What's the easiest and/or simplest part of Linux Kernel?

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by 郭é–, Aug 25, 2013.

  1. 郭é–

    James Kuyper Guest

    Context would help - what in the world are you quoting?
     
    James Kuyper, Aug 31, 2013
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Probably the same reason you didn't cite it yourself.
     
    Keith Thompson, Aug 31, 2013
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. 郭é–

    Phil Carmody Guest

    I didn't name it because it should have been bloody obvious. It was
    the RFC that was in force when n.l.c was newgrouped.

    Phil
     
    Phil Carmody, Sep 1, 2013
    #43
  4. 郭é–

    James Kuyper Guest

    I don't consider it obvious. I wouldn't even have thought to look for
    the term "RFC", and it certainly wouldn't have occurred to me to limit
    my search to the time when net.lang.c (the predecessor to comp.lang.c)
    was formed. The current version of the applicable standards, which Ben
    has kindly identified for us, seems far more relevant.
     
    James Kuyper, Sep 2, 2013
    #44
  5. No, it's really not "bloody obvious". n.l.c was became a newsgroup in
    1982. The earliest RFC, and the one from which I think you quoted, is
    dated 1986.
     
    Ben Bacarisse, Sep 2, 2013
    #45
  6. Which RFC are you referring to?

    The answer to that question is not obvious to me; I know a few
    things about the history of Usenet, but I'm not an expert. If it's
    obvious to you, you should have no difficulty answering.

    Do you assert that no later RFCs are applicable, even if they say
    that they supersede the one you're referring to?
     
    Keith Thompson, Sep 2, 2013
    #46
  7. That's because news (and email) was originally distributed via UUCP over
    dialup modems; the gradual transition to NNTP (and SMTP) didn't occur
    until the core sites had fast (for the era), always-on connections.

    Still, the quote was irrelevant; message _bodies_ are governed by RFC
    822 and its successors. NNTP (or SMTP or even UUCP) only governs what
    is called the message _envelope_, which is not at issue here.

    S
     
    Stephen Sprunk, Sep 2, 2013
    #47
  8. That's a little skewed (dial-up was only one option), but it's good
    to point out that there were standards in place before NNTP came along.
    That's one reason why I have no idea what RFC Phil thinks is in place at
    the time n.l.c started up.
    Technically, no. The article format is governed by RFC 850, but that's
    something of a quibble because the main point of RFC 850 is to say the
    messages are formatted as emails as per 822. It add some requirements
    and imposes some restrictions, but it's basically RFC 822.

    But I disagree about relevance. The comment about the character set
    covers "commands and replies" and these include the text reply that
    contains the a whole post when itis requested form the server. If the
    ASCII restriction applies, it applies to the message as a whole.

    BTW, the parts of the NNTP protocol that correspond to an email envelope
    are virtually none because NNTP does not specify any delivery
    information.
     
    Ben Bacarisse, Sep 2, 2013
    #48
  9. 郭é–

    Tim Rentsch Guest

    Normal practice is to attribute the original author. The
    text shown obviously has a lot more of Fred Brooks in it
    than it does of Eric Raymond.

    Raymond credits Brooks with the quote; since he does, it
    seems appropropiate that any citation should also credit
    Brooks. Nothing wrong with giving Raymond credit for the
    paraphrase also, as long as Brooks is credited with the
    original. What would Eric Raymond himself prefer? Perhaps
    this:

    Brooks, Chapter 9: ``Show me your flowchart and conceal
    your tables, and I shall continue to be mystified. Show
    me your tables, and I won't usually need your flowchart;
    it'll be obvious.'' Allowing for thirty years of
    terminological/cultural shift, it's the same point.

    This quote taken from the current online version of ESR's
    book, at

    http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ar01s06.html

    I see no reason why your motivations for reading various
    books should have any bearing on what attribution should be
    given. If you want to express a personal opinion about
    the value of ESR's book, or any book, go ahead and do so;
    but that should be done directly, not by giving misleading
    attributions.

    Thanks just the same, I prefer not to accept favors from
    petty and intellectually dishonest people.
     
    Tim Rentsch, Sep 2, 2013
    #49
  10. When you cite "John 3:16", it is in the expectation that the reader will
    check the source to find out that John was, in fact, quoting Jesus; you
    don't cite, for instance, "John 3:16, quoting Jesus".
    This seems to be the version I read:

    http://www.free-soft.org/literature/papers/esr/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar-5.html

    That's one of the problems quoting with online books: they change.
    You justified your position based on whether readers will think to look
    something up, which opened the opposing line of argument.
    It was not my intent to mislead; I attributed the source I quoted, which
    was Raymond, and he attributed the source he paraphrased.
    Dishonesty requires intent, which I did not have; at most I am guilty of
    laziness and/or assuming too much of my audience. OTOH, you did in fact
    look up the quote, which is what I expected if one wasn't familiar with
    both works. It is you who continue to insist on being petty, just as it
    was you who suggested that I be intellectually dishonest by claiming
    Raymond's paraphrase as my own.

    I'm done with this argument.

    S
     
    Stephen Sprunk, Sep 2, 2013
    #50
  11. Well, there were a few sites with leased lines, but they still used
    standard dialup modems and UUCP. The big change was when the NSFnet
    started up in 1983; the 56kb/s, always-on digital circuits enabled the
    shift to TCP/IP, and so the Internet (as we know it) was born.
    Mail: RFC 822 (1982) was obsoleted by RFC 2822 (2001), which was in turn
    obsoleted by RFC 5322 (2008). The only relevant change vs RFC 822 is
    MIME, which allows character encodings other than ASCII, e.g. UTF-8.

    RFC 850 (1983) was obsoleted by RFC 1036 (1987), which was in turn
    obsoleted by RFC 5537 (2009). RFC 5537 cites RFC 5536 (2009), which
    parallels RFC 5322. The only relevant change vs RFC 822 is MIME, which
    allows character encodings other than ASCII, e.g. UTF-8.

    (The difficulty in keeping track of this mess shows why the IETF is so
    reluctant to make even trivial changes to base protocols.)
    The relevant standards make it quite clear that RFC 5537 covers only the
    protocol between servers while RFC 5536 covers the message bodies that
    are transmitted via said protocol.
    Still, the rules for an envelope and its contents are distinct, even if
    only at a conceptual level. This parallels the distinction for email,
    even if it's not as useful for news, due to their common UUCP origin.

    S
     
    Stephen Sprunk, Sep 2, 2013
    #51
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.