UPDATE ON FREE UNIX ROOT ACCOUNT ON SOLARIS 10 SPARC

[solquestions]

For inconveniencing you, I apologize.

Now, to avail of free root access, first login to one system:
telnet trainingzone.getmyip.com


(username: unix password: no password, hit enter), then, telnet
192.168.0.108 (username:root, password: nopt password,hit enter).

Updates about the free training, free root account, will be made
available on:
http://www.kartik.com/FreeUNIXaccount.html

Do not hesitate to contact me.

Comfort and Peace, I wish for you.

Kartik Vashishta

 

[CBFalconer]

For inconveniencing you, I apologize.

Then why did you do it? c.l.c deals with the C language, as
defined in the C standard. Unix, root accounts, solaris, sparc have
nothing to do with that.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Then why did you do it? c.l.c deals with the C language, as
defined in the C standard. Unix, root accounts, solaris, sparc have
nothing to do with that.

You're replying to a spammer. (I've rot13'ed the spammer's address.)

 

[dfighter]

Total nonsense. Unix is built with C.

c.l.c deals with C not the C Standard. To discuss the C standard please
go elsewhere.

C is the programming language defined in the C standard.
Disregarding finite exceptions c.l.c deals with the issues of
programming in standard C language.

 

[dfighter]

The C standard is discussed is c.s.c not c.l.c. If you don't see the
difference, please find someone to teach you English. BTW c.l.c deals with
programming in C via *ANY* published standard for C.

Oh and don't feed the known troll CBF!

Thank you for the information, but I am well of both the difference
between THE standard and the language, and the appropriate forum(s) for
discussing the standard.
Also I didn't specify the standard exactly for the reason you mentioned.

 

[dfighter]

The C standard defines conforming C and strictly conforming
C. Which are you talking about? If you're talking about the
latter, perhaps you'd find it instructive to try providing
an example of a strictly conforming C program as defined
by the standard, with reference to 3{1}, 4{5}, 4{6}, and
5.2.4.1{1}. You may be surprised how difficult it is to
meet the standard's exact requirements for a strictly
conforming C program. In fact, I've never seen an example
of a strictly conforming C program on either comp.lang.c or
comp.std.c.

But to save this thread from degenerating into word games,
don't worry about the above. What I want to know is who says
c.l.c deals with the issues of programming in only ISO C, what
authority they have to say that, and most important, what the
rational arguments are for saying that. They're entitled to
their own opinion, but if they want others to share that
opinion, they need to provide rational, logical arguments.
"comp.lang.c is about C, and C and ISO C are isomorphic"
isn't a rational, logical argument, as is easily demonstrated.


Yours,
Han from China

Yes we agree on that it's very hard (if not impossible) to write
programs that solve problems in the real world with strictly conforming
C code, since we need to use libraries that may or may not be (strictly)
conforming.

However there exists an isomorphism between ANSI/ISO C (either c89 or
c99) and the C programming language, since "The C programming language"
is a programming language that is defined in the ANSO/ISO C standard(s).
Standards since c89 is still the de facto standard, while c99 is indeed
the official de jure standard for "The C programming language".

Everything else is an extension to or an implementation of C.

The topic/name computer.language.c implies that only "The C programming
language" is on-topic here, which is again defined in the standard.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Yes we agree on that it's very hard (if not impossible) to write
Blah, blah, blah

Mmmmm! Yummy Kool-Aid!

 

[dfighter]

If there's an isomorphism between "ISO C" and "C" that lets us
take comp.lang.c to be an implied comp.lang.iso-c, doesn't that
mean we can substitute "ISO C" for "C" wherever "C" appears?

"K&R C" ---> "K&R ISO C"
"C Unleashed" ---> "ISO C Unleashed" (with sockets, etc.)
"In 1973, the Unix kernel was rewritten in C" ---> "In 1973, the
Unix kernel was rewritten in ISO C"

Why should "comp.lang.c" ---> "comp.lang.iso-c" be any less absurd
than the above?


Yours,
Han from China

I think you are misinterpreting my post either deliberately or out of
ignorance.
Mindlessly substituting Iso-C for C is like substituting vectorspace for
vector.
Also you took it out of context. Since we are in the computer.language.C
newsgroup, which implies "The C programming language", which is defined
in the C standard(s). While the examples you came up with are not
examples for the language but for applications of the language.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Han from China wrote: [...]

Yours,
Han from China

I think you are misinterpreting my post either deliberately or out
of ignorance. Mindlessly substituting Iso-C for C is like
substituting vectorspace for vector. Also you took it out of
context. Since we are in the computer.language.C newsgroup, which
implies "The C programming language", which is defined in the C
standard(s). While the examples you came up with are not examples
for the language but for applications of the language.

"Han from China" is a deliberate troll. Some of us have tried
debating with him in the past; it never works. I suggest ignoring
him.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

comp.lang.c means the C programming language. That's all. I
don't believe the C programming language is restricted to
the ISO C definition and neither do millions upon millions
of software developers, authors, and historians. Also bear
in mind that when many of the people who share your topicality
opinion talk about the popularity statistics of the C
programming language, they're inconsistently accepting a
huge body of C code that is *not* ISO C. That is, they're
happy to refer to the evidence that the C programming language
is the most popular, even though they know that the vast
majority of open-source projects aren't written in ISO C.

Very well said and all true, of course.

But keep in mind that these are people who claim to believe in the
virgin birth, talking snakes, a 6,000 year old Universe, and a whole
bunch of other equally unlikely things.

They don't *really* believe in any of these things, of course (who could?),
but they do profess to believe them. They have internalized the hypocrisy,
and there's no turning back for them.