> The Apache group was formed around a number of people who provided patch files that had been written for NCSA httpd 1.3. The result after combining them was A PAtCHy server.
The new story is not consistent with what their website was saying not very long ago.
So either Brian was deliberately propagating the myth himself ... or maybe there's some retconning going on.
(common virtual machine for dynamic languages) named
after an April Fool's hoax that came true:
What a coincident. In 2015, Perl 6 (Parrot VM) and Python 3 have difficulties to transfer their community over from the former major releases Perl 5 and Python 2.
Offtopic: We can learn from it. Like fixing a language early or never/only in small steps. Other examples: XHTML 1 and especially 2 failed, HTML5 based on HTML4 won spectacular. PHP6 failed, but won with PHP 5.3+ and now PHP 7. The transition from Visual Basic 6 and VBA 6 to Visual Basic .Net failed, J#/C# won.
I don't think any of the Perl-6 developers actually advocates switching from Perl-5. (But please correct me if I'm wrong.) The situation is quite different from Python 3, which is the newest incarnation of the Python language.
So Perl 5 was never going to go away like Perl 4 had, it was just going to become one element of a broader ecosystem.
The MS Java to .Net/C# roadmap is off-topic and complicated (afaik: Sun Java -> MS Java (MSJVM) J++ -> J# & C#, C#). J# is dead as of 2015 (it was a transitional language to .Net/C#), but it cannot be denied MS got a VM based environment (CLR) and a Java-inspired language (C# v1). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_J%2B%2B, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Sharp_(programming_language)#... .
Now if GIMP were actually usable...
Giving cryptic names to software works better if you have a big advertising budget. Otherwise, nobody has a clue what your package does.
I had no idea! Makes me love it even more.
> originally a front-end for dc ("desk-calculator"); modern GNU bc is instead a backwards-compatible byte-code interpreter for dc, but what it stands for is still "basic calculator"
1. Naming things
2. Cache invalidation
3. Off-by-one errors.
result = sched_setaffinity(0, sizeof(mask), &mask);
I have to read the info docs before I can read the docs I wanted to read. They're also divided up into little pieces unnecessarily, so I have to think rather than scroll until my eye catches what I need.
info is up there with inkjet printers and trying to make sound work worth a damn in Linux on my list of things that have frustrated me regularly for the past 20 years.
But the one thing I hate about info is that they often change the "see also" near the end of a man page from a list of similar or related commands that you might want to also read, to an invitation to use the info chapter for that command. Aarrrggghhh!
The full documentation for ls is maintained as a Texinfo manual.
If the info and ls programs are properly installed at your site, the command
info coreutils 'ls invocation'
should give you access to the complete manual.
Even then, man pages nowadays are massive compared to what they were intended to be, complexity is the bane of all software.
God, this is so true! I seriously think that world would be much better already if we would just rename many of well-established binaries and C-functions to more-intuitive, better convention. Even without changing APIs that much (which would be great too, of course).
(Not that it should be used much these days; the 'creat() then open()' idiom is a race condition waiting to happen, so 'open()' has grown the ability to create-and-open in one atomic operation. That seems to handle most of the file creation that Unix programs need to do.)
You are not allowed to access this!
Interesting perspective. I use it almost daily.
The syscall as well as the provided utility of same name.
Edit: On my system it's the only ^.nu$ in the dictionary.
That question always comes up, sooner or later. ;-)
I had a plastic toy of Feathers McGraw on my desk, the evil penguin (disguised as a chicken!) from the Wallace and Gromit movie, “The Wrong Trousers.” Looking for a preliminary working title for the compiler, I used the first thing that came to my mind that day. I’m somewhat superstitious about names for software projects, and things were progressing well, so I didn’t dare to change the name.
Also, there is the old philosophical question: which came first, the chicken or the egg? This applies to CHICKEN, too. The compiler is written in Scheme, so you need CHICKEN in order to compile CHICKEN.
(1.) As someone who has only seen the movies, does Azazel (First Class) do "Bamf!" in the comics, too?
(2.) He's Nightcrawler's dad, right? (WP claims so)
Long ago, when I heard of awk and sed, the first thing I did was ask what they stood for. I would think any seriously interested computer person would do the same thing.
Just because it made sense and was entirely justified right then, does not mean that it is not cryptic or strange today. That's kind of the point of the explanations: to explain why the names are so cryptic and strange.
Interesting expectation. I think why I always wondered, I did not really ask that often. Firstly because when I started, there were not many places to ask for (hardly any non-students even had Internet access), second because it would get tedious after a short time.
It's entirely justified for even very serious "computer persons" to have used these commands all the time and only now learning the meaning of some of them.
Yes, awk is an exception, and there are others, but they aren't the rule.
Also: before sed there was gres. I'm not saying it's relevant, just that I've thought it would be better to have gres, and have it be the standard, than sed. (Match and substitution in actually-separate arguments.)