Printing files every step

[Keith Thompson]

Does "the user has to close files properly" imply that if I fail to
close a file, it will continue to consume system resources after my
program terminates?

Likely not, if the resources involved are all in user memory, and
that memory is all recovered on exit.

[snip]

Thanks.

Gordon, *please* do us all a favor and don't snip attributions when
you post a followup. We've had this discussion before; see
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/msg/291038dca20a505e>.

Attribution = misattribution. Even though you and I think that
attributions indicate who wrote what, and we might even agree on
who wrote what, the authors of other articles in the thread don't
agree, and if I don't snip attributions, I get complaints from
several authors each claiming I mis-attributed the *SAME* text to
them. That can draw lawsuits. As far as I know, non-attribution
cannot.

If you use attributions correctly, you shouldn't get any complaints.
If you do get complaints, ignore them.

Your news software will do this for you automatically. It's easier to
get this right than to get it wrong.

If you deliberately delete this important information, you *will*
continue to get complaints -- or you'll be ignored and unable to
participate in this newsgroup.

Ask yourself why you're the *only* person here who deliberately and
consistently snips all attibutions. I've never heard of a lawsuit
over something like this. You're being paranoid, and it's damaging
your ability to communicate.

 

[CBFalconer]

Does "the user has to close files properly" imply that if I fail to
close a file, it will continue to consume system resources after my
program terminates?

No, in fact it is harmless (in CP/M) for a file open only for
read. If you have written to the file and don't close it data may
be lost. But the latter can be said for almost any file system.
The big nuisance of the CP/M system is that it is hard to open a
file for your exclusive use, which again doesn't matter too much
when at most one program is running. So CP/M has to watch out for
the equivalent of TSRs, as does MsDos. There are few disadvantages
to FCBs in a single user environment.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

Attribution = misattribution. Even though you and I think that
attributions indicate who wrote what, and we might even agree on
who wrote what, the authors of other articles in the thread don't
agree, and if I don't snip attributions, I get complaints from
several authors each claiming I mis-attributed the *SAME* text to
them. That can draw lawsuits. As far as I know, non-attribution
cannot.

Utter nonsense, IMO. All it requires is a modicum of care.
Without attributes you will continue to get complaints.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

 

[Default User]

Gordon Burditt wrote:

Attribution = misattribution. Even though you and I think that
attributions indicate who wrote what, and we might even agree on
who wrote what, the authors of other articles in the thread don't
agree, and if I don't snip attributions, I get complaints from
several authors each claiming I mis-attributed the SAME text to
them. That can draw lawsuits. As far as I know, non-attribution
cannot.

I don't believe you. I've been posting to usenet for about 15 years and
I've NEVER had a complaint about attributions except for the rare
occasion when I snipped improperly.

I recommend that you post properly.




Brian

 

[Gordon Burditt]

Attribution = misattribution. Even though you and I think that

I don't understand your objection. I've been posting to Usenet
for many years now and I've never encountered anyone who made
such bizarre allegations.

If I post an article with more than one attribution (other than
mine), I get complaints from authors claiming that I am attributing
some text they don't like (typically a newbie question or someone
generalizing his compiler to the entire world) to them. Since I
get complaints from several different people complaining that I
have attributed the *SAME* text to them, it's obvious that some of
the complaintants don't know how to read attributions, and I can't
fix that.

Is this something that really happened
or are you just inventing a hypothetical?

Every post I have made with more than one attribution in it in maybe
10-15 years has had such complaints (mostly by email). (Before
that I used Notesfiles for about a decade. That had all kinds of
problems with threading and replies, including the idea that replies
didn't have their own subject line - but that was the only type of
feed available at the time). I am told that trn and some other
newsreaders I have used "just do attributions right". All I have
to do is do a followup and leave the attributions alone. But that
doesn't stop the complaints.

Some of the complaints threaten lawsuits (most of which I don't
take seriously). It is obvious just from reading comp.lang.c or
some other newsgroups that mis-attributing some of the stupid stuff
said to a professional programmer who happens to be looking for a
job from an employer who reads USENET could be the basis for a
lawsuit with *real* damages. So it's better to delete the attributions.
Non-attribution has no such potential for real damages.

Gordon L. Burditt

 

[Keith Thompson]

If I post an article with more than one attribution (other than
mine), I get complaints from authors claiming that I am attributing
some text they don't like (typically a newbie question or someone
generalizing his compiler to the entire world) to them. Since I
get complaints from several different people complaining that I
have attributed the *SAME* text to them, it's obvious that some of
the complaintants don't know how to read attributions, and I can't
fix that.


Every post I have made with more than one attribution in it in maybe
10-15 years has had such complaints (mostly by email). (Before
that I used Notesfiles for about a decade. That had all kinds of
problems with threading and replies, including the idea that replies
didn't have their own subject line - but that was the only type of
feed available at the time). I am told that trn and some other
newsreaders I have used "just do attributions right". All I have
to do is do a followup and leave the attributions alone. But that
doesn't stop the complaints.

Some of the complaints threaten lawsuits (most of which I don't
take seriously). It is obvious just from reading comp.lang.c or
some other newsgroups that mis-attributing some of the stupid stuff
said to a professional programmer who happens to be looking for a
job from an employer who reads USENET could be the basis for a
lawsuit with *real* damages. So it's better to delete the attributions.
Non-attribution has no such potential for real damages.

I find this whole thing absolutely astonishing. I've posted hundreds
or thousands of messages, most of them followups, many of them in long
threads with deeply nested quotes. I don't remember *ever* getting an
e-mail complaint about a misattribution. I've probably gotten a few
posted complaints; if they're correct I've apologized and moved on,
and if they're not, I've pointed out the complainer's error and moved
on. In either case, it's never been a huge deal.

The discussion in this thread, and my observations of Usenet in
general, indicate that my experience is very typical. I have *never*
heard of anyone other than you who has reported this kind of problem.

Have the complaints come from some specific newsgroup(s)? Are you
sure the complaints are coming from different people? Is it possible
that someone is stalking you?

If I were in your position, I'd be *very* interested in finding out
why this happens to you and to hardly anyone else.

 

[Default User]

Gordon Burditt wrote:

Every post I have made with more than one attribution in it in maybe
10-15 years has had such complaints (mostly by email).

Lucicrous. Absolutely preposterous. I don't believe you at all.




Brian

 

[Ben Pfaff]

If I post an article with more than one attribution (other than
mine), I get complaints from authors claiming that I am attributing
some text they don't like (typically a newbie question or someone
generalizing his compiler to the entire world) to them.
[...]
Every post I have made with more than one attribution in it in maybe
10-15 years has had such complaints (mostly by email).

This is such a surprising claim that I have to respond, even
though I already see multiple similar responses.

I don't remember this ever happening to me, and never by email.
According to Google, I've posted over 17,500 articles, and I'm
sure that many of those contained multiple attributions.

 

[Jordan Abel]

"Reinserted" attributions and hypothetical quote levels marked with "}"

(e-mail address removed) (Gordon Burditt) writes:

}} Someone??? wrote:

Have you been leaving everything alone? Or have you been leaving
attributions alone while still happily snipping text (see below for the
reason this isn't necessarily good practice)

I find this whole thing absolutely astonishing. I've posted hundreds
or thousands of messages, most of them followups, many of them in long
threads with deeply nested quotes. I don't remember *ever* getting an
e-mail complaint about a misattribution. I've probably gotten a few
posted complaints; if they're correct I've apologized and moved on,
and if they're not, I've pointed out the complainer's error and moved
on. In either case, it's never been a huge deal.

Even more bizarrely, any time i've seen an attribution complaint along
the lines he's described made to ANYONE, it's been because of
attribution lines being improperly snipped.

Alice writes:
} Carol wrote:
}} Bob wrote:
}}}} Alice's question
} I didn't say that.
}}} Bob's answer
}} Carol's response to the answer

In this case, it's possible that the problem was that while the posts in
question had more than one attribution, they did not have enough to
cover the quoted text, and he got the reason for the complaints exactly
backwards.

Or, more likely maybe he snipped text without snipping attributions,
say...

Dave wrote:
} Carol wrote:
}} Bob wrote:
}}} Alice wrote:
}} Carol's reply to Bob
} Dave's reply

[Here, Alice and Bob can both claim that they were misattributed. Alice
has a better case, since Bob did "write" an attribution line that was
retained.]

His solution - trimming attributes to a minimum all the time, is almost
worse than the problem. What you (Gordon B) SHOULD be doing is trimming
any attribution that applies to text you have trimmed, and retaining
attribution that applies to text that you leave in.

As a rule of thumb, each attribution line should be one quote level
beyond the one above it, and the first text line should be one quote
level further than the last attribution line. Follow this rule and you
can't go wrong.

More precisely, each attribution line present should correspond to some
text lines at the next further quoting level, and each level of quoting
present in the text should have an attribution line at the next less
quoting level.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Ben Pfaff said:

This is such a surprising claim that I have to respond, even
though I already see multiple similar responses.

I don't remember this ever happening to me, and never by email.
According to Google, I've posted over 17,500 articles, and I'm
sure that many of those contained multiple attributions.

That was scary. 24,000+, apparently, for me. (Some are very short but some
are /very/ long - at an average of perhaps three or four minutes each,
that's about... No! I don't want to go there!)

In all those 24,000 articles, I'd be very surprised if I hadn't made at
least one attribution error, and even more surprised if it weren't pointed
out by some sharp-eyed bunny, but nobody has ever, ever, ever made a big
fuss about it.

Is this the time when we all email Gordon to say we'll sue him if he quotes
us without attribution?


(For the benefit of the hard-of-thinking, btw, that was not a serious
suggestion.)

 

[Keith Thompson]

If I post an article with more than one attribution (other than
mine), I get complaints from authors claiming that I am attributing
some text they don't like (typically a newbie question or someone
generalizing his compiler to the entire world) to them.
[...]
Every post I have made with more than one attribution in it in maybe
10-15 years has had such complaints (mostly by email).

This is such a surprising claim that I have to respond, even
though I already see multiple similar responses.

I don't remember this ever happening to me, and never by email.
According to Google, I've posted over 17,500 articles, and I'm
sure that many of those contained multiple attributions.

One possibility, consistent with what Gordon is saying, is that he
posted a few articles with attributions some years ago, happened to
get an inordinate number of complaints, and has been consistently
snipping attributions since then. If this is the case, he might find
that he can now start including attributions again and will get few if
any complaints.

This is pure speculation on my part.

 

[Jordan Abel]

Alice writes:
} Carol wrote:
}} Bob wrote:
}}}} Alice's question
} I didn't say that.
}}} Bob's answer
}} Carol's response to the answer

Of course, I meant "some other person's question" - maybe dave.

 

[Jordan Abel]

Ben Pfaff said:




That was scary. 24,000+, apparently, for me. (Some are very short but some
are /very/ long - at an average of perhaps three or four minutes each,
that's about... No! I don't want to go there!)

One month, three weeks, six days, 21 hours, 30 minutes, and 54 seconds.

Is this the time when we all email Gordon to say we'll sue him if he
quotes us without attribution?

I considered stating it publicly, not as a real threat (i'd say so in
the post) but to point out that non-attribution is every bit as much of
a potential legal issue as misattribution.

 

[Jordan Abel]

If I post an article with more than one attribution (other than
mine), I get complaints from authors claiming that I am attributing
some text they don't like (typically a newbie question or someone
generalizing his compiler to the entire world) to them.
[...]
Every post I have made with more than one attribution in it in maybe
10-15 years has had such complaints (mostly by email).

This is such a surprising claim that I have to respond, even
though I already see multiple similar responses.

I don't remember this ever happening to me, and never by email.
According to Google, I've posted over 17,500 articles, and I'm
sure that many of those contained multiple attributions.

One possibility, consistent with what Gordon is saying, is that he
posted a few articles with attributions some years ago, happened to
get an inordinate number of complaints, and has been consistently
snipping attributions since then. If this is the case, he might find
that he can now start including attributions again and will get few if
any complaints.

This is pure speculation on my part.

If he was told (as he says he was) that he shouldn't ever snip
attributions, it's possible that (as detailed in my other post) he's
been snipping text without snipping the attributions they go with.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Every post I have made with more than one attribution in it in maybe
10-15 years has had such complaints (mostly by email).

Then I suggest you have a broken newsreader. I frequently post
multiple lines of attributions, but almost never get complaints, and
then only from people unable to properly read the attrib lines.

newsreaders I have used "just do attributions right". All I have
to do is do a followup and leave the attributions alone. But that
doesn't stop the complaints.

So? Ignore the idiots, they're wrong.

Some of the complaints threaten lawsuits (most of which I don't
take seriously).

There's no accounting for idiots, thats for sure. I fail to see why
you should go against all usenet convention just to try tho.

For what its worth, I object to my words being posted without my
attribution. Its technically a breach of copyright not to even
acknowledge the author. Shall I threaten you with action next time you
do it to me? If so, how will you handle that?

Non-attribution has no such potential for real damages.

Failing to correctly attribute someone's words is rather more
actionable than correctly attributing them but annoying fools in the
process.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Mark McIntyre said:

For what its worth, I object to my words being posted without my
attribution. Its technically a breach of copyright not to even
acknowledge the author.

I think the breach of copyright comes from the quotation, not from the lack
of attribution. An action for breach of copyright on a quotation in a reply
to a Usenet posting would, I think, be most unlikely to succeed, since we
all know when we post to Usenet that we're likely to be quoted by those who
reply to us, and indeed we /encourage/ people to quote our words - so we
can hardly take them to court for so doing.

This isn't a question of legality, in my opinion. It's a question of common
sense and courtesy. It is common sense to quote the context in which you
are replying, and common courtesy to acknowledge the person whom you are
quoting.