C-FAQ 19.7

[Mark McIntyre]

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:26:28 GMT, in comp.lang.c ,

I have no problem with adding MS Windows information, but I do think
there should not be a URL to the MS website. For starters, I have yet to
see a resource that never reorganises its website, and that would cause
link rot.

The FAQ has several other links, some of which have rotted already. MS
isn't unique in doing this, and indeed personal websites are perhaps
more prone to unexpected death. I agree however a generic pointer to
the MS website might be safer
--
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

 

[Eric Sosman]

[...] But the simple facts are: comp.lang.c
does not have a faq controlled by its regulars.

Ah, yes, the famous "regulars." Nudds, for instance.

This faq, which is
apparently the sole property of Mr. Summit,

... who wrote it, assembled it, revised it, corrected it,
re-wrote it, and has maintained it on-line for years and years.
Just under one year ago, after this long history of abusive
behavior, he had the gall to give the FAQ both a face-lift and
a better-connected Net-home and offer it to c.l.c. as a Christmas
present. A transparent attempt to buy us off, no doubt. What
a scum-bag monopolist he is!

is being marketed using this
newsgroup and its name.

For some reason, I'm not upset. Not in the least. He did
the work, he gets to reap the reward and retire rich. (Last I
heard, the print version was an Oprah selection and movie rights
were being negotiated; rumor has it that Undefined Behavior will
be played by Johnny Depp.)

It's not at all clear to me how this state of affairs was allowed to
come about.

Nos, nos, dico aperte, consules desumus.

If he wrote it himself, why is it the comp.lang.c faq? [...]

It strikes me that many of your questions would be answered
or at least addressed if you would read ... (wait for it) ...
the FAQ.

 

[jacob navia]

Mark McIntyre a écrit :

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:26:28 GMT, in comp.lang.c ,



The FAQ has several other links, some of which have rotted already. MS
isn't unique in doing this, and indeed personal websites are perhaps
more prone to unexpected death. I agree however a generic pointer to
the MS website might be safer

Yes. I will change that to a generic

"Look at the MSDN documentation".

 

[Random832]

[...] But the simple facts are: comp.lang.c
does not have a faq controlled by its regulars.

Ah, yes, the famous "regulars." Nudds, for instance.

I find the claim that the members of this group cannot revise the FAQ by
consensus, but must submit all proposed changes for approval by one
person, disturbing. I don't believe this claim has actually been made
before this thread (previously, I'd believed that he maintains the faq,
rather than controlling it.)

... who wrote it, assembled it

Did he write it or did he assemble it?

Why does it say it was first composed in 1990 when the version on record
as being posted in 1990 has a copyright date of 1988?

revised it, corrected it,
re-wrote it, and has maintained it on-line for years and years.
Just under one year ago, after this long history of abusive
behavior, he had the gall to give the FAQ both a face-lift and
a better-connected Net-home

I'm not sure in what way any website is "better-connected" than usenet.

and offer it to c.l.c. as a Christmas present. A transparent attempt
to buy us off, no doubt. What a scum-bag monopolist he is!

I just want to know why it's "his" FAQ instead of "our" FAQ, and, since
it's _not_ "our" FAQ, why it's the "comp.lang.c FAQ". Is that really
such an unreasonable thing to ask? Why is it not called "Steve Summit's
C Programming FAQ"?

Is there a legitimate reason why, if he were to disappear or stop
maintaining or stop posting the faq, why shouldn't anyone else be
allowed to pick it up without starting over from scratch? What if he
gets hit by a bus?

It's not at all clear to me how this state of affairs was allowed to
come about.

Nos, nos, dico aperte, consules desumus.

If he wrote it himself, why is it the comp.lang.c faq? [...]

It strikes me that many of your questions would be answered
or at least addressed if you would read ... (wait for it) ...
the FAQ.

Last question: What ever happened to Chris Torek's "FAQ Database" which
is referred to in one post in 1989 before the first google instance of
the current faq? Is it the same faq or was it an unrelated one? If it is
the same, why does Steve Summit have a better claim to sole ownership
than Chris Torek?

I guess part of my issue is, no-one's explained satisfactorily _how_
Steve Summit managed to obtain exclusive rights to the FAQ in the first
place.

 

[Jalapeno]

I guess part of my issue is, no-one's explained satisfactorily _how_
Steve Summit managed to obtain exclusive rights to the FAQ in the first
place.

I can't explain satisfactorily your question either but I bought this
back in the 1990's:

http://www.amazon.com/Programming-F...id=1166798341/ref=sr_11_1/002-3063366-7752834

Maybe it has to do with that book?

 

[Random832]

I can't explain satisfactorily your question either but I bought this
back in the 1990's:

http://www.amazon.com/Programming-F...id=1166798341/ref=sr_11_1/002-3063366-7752834

Maybe it has to do with that book?

Well, yeah, but generally acquiring the rights to some work is done
before publishing it as a book, rather than as a result of it. So
I figured there must be some other explanation.

 

[Dik T. Winter]

> Last question: What ever happened to Chris Torek's "FAQ Database" which
> is referred to in one post in 1989 before the first google instance of
> the current faq? Is it the same faq or was it an unrelated one? If it is
> the same, why does Steve Summit have a better claim to sole ownership
> than Chris Torek?

Well, if Chris Torek reads this he will probably answer.

 

[Keith Thompson]

[...] But the simple facts are: comp.lang.c
does not have a faq controlled by its regulars.

Ah, yes, the famous "regulars." Nudds, for instance.

I find the claim that the members of this group cannot revise the FAQ by
consensus, but must submit all proposed changes for approval by one
person, disturbing. I don't believe this claim has actually been made
before this thread (previously, I'd believed that he maintains the faq,
rather than controlling it.)

The FAQ, whoever owns it, is IMHO one of the better FAQs I've seen.
Steve Summit voluntarily maintains it and provides it as a free
resource. It's the de facto FAQ for this newsgroup because nobody
else has done the (largely redundant) work to create another one.

I think there was some discussion here about rights to the FAQ in
conjunction with the clc-wiki.net site (or maybe the discussion took
place on the wiki, which is currently down). I don't recall the
details, and I don't think any firm conclusions were reached. Since a
longer version of the FAQ is also published as a book, the folks at
Addison-Wesley would probably have something to say about it.

In the abstract, I don't necessarily disagree that having the FAQ
under the control of one person is potentially disturbing. In
reality, though, Steve is one of the few people I trust to do a good
job of it.

I seriously doubt that any process allowing input from the "regulars"
would have a better result.

[...]

I'm not sure in what way any website is "better-connected" than usenet.

I can post a URL for a web site. There's no really good way to post a
reference to anything that exists only on Usenet. (Yes, there's
Google Groups, but URLs there are not unique, and they depend on a
single corporation.) And the FAQ is probably too big to post as a
single article.

[...]

Is there a legitimate reason why, if he were to disappear or stop
maintaining or stop posting the faq, why shouldn't anyone else be
allowed to pick it up without starting over from scratch? What if he
gets hit by a bus?

I don't know, but I agree that it's a good question.

[...]

I guess part of my issue is, no-one's explained satisfactorily _how_
Steve Summit managed to obtain exclusive rights to the FAQ in the first
place.

By creating it. (Yes, that ignores some of the historical questions
you've asked. Perhaps Steve and/or Chris will address them.)

 

[Random832]

I can post a URL for a web site. There's no really good way to post a
reference to anything that exists only on Usenet. (Yes, there's
Google Groups, but URLs there are not unique, and they depend on a
single corporation.) And the FAQ is probably too big to post as a
single article.

The FAQ is routinely posted as a single article. And google accepts
message-ids.

[...]

Is there a legitimate reason why, if he were to disappear or stop
maintaining or stop posting the faq, why shouldn't anyone else be
allowed to pick it up without starting over from scratch? What if he
gets hit by a bus?

I don't know, but I agree that it's a good question.

[...]

I guess part of my issue is, no-one's explained satisfactorily _how_
Steve Summit managed to obtain exclusive rights to the FAQ in the first
place.

By creating it. (Yes, that ignores some of the historical questions
you've asked. Perhaps Steve and/or Chris will address them.)

I hope I haven't screwed anything up - I spent a lot of effort making
sure my post was civil, and it did take effort. Part of the reason this
bothers me is that I do know that Steve's a nice guy, but I also feel
a certain sense of how things "ought to be" with FAQs in general, usenet
FAQs in particular, and it's not compatible with changes being subject
to a single person's approval, or with being published as a book (more
because of the entanglement with a publisher than anything against
selling it in general.)

As for input from regulars, etc... maybe we should form a committee to
recommend revisions and changes to the FAQ.

 

[Keith Thompson]

The FAQ is routinely posted as a single article. And google accepts
message-ids.

But the c-faq.com web site is much easier to search (since thankfully,
the FAQ is not posted to Usenet in HTML). Regardless of who controls
and/or owns it, I strongly prefer to have the FAQ available on a web
site.

[...]

I hope I haven't screwed anything up - I spent a lot of effort making
sure my post was civil, and it did take effort. Part of the reason this
bothers me is that I do know that Steve's a nice guy, but I also feel
a certain sense of how things "ought to be" with FAQs in general, usenet
FAQs in particular, and it's not compatible with changes being subject
to a single person's approval, or with being published as a book (more
because of the entanglement with a publisher than anything against
selling it in general.)

As for input from regulars, etc... maybe we should form a committee to
recommend revisions and changes to the FAQ.

Maybe. In my opinion (and this is *only* my opinion), we should wait
for input from Steve before taking any action on this.

Let me just mention that you're the only person who currently seems to
be concerned about this. That absolutely is not meant to minimize
your concerns. But if anything is to be done, it will require some
sort of consensus. Perhaps this should wait until after the holidays.

 

[Dik T. Winter]

>
> Maybe. In my opinion (and this is *only* my opinion), we should wait
> for input from Steve before taking any action on this.

If I remember well (it is quite some time ago) Steve proposed a serious
FAQ (I disremember how Chris Torek's FAQ figures in it) and that was
almost commonly accepted. There has been much input from readers into
the FAQ (and I am one of those that did contribute), but the consensus
was that it was ultimately Steves work, so he should have the right to
it. And, indeed, he did put a lot of effort in it.

You may put up a committee, but the ultimate result will be that part
of the committee does not contribute anything, part of it will only
allow their own views and so the remaining part will just leave. If
you do not have somebody who has the final word, it is doomed to
failure. Steve has done pretty well in maintaining the FAQ, you
might state that sometimes he lapsed in attention, but nobody is
able to full-time maintain such a thing as an unpaid job. There are
newsgroups with a FAQ that is in worse state than this group.

 

[Default User]

post a >> reference to anything that exists only on Usenet. (Yes,
there's >> Google Groups, but URLs there are not unique, and they
depend on a >> single corporation.) And the FAQ is probably too big
to post as a >> single article.

The FAQ is routinely posted as a single article. And google accepts
message-ids.

But the c-faq.com web site is much easier to search (since thankfully,
the FAQ is not posted to Usenet in HTML). Regardless of who controls
and/or owns it, I strongly prefer to have the FAQ available on a web
site.

[...]

I hope I haven't screwed anything up - I spent a lot of effort
making sure my post was civil, and it did take effort. Part of the
reason this bothers me is that I do know that Steve's a nice guy,
but I also feel a certain sense of how things "ought to be" with
FAQs in general, usenet FAQs in particular, and it's not compatible
with changes being subject to a single person's approval, or with
being published as a book (more because of the entanglement with a
publisher than anything against selling it in general.)

As for input from regulars, etc... maybe we should form a committee
to recommend revisions and changes to the FAQ.

Maybe. In my opinion (and this is only my opinion), we should wait
for input from Steve before taking any action on this.

Let me just mention that you're the only person who currently seems to
be concerned about this. That absolutely is not meant to minimize
your concerns. But if anything is to be done, it will require some
sort of consensus. Perhaps this should wait until after the holidays.

Well, "concerned" may be too strong a term, but I've always been a
little surprised by a newsgroup FAQ that specifically avoids any
newsgroup questions. It's unlike any newsgroup FAQ that I've ever
encountered elsewhere. With the FAQ not being a consensus of the group,
things like that can't get added because the maintainer guy doesn't
want them.

It is what it is, and it's not something that keeps me up at night.
It's also not a job I'd want, so I don't complain about it either.



Brian

 

[Chris Torek]

(I have been holding off on replying to these until I could look
some of this up.)

Did he write it or did he assemble it?

Some of both, although as I recall, most of the text is his.
Much of the detail might be called "group wisdom", perhaps;
but I think most of the wording is Steve's.

Last question: What ever happened to Chris Torek's "FAQ Database" which
is referred to in one post in 1989 before the first google instance of
the current faq?

It never existed.

The reference in <[email protected]> (by Ben
Zimmer) talks about an article by Karl "The Walking Lint" W Z Heuer
(message-ID <[email protected]>). He (Karl) seems to have
assumed that I had actually compiled a list of frequently-asked
questions, when all I really did was observe that there were such
questions. I made the observation back in the days of "net.lang.c",
before the Great Usenet Renaming.

 

[Richard Bos]

Random832 wrote:
[...] But the simple facts are: comp.lang.c
does not have a faq controlled by its regulars.

Ah, yes, the famous "regulars." Nudds, for instance.

I find the claim that the members of this group cannot revise the FAQ by
consensus, but must submit all proposed changes for approval by one
person, disturbing. I don't believe this claim has actually been made
before this thread (previously, I'd believed that he maintains the faq,
rather than controlling it.)

And how, pray, is something as nebulous as "the group" going to actively
maintain a FAQ list? Yes, you could put it on a wiki, but then it'd be
as reliable as Wikipedia.

The FAQ, whoever owns it, is IMHO one of the better FAQs I've seen.
Steve Summit voluntarily maintains it and provides it as a free
resource. It's the de facto FAQ for this newsgroup because nobody
else has done the (largely redundant) work to create another one.

That said, there are one or two questions that crop up frequently here
and are not answered in the FAQ. I can't remember any of them ATM,
though, which should be an indication of how trivial they are.

I can post a URL for a web site. There's no really good way to post a
reference to anything that exists only on Usenet. (Yes, there's
Google Groups, but URLs there are not unique, and they depend on a
single corporation.)

The Message-ID for your message is <[email protected]>, and
will be forever. Anybody can look your message up in a good or even a
halfway usable Usenet archive, using nothing but that Message-ID.

And the FAQ is probably too big to post as a single article.

It used to be. And even if the larger complete version would have to be
split over two articles, that's two Message-IDs. Not something to break
your back over, I'd say.
There are, IMO, good arguments to be made for the viewpoint that the
primary location for a newsgroup FAQ should be _that_ newsgroup, with
anything else, including .d newsgroups, a website, www.faqs.org, or
whatever, being purely additional.

I don't know, but I agree that it's a good question.

Well, let's ask Steve, shan't we?

Richard

 

[Default User]

That said, there are one or two questions that crop up frequently here
and are not answered in the FAQ. I can't remember any of them ATM,
though, which should be an indication of how trivial they are.

Besides questions related to the newsgroup itself, the most glaring
omission in the FAQ that comes readily to mind is any discussion of
strtok(). It needs: "How do use this crazy thing?"; "Why not use it?";
and "What can be used instead?" at the least.



Brian

 

[CBFalconer]

Keith Thompson wrote:

I can post a URL for a web site. There's no really good way to
post a reference to anything that exists only on Usenet. (Yes,
there's Google Groups, but URLs there are not unique, and they
depend on a single corporation.) And the FAQ is probably too
big to post as a single article.

The FAQ is routinely posted as a single article. And google
accepts message-ids.

But the c-faq.com web site is much easier to search (since
thankfully, the FAQ is not posted to Usenet in HTML). Regardless
of who controls and/or owns it, I strongly prefer to have the FAQ
available on a web site.

[...]

I hope I haven't screwed anything up - I spent a lot of effort
making sure my post was civil, and it did take effort. Part of
the reason this bothers me is that I do know that Steve's a nice
guy, but I also feel a certain sense of how things "ought to be"
with FAQs in general, usenet FAQs in particular, and it's not
compatible with changes being subject to a single person's
approval, or with being published as a book (more because of the
entanglement with a publisher than anything against selling it
in general.)

As for input from regulars, etc... maybe we should form a
committee to recommend revisions and changes to the FAQ.

Maybe. In my opinion (and this is only my opinion), we should
wait for input from Steve before taking any action on this.

Let me just mention that you're the only person who currently
seems to be concerned about this. That absolutely is not meant
to minimize your concerns. But if anything is to be done, it
will require some sort of consensus. Perhaps this should wait
until after the holidays.

Well, "concerned" may be too strong a term, but I've always been a
little surprised by a newsgroup FAQ that specifically avoids any
newsgroup questions. It's unlike any newsgroup FAQ that I've ever
encountered elsewhere. With the FAQ not being a consensus of the
group, things like that can't get added because the maintainer guy
doesn't want them.

It is what it is, and it's not something that keeps me up at night.
It's also not a job I'd want, so I don't complain about it either.

The following is a quote from the text version of the FAQ. I think
it covers this subject adequately.

"This article is Copyright 1990-2004 by Steve Summit. Content
from the book _C Programming FAQs: Frequently Asked Questions_ is
made available here by permission of the author and the publisher
as a service to the community. It is intended to complement the
use of the published text and is protected by international
copyright laws. The on-line content may be accessed freely for
personal use but may not be republished without permission.

"Certain topics come up again and again on this newsgroup. They
are good questions, and the answers may not be immediately
obvious, but each time they recur, much net bandwidth and reader
time is wasted on repetitive responses, and on tedious
corrections to any incorrect answers which may unfortunately be
posted. This article, which is posted monthly, attempts to
answer these common questions definitively and succinctly, so
that net discussion can move on to more constructive topics
without continual regression to first principles.

"No mere newsgroup article can substitute for thoughtful perusal
of a full-length tutorial or language reference manual. Anyone
interested enough in C to be following this newsgroup should also
be interested enough to read and study one or more such manuals,
preferably several times. Some C books and compiler manuals are
unfortunately inadequate; a few even perpetuate some of the myths
which this article attempts to refute. Several noteworthy books
on C are listed in this article's bibliography; see also
questions 18.9 and 18.10. Many of the questions and answers are
cross- referenced to these books, for further study by the
interested and dedicated reader.

"If you have a question about C which is not answered in this
article, you might first try to answer it by checking a few of
the referenced books, or one of the expanded versions mentioned
below, before posing your question to the net at large. There
are many people on the net who are happy to answer questions, but
the volume of repetitive answers posted to one question, as well
as the growing number of questions as the net attracts more
readers, can become oppressive. If you have questions or
comments prompted by this article, please reply by mail rather
than following up -- this article is meant to decrease net
traffic, not increase it."

At most Steve might consider adding a few words here about Usenet
protocol, i.e. top-posting, quoting, snipping, flaming. References
to links would do nicely. The following come to mind:

Some informative links:
<http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/>
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>
<http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>

 

[CBFalconer]

Richard Bos wrote:
.... snip ...

Besides questions related to the newsgroup itself, the most
glaring omission in the FAQ that comes readily to mind is any
discussion of strtok(). It needs: "How do use this crazy thing?";
"Why not use it?"; and "What can be used instead?" at the least.

At most that requires slight expansion of 19.6

 

[Richard Bos]

But the c-faq.com web site is much easier to search (since thankfully,
the FAQ is not posted to Usenet in HTML).

Erm...

Web site: download the lot and do a directory search in your favourite
browser, use a web search engine that lets you limit searches to domain
(and you can't limit it to just the FAQ list itself, since things like
the version page are at the same level), or find the site's own search
engine which I don't think exists; and if the first hit isn't what you
wanted, go back in your browser and click the next link.

Usenet article: hit Ctrl-F in your newsreader. If the first hit isn't
what you wanted, hit F3. (Or other keys in other newsreaders.)

STM a Usenet article is easier to search than a website.

Richard

 

[Richard Bos]

"Certain topics come up again and again on this newsgroup. They
are good questions, and the answers may not be immediately
obvious, but each time they recur, much net bandwidth and reader
time is wasted on repetitive responses, and on tedious
corrections to any incorrect answers which may unfortunately be
posted. This article, which is posted monthly, attempts to
answer these common questions definitively and succinctly, so
that net discussion can move on to more constructive topics
without continual regression to first principles.

At most Steve might consider adding a few words here about Usenet
protocol, i.e. top-posting, quoting, snipping, flaming. References
to links would do nicely. The following come to mind:

And topicality.

Richard

 

[Random832]

At most that requires slight expansion of 19.6

"How do I read the mouse?"?

Are you reading some other FAQ?

*searches the rest of th* OH... you mean 13.6