I've dumped Linux and moved to Windows XP.

[Ken Smith]

In article <5f063e31.0406171916.76bbe8c4@posting.google.com>,
Snuffelluffogus <darkred@myway.com> wrote:

What is the smallest size of a usable G++ with IDE?
Nowhere near as small as Turbo C++.

I think if you just add GDB and G++ you'll get more size than Turbo C.

I think the smallest IDE is DDD. With very little effort you can make it
fire up "pico" as the editor. This gives about the smallest total size on
a Linux box and is quite a good way to go.

For non-Linux people: Pico is very like the DOS edit program without all
those unneeded features. Arrow keys move the cursor, typing adds
characters and backspace removes them. What more could anyone need?



--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[David Sutherland]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:02:48 +0200, MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote:

David Sutherland wrote:
On 16 Jun 2004 07:37:41 -0700, mmi@nautimail.com (MMI) wrote:

The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<7hu3q1-drn.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...


[snip]


Windows had TCP/IP stack support back in *'89*.

Out of the box? Surely not before Windows 95.



Guess that reading his next sentence was just waaaay too much trouble
for you.

No.

Yawn.

You asked a question which had already been answered in the next
sentence. Try showing some intelligence instead of trying to score
cheap points.

[snip]


Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

 

[MMI]

David Sutherland wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:02:48 +0200, MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote:


David Sutherland wrote:

On 16 Jun 2004 07:37:41 -0700, mmi@nautimail.com (MMI) wrote:


The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<7hu3q1-drn.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...


[snip]



Windows had TCP/IP stack support back in *'89*.

Out of the box? Surely not before Windows 95.



Guess that reading his next sentence was just waaaay too much trouble
for you.

No.


Yawn.

You asked a question which had already been answered in the next
sentence.

Answered? My question about Windows TCP/IP stack out-of-the-box
answered? Answered by "Trumpet Winsock"? Trumpet Winsock out of the
Windows box? ))) You're nuts.

Can you point me to any Windows version where M$ included TCP/IP stack,
before Windows 95?

Try showing some intelligence instead of trying to score
cheap points.

Heh, nuts is trying to talk clever here.

Cheers,
Martin

[snip]


Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

 

[Gumboot]

In sci.electronics.design, Snuffelluffogus wrote:

What is the smallest size of a usable G++ with IDE? Nowhere near as
small as Turbo C++.

There are good reasons for that, of course. It puts a lot more work
into optimising for a broader set of CPU variations, and I dare say
it supports a much larger C++ specification than Turbo C++ ever did.
And it's probably built optimised for something greater than a 386, so a
good number of the optimisations will deliberately enlarge the code.

 

[MMI]

kensmith@violet.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote in message news:<catnjc$8j4$3@blue.rahul.net>...

In article <5f063e31.0406171916.76bbe8c4@posting.google.com>,
Snuffelluffogus <darkred@myway.com> wrote:
What is the smallest size of a usable G++ with IDE?
Nowhere near as small as Turbo C++.

I think if you just add GDB and G++ you'll get more size than Turbo C.

I think the smallest IDE is DDD. With very little effort you can make it
fire up "pico" as the editor. This gives about the smallest total size on
a Linux box and is quite a good way to go.

For non-Linux people: Pico is very like the DOS edit program without all
those unneeded features. Arrow keys move the cursor, typing adds
characters and backspace removes them. What more could anyone need?

Cut-Copy-Paste perhaps and then the list is complete. ;-)

Cheers,
Martin

--

 

[Jan Panteltje]

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On a sunny day (Fri, 18 Jun 2004 03:29:48 +0000 (UTC)) it happened
kensmith@violet.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote in <catnjc$8j4$3@blue.rahul.net>:

In article <5f063e31.0406171916.76bbe8c4@posting.google.com>,
Snuffelluffogus <darkred@myway.com> wrote:
What is the smallest size of a usable G++ with IDE?
Nowhere near as small as Turbo C++.

I think if you just add GDB and G++ you'll get more size than Turbo C.

I think the smallest IDE is DDD. With very little effort you can make it
fire up "pico" as the editor. This gives about the smallest total size on
a Linux box and is quite a good way to go.

For non-Linux people: Pico is very like the DOS edit program without all
those unneeded features. Arrow keys move the cursor, typing adds
characters and backspace removes them. What more could anyone need?
I have been using the 'joe' editor for 10 years now.

Best programing editor.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[Jan Panteltje]

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On a sunny day (18 Jun 2004 04:16:51 -0700) it happened mmi@nautimail.com
(MMI) wrote in <a9aca7aa.0406180316.c55b131@posting.google.com>:

kensmith@violet.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote in message news:<catnjc$8j4$3@blue.rahul.net>...
In article <5f063e31.0406171916.76bbe8c4@posting.google.com>,
Snuffelluffogus <darkred@myway.com> wrote:
What is the smallest size of a usable G++ with IDE?
Nowhere near as small as Turbo C++.

I think if you just add GDB and G++ you'll get more size than Turbo C.

I think the smallest IDE is DDD. With very little effort you can make it
fire up "pico" as the editor. This gives about the smallest total size on
a Linux box and is quite a good way to go.

For non-Linux people: Pico is very like the DOS edit program without all
those unneeded features. Arrow keys move the cursor, typing adds
characters and backspace removes them. What more could anyone need?

Cut-Copy-Paste perhaps and then the list is complete. ;-)
Actually here is a conceptual problem.

For example in the 'joe' editor, I can do that all with the keyboard
(mark a section, move it, cut it), but MORE important write a selection
to disk, and read anything from disk and insert at the cursor position.
Often just a simple cut and paste is not enough.
For example I have text 'a' open and write sections to my home directory
I call say q1 q2 q3 q4, then in my own program read these in at the places
I want them.
So using these scratch files (later remove q*) is very fast, and a lot better
then cut and paste with a mouse (never use a mouse in the editor).
The other extremely important thing is 'goto linenumber' (from a gcc error),
and 'find' and 'replace' command, and macros, 'joe' has it all.
Calls ispell too (and for 2 languages I have it here).
So, this was a little commercial for 'joe'


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[Kadaitcha Man]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

For example in the 'joe' editor

Ik vind jou een vieze inteelt rukbeer. Wat ben jij een aan heroine
verslaafde lullige jodenneuker, ploerterige uitgedroogde pikkentrekker,
gestoffeerde gehandicapte kutjeskin en een cocksucking brossige
tjsoek-tjsoek van de karpaten.

Jan kut.

 

[Kadaitcha Man]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

Jij bent een opengereten tepelloze pleister op een houten been, je kan
doorgaan als een net gecastreerde gekloven aarskind.

 

[John]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On a sunny day (18 Jun 2004 04:16:51 -0700) it happened mmi@nautimail.com
(MMI) wrote in <a9aca7aa.0406180316.c55b131@posting.google.com>:

kensmith@violet.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote in message
news:<catnjc$8j4$3@blue.rahul.net>...
In article <5f063e31.0406171916.76bbe8c4@posting.google.com>,
Snuffelluffogus <darkred@myway.com> wrote:
What is the smallest size of a usable G++ with IDE?
Nowhere near as small as Turbo C++.

I think if you just add GDB and G++ you'll get more size than Turbo C.

I think the smallest IDE is DDD. With very little effort you can make
it
fire up "pico" as the editor. This gives about the smallest total size
on a Linux box and is quite a good way to go.

For non-Linux people: Pico is very like the DOS edit program without
all those unneeded features. Arrow keys move the cursor, typing adds
characters and backspace removes them. What more could anyone need?

Cut-Copy-Paste perhaps and then the list is complete. ;-)
Actually here is a conceptual problem.
For example in the 'joe' editor, I can do that all with the keyboard
(mark a section, move it, cut it), but MORE important write a selection
to disk, and read anything from disk and insert at the cursor position.
Often just a simple cut and paste is not enough.
For example I have text 'a' open and write sections to my home directory
I call say q1 q2 q3 q4, then in my own program read these in at the places
I want them.
So using these scratch files (later remove q*) is very fast, and a lot
better then cut and paste with a mouse (never use a mouse in the editor).
The other extremely important thing is 'goto linenumber' (from a gcc
error), and 'find' and 'replace' command, and macros, 'joe' has it all.
Calls ispell too (and for 2 languages I have it here).
So, this was a little commercial for 'joe'

I tried joe out today and it's slick. It reminds me of WordStar, which I
really liked eons ago (and still do). Thanks for pointing it out to us.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On a sunny day (Sat, 19 Jun 2004 02:13:44 +1000) it happened "Kadaitcha Man"
<nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in <cb07gb.2kk.1@kadaitcha.cx>:

Jan Panteltje wrote:

For example in the 'joe' editor

Ik vind jou een vieze inteelt rukbeer. Wat ben jij een aan heroine
verslaafde lullige jodenneuker, ploerterige uitgedroogde pikkentrekker,
gestoffeerde gehandicapte kutjeskin en een cocksucking brossige
tjsoek-tjsoek van de karpaten.

Jan kut.

Headers:

Dat je nu weer mentaal moest masturberen op Usenet met MS Windows.
Viezerik.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[The Ghost In The Machine]

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kadaitcha Man
<nospam@kadaitcha.cx>
wrote
on Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:33:42 +1000
<cauctc.22s.1@kadaitcha.cx>:

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kadaitcha Man
nospam@kadaitcha.cx
wrote
on Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:19:38 +1000
7q4ecbepJXIED9E8E221779490D3qEesmH7A4erv@kadaitcha.cx>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net
wrote:

(Trumpet Winsock
was a 3rdparty addon product that filled the bill in the 3.1
days.)


[to Martin] Duh.

True, a subtle point which I could have clarified better. There
are issues here:

There's nothing wrong with winsock. I'm using the latest version of
it now to build a custom, RFC compliant NNTP control. It does its
job and it beats goung down to bare metal to achieve the same result.


Which RFC?

1036, 850, 997, 1153, 2034, 1812, 3052 ...

1036: Standard for Interchange of USENET Messages. Dated 1987-12.
850: Standard for Interchange of USENET messages. Dated 1983-06.
997: INTERNET NUMBERS. Dated 1987-03. (Did you mean 977?)
977: A Proposed Standard for the Stream-Based Transmission of News.
Dated 1986-02.
1153: Digest Message Format. Dated 1990-04.
2034: SMTP Service Extension for Returning Enhanced Error Codes.
Dated 1996-10.
1812: Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers. Dated 1995-06.
3052: Service Management Architecture Issues and Review. Dated 2001-01.

Hm.

Interesting, though I for one would have thought Microsoft
already had one.

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

 

[David Sutherland]

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:55:21 +0200, MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote:

David Sutherland wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:02:48 +0200, MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote:


David Sutherland wrote:

On 16 Jun 2004 07:37:41 -0700, mmi@nautimail.com (MMI) wrote:


The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<7hu3q1-drn.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...


[snip]



Windows had TCP/IP stack support back in *'89*.

Out of the box? Surely not before Windows 95.



Guess that reading his next sentence was just waaaay too much trouble
for you.

No.


Yawn.

You asked a question which had already been answered in the next
sentence.

Answered? My question about Windows TCP/IP stack out-of-the-box
answered? Answered by "Trumpet Winsock"? Trumpet Winsock out of the
Windows box? ))) You're nuts.

And you are the dumbest piece of crap in this ng. You are even
giving TM a real run for his money.

You asked your "out of the box" question on the 16th AFTER the
original post stating that the support was third-party which was made
on the 15th. Perhaps you've forgotten:

==
From: The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net>
Subject: Re: I've dumped Linux and moved to Windows XP.
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:00:42 GMT

[snip]
Windows had TCP/IP stack support back in *'89*. (Trumpet Winsock
was a 3rdparty addon product that filled the bill in the 3.1 days.)
Kludgy, ugly, and slightly dodgy (and very hard to set up properly,
though that wasn't Trumpet's fault, that was DOS's) -- but it worked.
[snip]
====

Then you, brainiac, come along with your cretinous rejoinder:

===
From: mmi@nautimail.com (MMI)
Newsgroups:
alt.os.linux,alt.os.windows-xp,sci.electronics.design,sci.electronics.cad,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: I've dumped Linux and moved to Windows XP.
Date: 16 Jun 2004 07:37:41 -0700
[snip]

Out of the box? Surely not before Windows 95.
====

That's you asking a question to which the answer had already been
given - in the *very next sentence*. Now you want to rewrite history
and claim you asked your question FIRST? F*ck, but you are some kind
of stupid.

Can you point me to any Windows version where M$ included TCP/IP stack,
before Windows 95?

Who ever claimed that had happened? What's next - your usual trick of
inventing things that people said?

Try showing some intelligence instead of trying to score
cheap points.

Heh, nuts is trying to talk clever here.

LOL - keep it up, numbnuts. You are educating a whole new audience
about just how stupid OS/2 advocates can be


Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

 

[Curtis Bass]

MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote in message news:<c1.2b5.2rjyw9$8eU@news.consultron.ca>...

David Sutherland wrote:
On 16 Jun 2004 07:37:41 -0700, mmi@nautimail.com (MMI) wrote:

The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<7hu3q1-drn.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...


[snip]


Windows had TCP/IP stack support back in *'89*.

Out of the box? Surely not before Windows 95.



Guess that reading his next sentence was just waaaay too much trouble
for you.

No. If "something has support for some doodad" then I expect it to have
that out of the box, not that I am to hunt the net for some 3rd party SW
suite.

What you "expect" is irrelevant -- The Ghost In The Machine never
claimed that Windows had "out of the box" TCP/IP support, and, whether
you like it or not, 3rd party support is just as legitimate and
relevant as "out of the box" support.

But great, from this time on, I can say that OS/2 had let's say
NFS support from the 2.x (1992-1993) times.

If it's actually true, then yes, absolutely.

Great. And don't tell me you
didn't find any in your OS/2 box.

It doesn't seem to be an issue with anybody but you . . .

Or we can agree that "has support" means "out-of-the box" and then I'll
shut up about let's say NFS for OS/2, but I'll be right about Trumpet
Winsock... You can choose...

Sure, you can be "right" about Trumpet WinSock if we all adopt your
pet meaning of "support", but that is rather unlikely, considering
that your pet meaning is itself wrong.


Curtis

 

[Curtis Bass]

MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote in message news:<c1.2b5.2rkc2L$8dh@news.consultron.ca>...

David Sutherland wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:02:48 +0200, MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote:


David Sutherland wrote:

On 16 Jun 2004 07:37:41 -0700, mmi@nautimail.com (MMI) wrote:


The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<7hu3q1-drn.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...


[snip]



Windows had TCP/IP stack support back in *'89*.

Out of the box? Surely not before Windows 95.



Guess that reading his next sentence was just waaaay too much trouble
for you.

No.


Yawn.

You asked a question which had already been answered in the next
sentence.

Answered?

Yup.

My question about Windows TCP/IP stack out-of-the-box
answered?

The answer is still affirmative.

Answered by "Trumpet Winsock"?

Again, yes.

Trumpet Winsock out of the Windows box? )))

Nobody ever claimed that Trumpet WinSock was "out-of-the-box" support,
Martin. This "out-of-the-box" conniption you're having is just your
own personal red herring -- it has nothing to do with the issue at
hand, which is that Windows did indeed have TCP/IP support before
Windows 95.

You're nuts.

You may be right. After all, we are trying to talk some _sense_ into
you, yes?

Can you point me to any Windows version where M$ included TCP/IP stack,
before Windows 95?

No, but then nobody's claiming such.

Try showing some intelligence instead of trying to score
cheap points.

Heh, nuts is trying to talk clever here.

So why are you trying to "talk clever" with your "out-of-the-box"
nonsense?


Curtis

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <40d31300@post.usenet.com>,
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
[....]

For example in the 'joe' editor, I can do that all with the keyboard
(mark a section, move it, cut it), but MORE important write a selection
to disk, and read anything from disk and insert at the cursor position.
Often just a simple cut and paste is not enough.
For example I have text 'a' open and write sections to my home directory
I call say q1 q2 q3 q4, then in my own program read these in at the places
I want them.

Sounds like it matches Wordstar's abilities.

WordStar wasn't bad at all. Its block operations were easier to use than
copy and paste.

So using these scratch files (later remove q*) is very fast, and a lot better
then cut and paste with a mouse (never use a mouse in the editor).
The other extremely important thing is 'goto linenumber' (from a gcc error),
and 'find' and 'replace' command, and macros, 'joe' has it all.
Calls ispell too (and for 2 languages I have it here).
So, this was a little commercial for 'joe'


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Bob Thomas]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 16:44:03 -0700, Chris Carlen
<crobc@BOGUS_FIELD.earthlink.net> wrote:

Bob Thomas wrote:
On 23 May 2004 20:15:26 -0700, terrry_porter@yahoo.com (Terry Porter)
wrote:


Sorry, but after years of using Linux and trumpeting it's advantages,
I have tried some Windows circuit board design software and quite
honestly there is really no comparison between the Windows software
and the somewhat crude, though functional, Linux software.
Rather than waste the groups time, I just thought I would say that
Windows is actually a pretty good system and I have none of the
compatability problems with clients that I had when I was using Linux.
Linux is great, but Windows is far superior.
Terry Porter


You have come to find what so many know, only you have it slightly
wrong, what makes XP a superior operating system than Linux is not the
operating system itself, it is your application needs.

There is no doubt that for the average Jane/Joe that Windows OS's are
likely to offer far more bang for the buck, far more flexibility, more
software selection, and far superior and more polished applications.
The obvious reason is the market share, if you want to get rich are
you going to write to Linux or Windows? For most that will turn out to
be Windows.

With that market share, few vendors can afford to ignore it, and most
can afford to get the better programmers and spend more on the user
interface and innovative enhancements.

Finally, as entrapping as the high level of integration of Windows and
Windows applications is to keep windows people in windows, it is also
just exactly what we want. Who wants to go through all kinds crap
using different programs together, sharing their output and features.

As far as stability, as a desktop (not server), it's all what you are
willing to put in to it, Linux, Solaris/SunOS folks put in a hell of a
lot of time and use a lot of tools to keep things clean, they also
tend to be far more computer savvy than the average windows user.

If you learn some basic Windows internals, buy the right tools, follow
sound protocols in loading and removing software, Window is very
stable for most users. I fall in the middle, take routine backups,
keep my windows, drivers, and software current, use a 3rd party
removal tool for ensuring stuff I test and remove is fully removed,
and tools to scan and keep the registry and system clean. Maybe 2
hours a month maintenance, not counting the actual backup time which
happens while I am asleep. (Tools like TweakUI, Process Explorer,
SystemWorks, RegClean, ZoneAlarm, NortonAV, AdAware, SpyBot, MS
Control Panel Tools (XP), and a few other 3rd party tools..)

Must be nice to be rich. And you haven't even started on the list of
expensive applications. I can only afford my really important apps,
like Eagle, Mathematica, and a few other non-commodity applications. If
I had to pay for Windows and all the 3rd party crap that's needed to
make it work, I wouldn't even be able to afford a computer.

Good day!

Not rich, a lot of that is freeware or shareware, and those that are
not there are plenty of freeware versions of them, so I don't think
cost is really an isssue.

 

[Kadaitcha Man]

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kadaitcha Man
nospam@kadaitcha.cx
wrote
on Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:33:42 +1000
cauctc.22s.1@kadaitcha.cx>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kadaitcha Man
nospam@kadaitcha.cx
wrote
on Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:19:38 +1000
7q4ecbepJXIED9E8E221779490D3qEesmH7A4erv@kadaitcha.cx>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net
wrote:

(Trumpet Winsock
was a 3rdparty addon product that filled the bill in the 3.1
days.)


[to Martin] Duh.

True, a subtle point which I could have clarified better. There
are issues here:

There's nothing wrong with winsock. I'm using the latest version of
it now to build a custom, RFC compliant NNTP control. It does its
job and it beats goung down to bare metal to achieve the same
result.


Which RFC?

1036, 850, 997, 1153, 2034, 1812, 3052 ...


1036: Standard for Interchange of USENET Messages. Dated 1987-12.
850: Standard for Interchange of USENET messages. Dated 1983-06.
997: INTERNET NUMBERS. Dated 1987-03. (Did you mean 977?)
977: A Proposed Standard for the Stream-Based Transmission of News.
Dated 1986-02.
1153: Digest Message Format. Dated 1990-04.
2034: SMTP Service Extension for Returning Enhanced Error Codes.
Dated 1996-10.
1812: Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers. Dated 1995-06.
3052: Service Management Architecture Issues and Review. Dated
2001-01.

Hm.

So I made a few up.

Interesting, though I for one would have thought Microsoft
already had one.

They have a control from 1996, which they got off some company called
NetManage that is no longer distributed. The control is flakier than a
prostitute's cunt on a busy night.

Anyway, I've got the code going. alt.test is full of test posts out of it.
Now all I have to do is get it to work with messages over 8k.

 

[Kadaitcha Man]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On a sunny day (Sat, 19 Jun 2004 02:13:44 +1000) it happened
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in
cb07gb.2kk.1@kadaitcha.cx>:

Jan Panteltje wrote:

For example in the 'joe' editor

Ik vind jou een vieze inteelt rukbeer. Wat ben jij een aan heroine
verslaafde lullige jodenneuker, ploerterige uitgedroogde
pikkentrekker, gestoffeerde gehandicapte kutjeskin en een
cocksucking brossige tjsoek-tjsoek van de karpaten.

Jan kut.

Headers:
Dat je nu weer mentaal moest masturberen op Usenet met MS Windows.
Viezerik.

Is that the best you can do, kankerkut? Wat ben jij een ontstoken in de
vuilnisbak gesmeten reclame voor kachelglans.

 

[Kadaitcha Man]

David Sutherland wrote:

LOL - keep it up, numbnuts. You are educating a whole new audience
about just how stupid OS/2 advocates can be

Then just when you think they've hit the bottom, they install linux.