Re: Need help on modifying and assembly of a small program!

From: Beth (BethStone21_at_hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com)
Date: 02/17/05 

Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:09:55 GMT

Frankie say:
> Beth wrote:
> > > But this changes the spaces in the "href"s to "%20"...
> > > Necessary because some people think that unix-folk need
> > > hassles like spaces in filenames :)
> >
> > Use quotes!! Any application that doesn't comprehend quoted arguments
is
> > technically "broken", as they are supposed to be perfectly
permissible...
>
> Sure... 'lynx "Some Damn File Name"' works like a charm.
> Now, how do I add the quotes when I'd like to follow a link?
> Quit lynx and start again with 'lynx "Some Other Damn File
> Name"'? You can claim that anything but IE is "broken", if
> you want, but your files still don't work.

I wouldn't know, Frank...I don't use IE, I use Mozilla (and develop the
HTML pages on that: With specific purpose too, as Mozilla is the "most
standards compliant" browser)...also, Opera correctly handles this
situation too, as does Konqueror...I solely use IE for the only purpose of
"double-check" with another browser...I'd fracking uninstall the nightmare
of a thing instantly, if only Microsoft hadn't "hard-wired" it into the
OS...

I ain't gonna claim anything but IE is "broken"...it's simply _lynx_ that's
"broken"...every other "main" browser handles the situation correctly, as
per the W3C standards and RFCs that they should...

By the way, we're only talking about renaming files without spaces (and the
odd "HREF" change)...all my browsers interpret it correctly...would it not
make the most sense if the person with the "broken" browser makes the
changes because then you can "test" that they worked? Would not that be
logical? Otherwise, you know what'll happen: "Beth, change this!" / "Right,
I've changed it" / "No, Lynx still doesn't like it...change it again!" /
"Okay, I've changed it again" / "No, lynx also doesn't like underscores
either...change it again!"...blah-blah-blah...

If you change it, Frank, then you can see directly if it works with
lynx...plus, my CVS client is a bit "simple"...it doesn't do "CVS rename"
directly...are you using the real "cvs" program and do you know how to do
this in a less "cluttered" way than "delete all files, add same files back
with new names", which is going to trash the CVS "version history" stuff
horribly to do, if I did it like that?

For the record, though, I don't use IE, I use Mozilla...I also _have to_
connect with Windows because Linux doesn't support my USB-connected
modem...I'm also perfectly aware that XHTML is lowercase only (and tags
must match and lone tags should have a slash at the end and...and...) but,
sorry, I didn't see there was any useful point whatsoever to "XHTML
compatibility"...why? Any useful reason...or just the only thing anyone
could find to, yet again, "nit-pick" and "criticise" whatever I
do...what'll it be next? "Your CSS is not level 3 compliant!!"...yeah,
right...and I should care _why_ exactly?

Filenames causing _YOUR_ browser not to work? Fine, _YOU_ change it...you
randomly want "XHTML compatibility" for no particular reason? Fine, _YOU_
convert it...and accept my full apologies for being "inferior"...sorry, but
as I see it, _C_ has the right to criticise because he's actually, you
know, DONE something...you lot are even trying to wriggle out of just
renaming files and asking for bizarre "lowercase" for no practically useful
reason...

Any particular reason why you can't just rename the files yourself and
update the CVS? You're an "admin", Frank...it's not as if you can claim to
"not have access" or anything...and it isn't "coding", it's just renaming
files...

Oh, indeed, you just go and rename all those _HUNDREDS_ of files I've put
together there _BY HAND_ mostly...might help you start appreciating the
work I've put in to stop all these "snipes", "nit-picks" and "criticisms"
all the time...I'll happily "respect my elders", the second I see them
respecting me too...again, for the record: I use _MOZILLA_ and I have _NO
CHOICE_ about the Windows connection, the "support" ain't there...also, I
use Outlook because it can do "IMAP" with a Hotmail account (a
"proprietary" thing) and, if I'm going to get spammed with my "spam
catching" Email, then I choose to put all that crap on Microsoft's servers
and let them pay the expense of storage...not just because I don't like
them but because they are the ones who can most afford it and, also, one
could say that this kind of thing "contributed" towards pissing MS off
enough for their whole "anti-spam" crusade (a shame that the "clean up" is
more PR than reality, eh? Or it would do the entire internet a
service)...any other questions? Or can we now shut up? Thank you very much
:)...

> > Now that PCs - Windows and Linux - don't have such "crippled" nonsense
> > anymore, pardon that I'm now delighted that I can actually give files
> > _NAMES_, rather than cryptic initials...well, at least you're only
asking
> > for the spaces to disappear...if you also insisted on "8.3" filenames,
you
> > can go doing it yourself!!
>
> Spaces in the filenames aren't the problem. Spaces in the
> "href"s are the problem, and Phil's "Perl routine" solves
> it. It could use to be "wrapped" in a "script" - it only
> removes *one* space per invokation. Something "automated"
> that would remove all relevant spaces from all files... and
> recurse subdirectories... would be easier... but it's
> something we'll only need to do once. And, yes, we need to
> quote the filenames when we feed 'em to the "script".

Okay, there's the problem and there's the solution for you...put "%20" into
the HREFs...

Any reason why you've not done it yet? Your CVS access is still working,
yes?

Although, I thought we'd agreed - but feel free to now undo that - that it
would probably make more sense to remove spaces from the filenames and not
use spaces in any filenames anymore? You know, rather than use that script
to "patch" over the problem, target the root cause...this is why I was
talking about "removing spaces from filenames"...I thought that was what we
were going to do from now on - no filenames with spaces anymore - in order
to not just "fix" the problem but make sure it doesn't happen again, by
introducing a new "no spaces" rule (I already have to keep to a "case
sensitive" rule, even though Windows doesn't care...because, of course,
UNIX servers _DO_ care...it doesn't hurt to also add in a "no spaces"
filename rule on top of that too)...

> > Anyway, lest anyone think spaces in filenames is any kind of
"Windows-ism",
> > it isn't...
>
> Okay, how many filenames with spaces in 'em do you find on
> your Linux box, besides yours? I don't know *why* they're
> not ordinarily used... they're "allowed"... Maybe it's
> because I'm not the only one who finds 'em a big fat PITA?

Because not having them - as I explained in the long story - is a
UNIX-ism...which CP/M copied and DOS copied from CP/M...most other OSes,
though, are perfectly happy with them...

And the reason UNIX avoids them is because of the way its "shell"
works...technically, the command itself is _ALSO_ a filename: '"web
browser" "filename"'...for simplicity, therefore, spaces are typically
excluded to avoid this issue of quoting everything all the time...not a
problem for other OSes with GUI front ends or those with "built-in
commands"...UNIX has a different orientation in that regard...other shells
elsewhere tended to have things like: 'LOAD "filename"' or 'CHAIN
"FILENAME"'...UNIX's commands are also files themselves, so it went for an
"abbreviated" form to make these easier to deal with...

Althoughdespitebeingapaininthearse,Frank,perhapsspacesmight,
Idon'tknow,servesomekindofusefulpurpose...Iwonderwhatthatmightbe?
Youdon'tthinkitmighthaveanythingtodowithreadability,doyou?Withitbeingthemor
enaturalwayofwritingandnamingthingslikefiles?
ShallIcontinueorhavewehadenoughdemonstrationofwhat'sreally
thetruepaininthearsepracticeforpeopletobefollowing?

The point of my little "rant" was to make clear that it's _UNIX_ that was
the original "pain in the arse" and CP/M and DOS copied it...that _UNIX_
was the "exception" here, NOT the other way around..._UNIX_ was the one
being "strange" and "unique" in this regard, NOT other OSes...it was the
original "pain in the arse" and, eventually, every OS but DOS has seen the
light to make spaces and long filenames permissible...yes, even UNIX has
now "fixed" its own mistake...

The lack of spaces since the "fix" is to do with "convention" and to do
with typing out command-lines...you can get "text" web browsers but it is
an inherently graphical medium...you shouldn't be typing out anything but
one filename (with quotes) to launch it...and, from then on, the browser
_SHOULD_ deal with them properly...lynx doesn't but it's the "odd one out"
for that and, standards-wise, it could be considered a "bug" or, at least,
a "non-compliance"...

> ...
> > Well, talking to SourceForge "support", then, yes, this is basically
the
> > "gist" of it all: SourceForge have "black listed" Hotmail
> > completely...
>
> Ouch!!! There are a number of options... including "dump
> SF". There really *is* supposed to be a human being at the
> end of "postmaster@", I guess, but what would SF do with
> one if they had one??? Hopefully, they'll quit being
> stubborn... doubt if MS will...

Yeah, my thoughts exactly...like I say, the phrasiology of it all sounds
like I was intruding on some "feud"...SF know as well as anyone that
Microsoft won't listen to "put a human on the end of the postmaster
account" complaints...but they are doing that whole "stubborn" thing...I'm
also thinking - just knowing what Microsoft are like and SF's
"philosophy" - that they've probably come to blows in some other way and
this is all some "feud" thing...you know, MS did something "anti-open
source" against them and this is their form of "revenge" (a silly one,
though...come on, as if MS are going to give a crap about being "black
listed" by the "open source" community? They're probably, in fact, pleased
as punch...because all this "boycott" has done, of course, is keep "open
source" developers with Hotmail accounts from being able to do "open
source" things...thanks actually "score one to MS"...but, as we also see
around here, during "feuds", people do the funniest things and do, indeed,
tend to "score points" for the _OTHER SIDE_...silly sausages, as they are!
;)...

Indeed, SF recommended "complain to MS to get them to change policy"...I'm
not going to even bother...as we all know that there really is absolutely
no point in even trying when dealing with MS...especially when MS ask
"why?"...oh, it's for getting to "open source" stuff...suddenly: "I'm
sorry, we have an unsolveable technical problem doing what you
request...what a coincidence that this harms the 'open source' we
loathe...really, it's not intentional...'honest'...would we tell porky
pies?"...if Hotmail was something people paid for, then it might be
different but they'd - and, to be honest, rightly so - say: "look, you're
getting this for free...stop bloody complaining!"...plus, from the sounds
of things, the "solution" requires MS to actually _hire_ and _pay_ for
someone to do this job (because with something like Hotmail, it would
probably be a full-time job for many people to man such a post)...again,
that's money...and this is MS...just ain't going to happen...

I wouldn't say "dump SF", though...their facilities are good and
useful...and it only effects the mailing-list...I just need to find some
other free Email thingy or something...I think it's much easier for
Mohammed to go to the mountain than the other way around, yes? Problem is,
Hotmail was rather useful because it works with Outlook directly (you know,
no horrible "webmail" crap) and - an absolute requirement in my case, as I
loathe the things - no adverts automatically pasted onto whatever you send
and so forth...what's Google's "gmail" like? I'll look around...there's got
to be something...or, indeed, NoDot mentioned he has "spare" Emails on his
Email thingy...might be easiest to "borrow" one of those, if that works...

It would be "overkill" to dump SF because of this one little thing...not
least because, in a strange way, I kind of "approve"...if only they could
"boycott MS" without it effecting me posting to the list, eh? :)

> ...
> > Microsoft ain't going to do anything because they hate "open source",
SF
> > "teaches them a lesson" by boycotting them completely and so on and so
> > forth...
>
> The funny thing is that MS has some "open source" software
> hosted at SF! "Wix" or something. Or perhaps Nasm is no
> longer the only project ever to have been booted off SF :)

Yeah, but everyone knows that it's just a cheap "PR move" for pretending
they are "revealing source code" to please the law courts and "anti-trust"
nonsense that they always end up in every ten minutes with the DoJ, Europe
and probably China next (actually, didn't China insist that Microsoft let
them see _MOST_ of the Windows source code or they wouldn't take it?
Because they won't take "on trust" that the DoJ didn't "diffuse" their
punishment the way they did for some "spy back door" to be added in for the
FBI to "monitor" users...I don't blame them...I don't have much trust that
it didn't happen either and some "deal" has been struck...just I don't do
anything - well, except bad mouth Bush but I do that totally openly - to
really care if the FBI are "monitoring"...indeed, I'd just bore them to
death, "monitoring" me playing "Spider Solitaire" - always on "easy" level
with just one suit, as I'm quite crap at playing it - all the time
;)...it's not any kind of "important" part of Windows...some "Windows
Installer XML", apparently...

I like that: "Status: Beta"...well, yeah, of course...all Microsoft
software is in a permanent "beta" state...why pay for actual QA and
"testers" when the unsuspecting users can take the burden of the "testing"
costs unwittingly? Only kidding...it would work differently in this case
because of "open source"...you don't pay anyone with "open source" so -
wow! - this could be the first piece of Microsoft software ever tested
_BEFORE_ final release...

> > Yes, I am...well, okay, not currently...the machine is switched
off...but
> > that's the whole point with my "two machine" solution, Frank...I'm
running
> > both...
> >
> > I'd actually rather the Linux machine was the "connected" one
>
> It would be nice, yes. With the "two machines" solution, you
> can run both at once. If both machines were "connected",
> both to the internet, and to each other (with the proper
> /etc/sacrifice_chicken ritual observed, of course), that
> would be perfect. With my "one machine" setup, I'm limited
> to one or the other, at any one time... mostly it's "the
> other" :) I really ought to just reformat that Windows
> drive, I suppose...

Yes, the perfect solution would be some "hub" and then connecting it all to
that...but, well, first: Cost...I don't even have any network cards in
these things so I'd have to buy this and buy that to connect the "knee bone
to the thigh bone" and all that jazz...perhaps when I've saved up enough
pennies to splash out on such stuff, eh? Also, there is the "dissimilar
OSes"...this doesn't prevent it being possible but it's bound to cause
serious headaches getting them to "talk" to each other...it's complicated
enough when all the machines are of the same "type"...the "Linux box", to
be frank, needs things improved...more RAM, better monitor...oh, it did
have two hard drives in it (one 15GB, the other 4GB...yes, not too great by
today's standards but, as I say, this is all "built from spare parts" and
"recycled" from bits of PCs people were just going to throw away anyway
:)...the 4GB one, I thought, could have Win98 or something on it,
perhaps...or, use it for "data" or even "swap" (hmmm, there's a
point...would performance be in any way improved putting the "swap" on a
different hard drive? Would still be on the same IDE cable, though...but I
suppose it might improve it because then, you know, you've sort of got two
independent "read / write" heads...a poor man's version of RAID?
;)...anyway, that plan went out the window when that drive stopped working
(luckily, it was that particular drive, as Linux was on the other
one)...first hard drive I've ever had fail on me too...I have another
"spare" hard drive but it's only 1GB...perhaps DOS or something?

Which, of course, brings up the other thing about "two machines"...I can
still "dual boot" them...so, you know, I could set it up so that, when
Annie posts some DOS code, I could reset the other machine to DOS to try it
out...then you post something about Linux, reboot to try that out...and,
all along, I can keep this in Windows and keep the newsgroup on the
screen...

But, indeed, the best would be "home network"...I can't really make that
work at the moment, though...one day, though...save up the pennies and buy
all the "hubs" and cables and network cards and stuff...but, though nice,
improving the Linux box might make more immediate sense because the limited
RAM and crap monitor really can get _highly annoying_ running X...and,
well, for LuxAsm, it'll end up all being run under X and such...the
"network" is a nice idea but it's not the greatest problem at the
moment...but if I ever have an "excess" of cash to spend (yes, not too
often an occurance, unfortunately ;), then I'd give it a go...

> ...
> > Ah, I'm sure it's probably possible but it'll be complicated and need
to be
> > "planned out", things bought, OSes re-installed, etc....a little "small
> > project" rather than an "overnight" thing...
>
> Tell me about it! I've been "planning" a simple upgrade
> for... well, years, probably... I finally obtained a hard
> drive (15G), and have it formatted with a Linux partition
> and a swap partition - big enough this time, I hope. (my
> current swap partition is 27M or something... and the *only*
> problem I've had is building HLA. "hlaparse.c" is...
> substantial :)

15GBs? Snap! That's what my Linux machine's got too...it did have the 4GB
drive but when I found a 15GB, I "relegated" that to a "second hard drive"
and put the 15GB as the "main" one...ah, that's another thing...I also tend
to always have the full quota of hard drives installed in every machine, as
well...like "two machines", once you start plugging in and using two hard
drives all the time, you don't want to go back...not just the extra space
but it's "nice" to, you know, have a "programs drive" and a "data
drive"...this is also an immense benefit when you get around to "upgrading"
your machine...the "programs drive" with the OS and applications? Ah, screw
that...but you can directly pull out the "data drive" and plug it into the
new machine...oh, yes...as I say, once you start doing this kind of thing,
you don't want to go back and this has to be one massive benefit to doing
it like this...no copying files around or anything...just buy your new
"upgraded" machine with whatever new "Longhorn 7" OS is installed on it and
plug in your "data drive"...there, instant access to all your source code
and documentation and such...

Indeed, I have a bunch of hard drives and a friend was asking "what are
they all for?"...well, to a programmer and person who likes to play with
the "innards" of a PC, they are effectively "removeable drives", yeah? Need
to transfer an absolutely massive files or tons of files? Stick in a second
hard drive, copy it onto that, take it out and stick it in another
machine...there, sure beats floppy disks, eh? :)

Mind you, these days, those "flash" memory cards and stuff have just the
same kinds of capacities and speeds without the "plugging it in" hassles
(can actually do it without switching off the machine beforehand :)...so,
the days might be numbered on this little idea...but it has served me well
for many years...just keep a Phillips screwdriver handy, I say...there's
nothing more annoying, in fact, than all these new "brand" machines with
stupid "stickers" covering the case because breaking the sticker breaks the
"warranty"...and the "non-standard" proprietary fittings where nothing but
their "own brand" stuff fits into it...come on, this is a PC! You're
_SUPPOSED_ to open them up! :)

> I boot into dos, and start Linux with "loadlin".

Really? I prefer GRUB...

"LILO" was a nightmare when I had a Windows / Linux "dual boot" before, as
I'd boot it up then forget to press the key in time to "catch" the
opportunity to ask for Linux to be loaded instead and it would start
booting Windows...then I'd hit "reset" then, oops, I'd forget again...you
know, it could get rather silly very quickly...especially when one
shouldn't really just hit the reset switch in the middle of Windows
loading...though, ummm, it never seemed to do that much harm *cough* at any
point ;)...

> In the
> past, I've started "setup" with "loadlin", too, but now
> loadlin reports that "setup.s has become too large for
> loadlin - please contact the author about this situation"
> (which I haven't). My machine won't boot from my current
> cdrom, tho the bios setup offers to. I've obtained another
> cdrom to try... all that remains is to move some crap so I
> can get the case open, arrange some light on the subject,
> and poke the cdrom in, as a "temporary" thing, and try it. I
> could copy the files off the cd and install from disk, but
> I'd *like* to see what "Joe User" sees with the current
> "install" program...

Yeah, that CD-ROM thing is a problem before that "certain date" when they
all started to "autoboot"...luckily, both these machines here are capable
of this...but, yeah, requires both the CD-ROM and the BIOS to "understand"
what's going on to actually work properly...

Ah, the other "issue" is that I put Red Hat 9 on the machine...I was
thinking of "upgrading" but they've gone all "Fedora" or something...yeah,
I know, there are other "distros" but Red Hat's nice from the perspective
that it's all pretty "brain-dead" installation-wise...and the "RPM" thing
is nice...that should really be more "standardised", or something like it
at least, because it sorts out both "install" and "uninstall" quickly and
properly...

Indeed, thinking about it, I think that whole Microsoft open source "wix"
project is something similar for Windows...pass it some XML file with
"installation instructions" and then it's all automated with the nice
option of "doing it all backwards" to cleanly uninstall...

[ I think, these days, some kind of "install / uninstall" functionality
should probably be "built-in" to OSes...this could even help to improve
"security", perhaps...if all programs have to go through some "install"
process to be executable, then the OS could do some "MD5 sum" on the
file...and then whenever you go to run the program again, it can check the
"sum" once more to ensure that no nasty virus has attached itself to the
file...and, if part of the OS itself, then it could store these "sums" out
of reach from viruses being able to read them...perfect place for a "virus
checker" to attach itself...so, as well as providing "easy and clean
install / uninstall", it could also be used to improve the
"security"...some "policy" where no executable file is permitted to be
executable without passing it through the "install" procedure (which is
where a "virus checker" can check it, the OS can work out a "checksum"
which it can then use to "double-check" the program has not been modified
and the "install" procedure can _always_ show a "do you want to install
XYZ?" prompt on the screen, so you can't have any "spyware" or "viruses"
trying to install themselves without a big prompt flashing up in the middle
of the screen...unless they get "permissions" to be installed by the user
with the prompt, they can't be executed :)... ]

> Meanwhile, although "bit rot" is setting in, this
> installation is still working... and serves as a test of
> "legacy support"... or not...

Mind you, one cure for "bit rot" is talking on a newsgroup...I always think
my machine here is very crap but then someone comes on and talks about
their "'386 with 4MB of RAM" and then I think "oh, it's not so bad"...it's
a 450MHz AMD, in fact, so it really isn't so bad...but, well, whatever
you've got, it's never quite "good enough", eh? :)

Beth :)