bad the Win32 API CreateProcess is basically a wrapper for NtCreateProcess which ommits that feature(likely because of backwards compatiblity - however nothing stops them from making a CreateProcessExA/W function).

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 17:54

fork(my.anus)

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 18:33

Live fast, die young!

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 22:27

>>35
No, you would think that, but it actually sucks. I ended up giving up attempting to use it and just installed Linux in a VM.

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-03 0:53

Name: sage 2013-12-13 11:26

sage
sage
sage
sage
sage
sage
sage
sage
sage
sage
sage
sage
sage
sage
sa3ge
sage
sage
sage
sage
saged
sage
sage
sage
sage

Circle Jerk Thread

1 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 17:55

2 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 18:01

3 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 18:03

4 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 18:05

5 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 18:20

6 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 18:22

7 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 18:41

8 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 19:12

9 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 19:43

10 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 20:44

11 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 20:54

12 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 20:57

13 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 20:58

14 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 21:03

15 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 21:18

16 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 21:23

17 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 21:36

18 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 22:21

19 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 22:26

20 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 22:49

21 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-23 22:54

22 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 0:44

23 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 3:53

24 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 8:39

25 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 9:06

26 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 9:46

27 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 9:55

28 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 9:58

29 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 10:16

30 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 10:50

31 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 11:03

32 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 11:20

33 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 13:04

34 Name: ???????????????????? 2009-10-24 13:18

35 Name: ???????????????????? 2009-10-24 13:24

36 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 13:36

37 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 17:54

38 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 18:33

39 Name: Anonymous 2009-10-24 22:27

42 Name: Anonymous 2011-02-03 0:53

43 Name: sage 2013-12-13 11:26