Thomas Charron wrote:
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Ben Scott dragonh...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViGntIpdpyw
John..
How low have you sunk? :-D
Not only has he not sunk but this time of year if he let everyone on
board who would like to be with
Thomas Charron wrote:
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Ben Scott dragonh...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViGntIpdpyw
John..
How low have you sunk? :-D
Imagine if they were on a boat and not the beach! ;^)
-Alex
P.S. Gee I guess it was pretty late when
I've had good luck running xubuntu on constrained PC's like the Koolu.
I suspect the power managment works, but am not sure because I use these
things mostly as servers.
Note that xubuntu uses Xfce instead of fvwm, so I'm not sure if this
approach will work for you. (But at least it will run a
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViGntIpdpyw
John..
How low have you sunk? :-D
I know you meant this as a joke, but let's see:
It took Dennis and I (and Thammy, Dennis' girl friend and our camera
person) about one hour to get the raw video. I had bought the headgear
and eyepatch in the US
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Ben Scott dragonh...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViGntIpdpyw
John..
How low have you sunk? :-D
--
-- Thomas
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Ben Scott dragonh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
So, I was in BestBuy the other day, and saw and bought an Asus Eee
PC 900A for $200 (1 GB RAM, 4 GB SSD hard disk, 1600 MHz CPU,
100BASE-T, 802.11g, MMC/SD, 3xUSB). It ships with a Xandros Linux
configuration
I've installed UNR and Intrepid (8.10) with the UNR packages on my Mini
9, so here's a few random thoughts...
On 02/06/2009 10:14 AM, Alan Johnson wrote:
I'll start by confirming what others have said already: it should be
sufficient for a full distro. I have run full Ubuntu 8.04 on lesser
I'll start by confirming what others have said already: it should be
sufficient for a full distro. I have run full Ubuntu 8.04 on lesser
hardware very happily. I have played with Xubuntu on a few machines and
have not noticed a huge difference between it and Ubuntu, but I think it is
more
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Thomas Charron twaf...@gmail.com wrote:
John..
Who's John? ;-)
-- Ben
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Maybe some on the list might know the answer to this... I am trying to
read n files, one at a time, and appending the data to a different file.
Since the files are so large, I need to delete each of the n files, once I
have captured the data.
Why on earth am I doing this? My arrays are too
On 02/06/2009 01:23 PM, bruce.lab...@autoliv.com wrote:
Maybe some on the list might know the answer to this... I am trying to
read n files, one at a time, and appending the data to a different file.
Since the files are so large, I need to delete each of the n files, once I
have captured the
I googled open file c++ in Google and got this page:
http://www.cplusplus.com/doc/tutorial/files.html
There's an fstream include and you cin and cout to it like to do to
stdin/out.
Also, no reason to call out to the shell. All standard file operations
(create/delete/copy/move/rename) are usually
OK - I'm seeing stuff like this the following in some kernel
syscall handling code and it's making my brain hurt, so I hope
somebody can explain it:
.
.
.
static int mt_ioctl_trans(unsigned int fd, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
{
mm_segment_t old_fs =
Just to add a bit more. The C++ versions of the standard C header files
should be included:
For instance:
#include cstdioNOT #include stdio.h
In all cases of header files defined by the C language standard prepend
with a 'c' and drop the '.h'. But, this applies only to the standard C
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 13:57:30 -0500
Michael ODonnell michael.odonn...@comcast.net wrote:
OK - I'm seeing stuff like this the following in some kernel
syscall handling code and it's making my brain hurt, so I hope
somebody can explain it:
.
.
.
static int
Thanks for the info, Jerry.
-B
gnhlug-discuss-boun...@mail.gnhlug.org wrote on 02/06/2009 02:09:55 PM:
Just to add a bit more. The C++ versions of the standard C header files
should be included:
For instance:
#include cstdioNOT #include stdio.h
In all cases of header files defined by
There is no such thing as Uninitialized static.
All static variables in C are initialialized by default according to the
C standard.
In the case of an int, it is initialized to 0. In the code below, it is
printing only the first 20 times mt_ioctl_trans() is called with an
invalid command. What
Um, doh! I was looking for that - darn. I really did not want to use a
system call, too DOS like.
Thx,
B
Shawn O'Shea sh...@eth0.net wrote on 02/06/2009 01:54:24 PM:
I googled open file c++ in Google and got this page:
http://www.cplusplus.com/doc/tutorial/files.html
There's an fstream
On 02/06/2009 02:14 PM, pds wrote:
Its to prevent messages from filling the syslog and causing the
filesystem to be full of the errors due to a bad ioctl. I never like
to assume a variable to be initialized to 0 as in count. If
the count wraps the message is repeated another 20 times which
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 13:57 -0500, Michael ODonnell wrote:
OK - I'm seeing stuff like this the following in some kernel
syscall handling code and it's making my brain hurt, so I hope
somebody can explain it:
[...]
WTF ?!?! #=- static int count;
WTF ?!?! #=- if (++count = 20)
There is no such thing as Uninitialized static. All static
variables in C are initialialized by default according to the
C standard.
In the case of an int, it is initialized to 0. In the code below,
it is printing only the first 20 times mt_ioctl_trans() is called
with an invalid
On 02/06/2009 02:32 PM, Michael ODonnell wrote:
...and then it'll continue to increment and evenatually wrap
negative and we'll get brazilians of messages as (INT_MAX+20)
passes through that routine see that, indeed, count = 20.
So, OK - this code is as b0rken as it appears. I was worried
that
Jarod Wilson wrote:
Nope, in the kernel, all statics are initialized to zero
Yes. Right. Sheesh, thanks a bunch, guys but I get the CompSci101
stuff (I've *written* compilers and kernels) I just ask questions
like these in public to keep discussion flowing, and I remarked
about that
Michael ODonnell writes:
Yes. Right. Sheesh, thanks a bunch, guys but I get the CompSci101
stuff (I've *written* compilers and kernels) I just ask questions
like these in public to keep discussion flowing, and I remarked
about that blindly-cranking-the-counter-til-it-wraps situation
What I see confufsing is:
do { ... } while(0);
What this means is to go through the loop once. You need a leading
curly so you can set up counter as a local variable as variable
names are block scope. { ... } would be equivalent to above.
They're definitely not equivalent - that's
25 matches
Mail list logo
