i think the newline is superfluous and so i'll probably wait for why 2.0 before installing a pirated copy of it. yeah i know its GPL, but i just gotta be me…
Name:
Anonymous2012-02-13 3:38
>>2
The newline is actually a workaround for the infamous (and unpatched) bash put-the-prompt-on-the-same-line-as-the-last-outputted-line-of-the-last-command bug.
What do you mean by `pirate'? Are you going to buy a copy from seafaring murderous thugs? Why would you do that? That attitude hurts all of the Free Software Movement.
Name:
Anonymous2012-02-13 7:10
/bin/why /bin is deprecated, please use /usr/bin instead.
Licensed under the GPLv3 (or later).
I can't wait for this version to have seventeen flags that do nothing related to the program. Meanwhile the MIT/BSD version remains pure, which leads to people bitching that it ``isn't as good''.
Name:
Anonymous2012-02-14 22:02
Please use int main(void); for the definition of main
Colors RevColor(int a)
{
switch(a)
{
case 0:
return Black;
case 1:
return Red;
case 2:
return Green;
case 3:
return Yellow;
case 4:
return Blue;
case 5:
return Magenta;
case 6:
return Cyan;
case 7:
return White;
default:
return Blue;
}
}
Attr RevAttr(int a)
{
switch(a)
{
case 0:
return Reset;
case 1:
return Bright;
case 2:
return Dim;
case 3:
return Underline;
case 4:
return Blink;
case 7:
return Reverse;
case 8:
return Hidden;
default:
return Bright;
}
}
Install with the following: gcc -lm -o why why.c; sudo cp ./why /bin/why && echo "Done Installing!"
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(void){return system("echo Fuck you, that's why.");}
Name:
Anonymous2012-02-16 21:46
>>30
You are right, that looks terrible. I actually wrote this to act as a shell for people that tried to SSH into the 4chan FTP server that I was running, where it would simply display random shit in random colors. I wanted to see just how convoluted I could get it. Obviously, that block didn't work, so I moved on to the next trivial bit and tried to fuck around with it. I didn't intend, when writing, for it to ever be used in such a critical tool as why. I hope that some real hacker* can someday fix it up nicer.
>>28
Without a name (or pseudonym) attached to that work, there is no effective reason why there should be a copyright attached to it. If you publish your own work and you're anonymous, that work is nothing less than public domain work.
Name:
Anonymous2012-02-17 0:49
>>40
GPL code assigns the copyright to the FSF (meaning RMS).
>>28
All identifiers that begin with an underscore followed by an upper case letter are always reserved for any use by the implementation. You are violating the standard with the names on your enums.
See section 7.1.3 Reserved identifiers in ISO/IEC 9899:TC2 for details.
>>52
Most people who drive on highways drive over the speed limit. That does not change the speed limit. Similarly, Microsoft violating the C standard does not invalidate the C standard.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-03 23:03
>>53
yeah, but you might get rear ended when driving the speed limit in a place where everyone goes 30 mph above it. Of course, the highway patrol would be all over that. But there isn't a C standard police force, going door to door in business parks, handing out tickets to developers writing code that doesn't follow the standard.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-03 23:17
>>54
Consider yourself cited for obstruction of standards compliance, developer.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-03 23:28
>>38
Too primitive.
#include <Application.h>
#include <Alert.h>
#include <stdio.h>
class WhyHaiku : public BApplication
{
public:
WhyHaiku() : BApplication("application/why-haiku")
{
}
>>71
>implying x86 isn't better than your goyish mips bullshit
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-05 10:59
>>68
Forgot installation instructions.
1. Save to why86.asm
2. nasm -f bin -o why86.bin why86.asm
3. dd if=why86.bin of=${device} bs=512 count=1
where ${device} is the boot device.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-05 11:02
>>74
that overwrites the partition table too, fucktard
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-05 11:13
>>19,36,66 chmod +rwxrwxrwx
not chmod a+rwx
neither chmod 777
also installing on /usr/bin with universal write permission
You guys are arguing over what is basically a "Hello World" program written in C. It just goes to show how clumsy C is, when you can argue so much about basically nothing.
>>76
Fuck off with your security bullshit. Know how we kept our shit secure back in the day? We popped motherfuckers like you in the head with a bat for asking too many god damn questions about security.
If the software world were more violent there wouldn't be any of this hacker nonsense.
>>80
Playfully doing something difficult, whether useful or not, that is hacking. The hacking community developed at MIT and some other universities in the 1960s and 1970s. Hacking included a wide range of activities, from writing software, to practical jokes, to exploring the roofs and tunnels of the MIT campus. Other activities, performed far from MIT and far from computers, also fit hackers' idea of what hacking means: for instance, I think the controversial 1950s "musical piece" by John Cage, 4'33", which has no notes, is more of a hack than a musical composition. The palindromic three-part piece written by Guillaume de Machaut in the 1300s, "Ma Fin Est Mon Commencement", was also a good hack, even better because it also sounds good. Puck appreciated hack value.
It is hard to write a simple definition of something as varied as hacking, but I think what these activities have in common is playfulness, cleverness, and exploration. Thus, hacking means exploring the limits of what is possible, in a spirit of playful cleverness. Activities that display playful cleverness have "hack value".
Hackers typically had little respect for the silly rules that administrators like to impose, so they looked for ways around. For instance, when computers at MIT started to have "security" (that is, restrictions on what users could do), some hackers found clever ways to bypass the security, partly so they could use the computers freely, and partly just for the sake of cleverness (hacking does not need to be useful). However, only some hackers did this—many were occupied with other kinds of cleverness, such as placing some amusing object on top of MIT's great dome (**), finding a way to do a certain computation with only 5 instructions when the shortest known program required 6, writing a program to print numbers in roman numerals, or writing a program to understand questions in English.
Meanwhile, another group of hackers at MIT found a different solution to the problem of computer security: they designed the Incompatible Timesharing System without security "features". In the hacker's paradise, the glory days of the Artificial Intelligence Lab, there was no security breaking, because there was no security to break. It was there, in that environment, that I learned to be a hacker, though I had shown the inclination previously. We had plenty of other domains in which to be playfully clever, without building artificial security obstacles which then had to be overcome.
Yet when I say I am a hacker, people often think I am making a naughty admission, presenting myself specifically as a security breaker. How did this confusion develop?
Around 1980, when the news media took notice of hackers, they fixated on one narrow aspect of real hacking: the security breaking which some hackers occasionally did. They ignored all the rest of hacking, and took the term to mean breaking security, no more and no less. The media have since spread that definition, disregarding our attempts to correct them. As a result, most people have a mistaken idea of what we hackers actually do and what we think.
You can help correct the misunderstanding simply by making a distinction between security breaking and hacking—by using the term "cracking" for security breaking. The people who do it are "crackers" (***). Some of them may also be hackers, just as some of them may be chess players or golfers; most of them are not.
>>84
Playfully doing something difficult, whether useful or not, that is hacking. Around 1980, when the news media took notice of hackers at MIT and fixated on the security breaking (which some hackers did occasionally), they ignored all the rest of hacking, and took the term to mean breaking security.
>>85
I'd love to but people are confused on the Internet. Hackers do not break security, security breakers break security.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-06 8:36
>security breakers break security.
security was broken by design. security breakers just exploit what was unfixed and buggy.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-06 8:58
>>87
If that's the case, you can say that all programs are designed to be buggy, slow and bloated. That's besides the point as hackers are not security breakers.
Name:
Anonymous2012-06-06 11:37
>>88
Sure, but your mom is horizontally challenged