Automatically prepend all stdout/stderr output with timestamp?

[Flash Gordon]

[...]
What, in the post, suggests that a platform that supports such things
is being used? [...]

The next-to-last line, perhaps?

I must have missed that (and can't verify as you've snipped that bit and
hunting it down is not worth the effort), but tmp123 should still have
stated it was making a non-C-standard solution.

 

[tmp123]

tmp123 wrote:

Please leave in the attributions for the text you are acutally quoting.
I don't believe Gordon Burditt wrote any of the below.

My apologize to Mr.Burditt, cut&paste mistake. Sorry.

That is completely non-portable and won't work with a number of very
common platforms, since they don't support what you are suggesting.
What, in the post, suggests that a platform that supports such things is
being used? Even if functions of those names do exist they might have
different semantics.

Also, why are you so determined to give people off topic answers without
even having the curtsey to state that they are platform specific and
should be discussed else where?

Why do you take the answer like function names and not like concepts?.

 

[=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=]

Create a pipe, fork and dup stdio?

Plumbing and silverware are outside the scope of the standard.

DES

 

[Flash Gordon]

Why do you take the answer like function names and not like concepts?.

Since dup is not a word nor a concept defined in the C standard the only
obvious interpretation is that it is the name of a function. In any
case, the C standard does not have the concepts of forking processes,
creating pipes or duplicating low level file handles, so it would still
be off topic even if you clearly meant the concepts that POSIX
implements using those functions, and thus should still include a
redirection to another group.

Also, why have you now posted that response something like half a dozen
times? Are you trying to be annoying?

 

[Richard Bos]

tmp123 wrote:

[ Well, _what_ he wrote is unimportant to this post, really, only _that_
he, and a couple of other Googlites, multi-posted this morning. ]

Also, why have you now posted that response something like half a dozen
times? Are you trying to be annoying?

It looks like Google Broken Beta Groups is playing silly buggers. Again.
In a new and creatively broken way.

Richard

 

[tmp123]

Also, why have you now posted that response something like half a dozen
times? Are you trying to be annoying?

As Mr. Bos said, problems on my interface with google. Sorry for the
overload. I will stop posting until solved.

 

[Flash Gordon]

tmp123 wrote:

[ Well, _what_ he wrote is unimportant to this post, really, only _that_
he, and a couple of other Googlites, multi-posted this morning. ]

Also, why have you now posted that response something like half a dozen
times? Are you trying to be annoying?

It looks like Google Broken Beta Groups is playing silly buggers. Again.
In a new and creatively broken way.

In that case, apologies to those unfortunate enough to be using Google
who I have complained at where it is Google messing up rather than the
poster. I suggest those using Google complain to Google and/or use a
real news reader (or even Outlook Express) instead of the broken Google
interface.

 

[Chuck F.]

.... snip ...

Write a program that creates a pipe, redirect I/O (dup) and fork
to the plug-in?.

We don't really need to have 6 copies of your off-topic post.
Pipes are used for smoking, forks are used for eating, dup may be
describing you and your inability to stay on topic, and I cannot
really categorize plug-in. They all have nothing to do with the C
language.

The 6 copies may be partly googles fault, but the content changed
slightly in some of them, so I consider you to be at fault.

--
"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/>

 

[Eric Sosman]

[...]
What, in the post, suggests that a platform that supports such things
is being used? [...]

The next-to-last line, perhaps?

I must have missed that (and can't verify as you've snipped that bit and
hunting it down is not worth the effort), but tmp123 should still have
stated it was making a non-C-standard solution.

No; tmp123 snipped that bit.

And if you think it's "not worth the effort" to fact-check
what you write ... Sounds like a direct threat to your own
credibility, doesn't it?

 

[Chuck F.]

In that case, apologies to those unfortunate enough to be using
Google who I have complained at where it is Google messing up
rather than the poster. I suggest those using Google complain to
Google and/or use a real news reader (or even Outlook Express)
instead of the broken Google interface.

If Google were Microsoft I would be sure they are doing this to
harm usenet and push their own google groups. As it is I am hard
put to find any other motive for the foulness of their interface.

--
"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/>

 

[Flash Gordon]

Flash Gordon wrote:

[...]
What, in the post, suggests that a platform that supports such
things is being used? [...]

The next-to-last line, perhaps?

I must have missed that (and can't verify as you've snipped that bit
and hunting it down is not worth the effort), but tmp123 should still
have stated it was making a non-C-standard solution.

No; tmp123 snipped that bit.

You snipped the entirety of what tmp123 posted, so I could not see from
what you posted whether there was anything in the post I was responding
to indicating that it was a system supporting Posix or Posix like
functionality. Based on what you are saying there was nothing in his
message to indicate this, so it seems that asking what indicated the
platform supported such things was perfectly reasonable.

And if you think it's "not worth the effort" to fact-check
what you write ... Sounds like a direct threat to your own
credibility, doesn't it?

I did not consider fact checking *your* post to be worth my effort, so I
accepted based on your comment that there must have been something I had
missed in what either you or I snipped that answered by question. If you
think that I should not trust your posts to give a reasonable indication
of what has been said then I don't mind putting you on a list of posters
whose posts I should not take at face value.

On that basis that you consider me trusting your posts to be
representative of what has gone on I have now gone back and checked what
I have responded to in this thread. Nothing that I have responded to
other than your post contained any indication that the OP was using a
Posix like system. So, I will happily retract my acknowledgement that
you might have spotted me making an error, since on this occasion I did
not make an error in posting the query you responded to.

 

[Nelu]

If Google were Microsoft I would be sure they are doing this to
harm usenet and push their own google groups. As it is I am hard
put to find any other motive for the foulness of their interface.

I guess that's why it's "Google Groups BETA". I guess that's the
difference between MS and Google .

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Also, why have you now posted that response something like half a dozen
times? Are you trying to be annoying?

He is learning from the best. You guys post the same shit over and over
and over (and will still be doing so 20 years from now...)

 

[Flash Gordon]

I guess that's why it's "Google Groups BETA". I guess that's the
difference between MS and Google .

Although how they can simultaneously call it a Beta and not provide
access by default to the older non-Beta interface...

BTW, is there any way to access the older interface that was not in beta?

 

[Arthur J. O'Dwyer]

Although how they can simultaneously call it a Beta and not provide access
by default to the older non-Beta interface...

"Beta" to Google means "Version 2, but all l33t and technical-sounding."
Google Groups will never get "out of beta," any more than Google News
will. The designation has nothing to do with "buggy." The bugs just come
with the territory.

BTW, is there any way to access the older interface that was not in beta?

Not since the middle of last year, no. The better version was phased
out as their translators got to it, so for a while the Turkish and Israeli
sites were still working. They've been gone for months now, though.

The solution is /not to use Google Groups!/ It's not that hard,
people...!

-Arthur,
preaching to the choir

 

[Flash Gordon]

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Flash Gordon wrote:


Not since the middle of last year, no. The better version was phased
out as their translators got to it, so for a while the Turkish and Israeli
sites were still working. They've been gone for months now, though.

The solution is /not to use Google Groups!/ It's not that hard,
people...!

Apart from the odd bit of searching, I don't.

-Arthur,
preaching to the choir

Indeed

 

[Default User]

Arthur J. O'Dwyer wrote:

Apart from the odd bit of searching, I don't.

It's easy to say, "just don't use it." However, for many people, it's
the only option. Many ISPs do not provide a newsfeed, and in certain
countries even the fairly nominal amount news.individual.net charges
can be a burden.

For many people, company restrictions on software installation or
firewalls may prevent accessing NNTP. In the early part of 2005, our
news feed was dead and other news servers could not be accessed. The IT
guy in charge of usenet was able to get a special port in the proxy
server assigned to NIN, but until that point I had to use Google.

Like it or not, Google is becoming a major part of usenet. Covering our
eyes and saying "don't use it don't use it don't use it don't use
it" is not going to change that. We need to keep educating Google users
as to proper netiquette AND apply pressure to Google to become a good
citizen as well.



Brian

 

[Flash Gordon]

It's easy to say, "just don't use it." However, for many people, it's
the only option. Many ISPs do not provide a newsfeed, and in certain
countries even the fairly nominal amount news.individual.net charges
can be a burden.

There are still free services if people hunt for them. Although I accept
that most users won't.

For many people, company restrictions on software installation or
firewalls may prevent accessing NNTP. In the early part of 2005, our
news feed was dead and other news servers could not be accessed. The IT
guy in charge of usenet was able to get a special port in the proxy
server assigned to NIN, but until that point I had to use Google.

Agreed, sometimes people are forced to use a web based interface or
forgo Usenet access.

Like it or not, Google is becoming a major part of usenet. Covering our
eyes and saying "don't use it don't use it don't use it don't use
it" is not going to change that. We need to keep educating Google users
as to proper netiquette AND apply pressure to Google to become a good
citizen as well.

Agreed.