Greetings.

Neither the TASM or MASM  FAQs contain one reference to Linux or UNIX.

I have the standard GNU assmbler installed, although I have never used
it directly, just when called by the C compiler.

It is called as86.

>From the man page:

as86 is an assembler for the 8086..80386 processors,  it's
       syntax  is  closer to the intel/microsoft form rather than
       the more normal generic form of the unix system assembler.


I have access to an assembler called NASM too.

Would you mind telling me which one I should use and which FAQ would
be the most useful? 



Thanks.

-- 
Alan C    this post ends with    w
                                 q

Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote:

> Greetings.

> Neither the TASM or MASM  FAQs contain one reference to Linux or UNIX.

> I have the standard GNU assmbler installed, although I have never used
> it directly, just when called by the C compiler.

> It is called as86.

>>From the man page:

> as86 is an assembler for the 8086..80386 processors,  it's
>        syntax  is  closer to the intel/microsoft form rather than
>        the more normal generic form of the unix system assembler.


> I have access to an assembler called NASM too.

> Would you mind telling me which one I should use and which FAQ would
> be the most useful? 



> Thanks.

> -- 
> Alan C    this post ends with    w
>                                  q

I'm not familiar with as86. I know that gas (the GNU assembler) and NASM both
support Linux. See my tutorial at:

http://www.drpaulcarter.com/pcasm

for Linux examples for NASM.

I believe the FASM assembler supports Linux. Also, HLA (High Level Assembler)
now supports Linux.

-- 
Paul Carter 

Alan Connor wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> Neither the TASM or MASM  FAQs contain one reference to Linux or UNIX.
>
> I have the standard GNU assmbler installed, although I have never used
> it directly, just when called by the C compiler.
>
> It is called as86.
>
>> From the man page:
>
> as86 is an assembler for the 8086..80386 processors,  it's
>        syntax  is  closer to the intel/microsoft form rather than
>        the more normal generic form of the unix system assembler.
>
>
> I have access to an assembler called NASM too.
>
> Would you mind telling me which one I should use and which FAQ would
> be the most useful?

Since TASM and MASM are Dos/Windows only, they won't work on *nix without an
emulator. If you are used to their syntax, I'd recommend going to NASM
rather than as86, as they have approximately the same syntax. Also, I
*think* NASM is a bit more widely used/supported compared to as86, but I'm
quite possibly wrong on this. No idea which FAQ qould be good though :)

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 03:37:26 GMT, pacman128@hotmail.com <pacman128@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote:
> 
> 
> I'm not familiar with as86. I know that gas (the GNU assembler) and NASM both
> support Linux. See my tutorial at:
> 
> http://www.drpaulcarter.com/pcasm
> 
> for Linux examples for NASM.
> 
> I believe the FASM assembler supports Linux. Also, HLA (High Level Assembler)
> now supports Linux.
> 

Thanks Paul, I'll check out the website. Hope it's for novices...

-- 
Alan C    this post ends with    w
                                 q

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 17:27:40 +1300, Michael Brown <see@signature.below> wrote:
> 
> 
> Alan Connor wrote:
>> Greetings.
>>
>> Neither the TASM or MASM  FAQs contain one reference to Linux or UNIX.
>>
>> I have the standard GNU assmbler installed, although I have never used
>> it directly, just when called by the C compiler.
>>
>> It is called as86.
>>
>>> From the man page:
>>
>> as86 is an assembler for the 8086..80386 processors,  it's
>>        syntax  is  closer to the intel/microsoft form rather than
>>        the more normal generic form of the unix system assembler.
>>
>>
>> I have access to an assembler called NASM too.
>>
>> Would you mind telling me which one I should use and which FAQ would
>> be the most useful?
> 
> Since TASM and MASM are Dos/Windows only, they won't work on *nix without an
> emulator.

I'll pass on DOSEMU.


> If you are used to their syntax, I'd recommend going to NASM
> rather than as86, as they have approximately the same syntax. Also, I
> *think* NASM is a bit more widely used/supported compared to as86, but I'm
> quite possibly wrong on this. No idea which FAQ qould be good though :)
> 

Cluelessasseblynewb here. Thanks much

-- 
Alan C    this post ends with    w
                                 q

Alan Connor wrote:

> Greetings.
> 
> Neither the TASM or MASM  FAQs contain one reference to Linux or UNIX.

Well... they wouldn't...

> I have the standard GNU assmbler installed, although I have never used
> it directly, just when called by the C compiler.
> 
> It is called as86.
> 
>>From the man page:
> 
> as86 is an assembler for the 8086..80386 processors,  it's
>        syntax  is  closer to the intel/microsoft form rather than
>        the more normal generic form of the unix system assembler.
> 
> 
> I have access to an assembler called NASM too.
> 
> Would you mind telling me which one I should use and which FAQ would
> be the most useful? 

Nasm is my favorite assembler, so naturally I'd recommend it! :) Latest 
versions include support for "stabs" debugging info, which makes gdb 
(the debugger) a little more useful - http://nasm.sourceforge.net

I think you'll find that "as86" is a rather "obsolete" assembler. 
Current versions of gcc use "as" - more commonly called "Gas", but the 
actual filename is just "as". It's fairly recently added an 
".intel-syntax noprefix" option that allows it to accept Intel syntax 
code - more commonly used than AT&T syntax, outside of the "Gas 
community". It's mostly designed as a "back end" to gcc, and isn't too 
"user friendly" (error checking is weak, for example).

Fasm - http://www.flatassembler.net/ - has a version that runs on Linux. 
Pretty nice assembler - I haven't used it much on Linux - I suspect that 
Linux examples may be in short supply (even shorter supply than usual, 
that is).

HLA - the "High Level Assembler" runs on Linux, as well. It's designed 
to be particularly useful for beginners to assembly language who have a 
background in High Level Languages (its syntax looks a little like a 
cross between Pascal and C). It has the advantage of a "standard 
library" which will allow the *same* source code to be assembled for 
either Windows or Linux, so examples abound. (console only - a portable 
GUI library for Windows/Xwindows is planned for the future). Some people 
claim it's not "real assembly language" - have a look and decide for 
yourself - http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/ - get the Linux version of the 
executables, of course, the rest is the same.

http://linuxassembly.org is probably the best source of information. The 
"HowTo" discusses why you *shouldn't* use asm for Linux, but eventually 
goes into "howto". Besides Dr. Carter's tut, which he's given you the 
link to, Jeff Duntemann's "Assembly Language Step by Step" - 
http://www.duntemann.com - has some info for Linux, and *doesn't* 
require knowledge of a HLL. There's a gas-users page at: 
http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/gas-user/ - fairly new, and doesn't 
appear too active...

That's about all I can think of - if you find any other good sources, 
share 'em around!

Best,
Frank

You might want to check out the Linux version of "The Art of Assembly
Language" at http://webster.cs.ucr.edu
Cheers,
Randy Hyde

"Alan Connor" <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote in message news:N9Epb.6251$qh2.2090@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Greetings.
>
> Neither the TASM or MASM  FAQs contain one reference to Linux or UNIX.
>
> I have the standard GNU assmbler installed, although I have never used
> it directly, just when called by the C compiler.
>
> It is called as86.
>
> >From the man page:
>
> as86 is an assembler for the 8086..80386 processors,  it's
>        syntax  is  closer to the intel/microsoft form rather than
>        the more normal generic form of the unix system assembler.
>
>
> I have access to an assembler called NASM too.
>
> Would you mind telling me which one I should use and which FAQ would
> be the most useful?
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> -- 
> Alan C    this post ends with    w
>                                  q
>

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 00:16:20 -0500, Frank Kotler <fbkotler@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Alan Connor wrote:
> 
>> Greetings.
>> 
>> Neither the TASM or MASM  FAQs contain one reference to Linux or UNIX.
> 
> Well... they wouldn't...
> 
>> I have the standard GNU assmbler installed, although I have never used
>> it directly, just when called by the C compiler.
>> 
>> It is called as86.
>> 
>>>From the man page:
>> 
>> as86 is an assembler for the 8086..80386 processors,  it's
>>        syntax  is  closer to the intel/microsoft form rather than
>>        the more normal generic form of the unix system assembler.
>> 
>> 
>> I have access to an assembler called NASM too.
>> 
>> Would you mind telling me which one I should use and which FAQ would
>> be the most useful? 
> 
> Nasm is my favorite assembler, so naturally I'd recommend it! :) Latest 
> versions include support for "stabs" debugging info, which makes gdb 
> (the debugger) a little more useful - http://nasm.sourceforge.net
> 
> I think you'll find that "as86" is a rather "obsolete" assembler. 
> Current versions of gcc use "as" - more commonly called "Gas", but the 
> actual filename is just "as". It's fairly recently added an 
> ".intel-syntax noprefix" option that allows it to accept Intel syntax 
> code - more commonly used than AT&T syntax, outside of the "Gas 
> community". It's mostly designed as a "back end" to gcc, and isn't too 
> "user friendly" (error checking is weak, for example).
> 
> Fasm - http://www.flatassembler.net/ - has a version that runs on Linux. 
> Pretty nice assembler - I haven't used it much on Linux - I suspect that 
> Linux examples may be in short supply (even shorter supply than usual, 
> that is).
> 
> HLA - the "High Level Assembler" runs on Linux, as well. It's designed 
> to be particularly useful for beginners to assembly language who have a 
> background in High Level Languages (its syntax looks a little like a 
> cross between Pascal and C). It has the advantage of a "standard 
> library" which will allow the *same* source code to be assembled for 
> either Windows or Linux, so examples abound. (console only - a portable 
> GUI library for Windows/Xwindows is planned for the future). Some people 
> claim it's not "real assembly language" - have a look and decide for 
> yourself - http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/ - get the Linux version of the 
> executables, of course, the rest is the same.
> 

I have "The Art of Assembly Language" and am not at all impressed with
this scattered and verbose document.

> http://linuxassembly.org is probably the best source of information. The 
> "HowTo" discusses why you *shouldn't* use asm for Linux, but eventually 
> goes into "howto". Besides Dr. Carter's tut, which he's given you the 
> link to, Jeff Duntemann's "Assembly Language Step by Step" - 
> http://www.duntemann.com - has some info for Linux, and *doesn't* 
> require knowledge of a HLL. There's a gas-users page at: 
> http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/gas-user/ - fairly new, and doesn't 
> appear too active...
> 
> That's about all I can think of - if you find any other good sources, 
> share 'em around!
> 
> Best,
> Frank
> 
> 
> 
> 

That's really fine. Thanks Frank, and I will. Guess NASM it is.  

0.98.08-1 recent enough?

Description: General-purpose x86 assembler
 Netwide Assembler.  NASM will currently output flat-form binary files,
 a.out, COFF and ELF Unix object files, and Microsoft 16-bit DOS and
 Win32 object files.
 .
 Also included is NDISASM, a prototype x86 binary-file disassembler
 which uses the same instruction table as NASM.

-- 
Alan C    this post ends with    w
                                 q

Alan Connor wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 17:27:40 +1300, Michael Brown <see@signature.below> wrote:
> 
>>Since TASM and MASM are Dos/Windows only, they won't work on *nix without an
>>emulator.
> 
> I'll pass on DOSEMU.

FWIW, I often run TASM under dosemu, and have no technical problems with 
that combination.  Perhaps you have other reasons to avoid it, though. 
Just thought I'd give you that data.

Ed

Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> writes:
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 03:37:26 GMT, pacman128@hotmail.com <pacman128@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote:
> > 
> > I'm not familiar with as86. I know that gas (the GNU assembler) and NASM both
> > support Linux. See my tutorial at:
> > 
> > http://www.drpaulcarter.com/pcasm
> > 
> > for Linux examples for NASM.
> > 
> > I believe the FASM assembler supports Linux. Also, HLA (High Level Assembler)
> > now supports Linux.
> > 
> 
> Thanks Paul, I'll check out the website. Hope it's for novices...

In case you're worried about self-plugging websites, I'll happily 
independently recommend Paul's tutorial.

If you're feeling a bit adventurous, and want to use an extremely 
high level assembler (i.e. it does a lot for you) which looks like 
no other, then try Randy Hyde's HLA http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/ .

However, what I'd do first is bookmark this:
  http://linuxassembly.org/resources.html
as it links to both of the above, and to dozens of other sites.

Phil
-- 
Unpatched IE vulnerability: NavigateAndFind protocol history
Description: cross-domain scripting, cookie/data/identity theft, command execution
Reference: http://safecenter.net/liudieyu/NAFjpuInHistory/NAFjpuInHistory-Content.HTM
Exploit: http://safecenter.net/liudieyu/NAFjpuInHistory/NAFjpuInHistory-MyPage.HTM

On 04 Nov 2003 15:44:01 +0200, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> In case you're worried about self-plugging websites, I'll happily 
> independently recommend Paul's tutorial.
> 
> If you're feeling a bit adventurous, and want to use an extremely 
> high level assembler (i.e. it does a lot for you) which looks like 
> no other, then try Randy Hyde's HLA http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/ .
> 
> However, what I'd do first is bookmark this:
>   http://linuxassembly.org/resources.html
> as it links to both of the above, and to dozens of other sites.
> 
> Phil
> 

Great. I believe I will pass on HLA. The whole point here is to learn
the guts of programming.

Besides, "The Art of Assembly Language" is the most un-readable book I
have ever encountered in the realm of computer science. 

Hate to tell you this, Phil, but your sig set off alarms in my newsreader's
support scripts. It either has too many lines or the lines are too long.

I won't be seeing any more of your posts for 30 days. 

-- 
Alan C    this post ends with    w
                                 q

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 11:53:45 GMT, Ed Beroset <beroset@mindspring.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Alan Connor wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 17:27:40 +1300, Michael Brown <see@signature.below> wrote:
>> 
>>>Since TASM and MASM are Dos/Windows only, they won't work on *nix without an
>>>emulator.
>> 
>> I'll pass on DOSEMU.
> 
> FWIW, I often run TASM under dosemu, and have no technical problems with 
> that combination.  Perhaps you have other reasons to avoid it, though. 
> Just thought I'd give you that data.
> 
> Ed
> 

Thanks Ed. That's good to know, although I do have other reasons.

-- 
Alan C    this post ends with    w
                                 q

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 06:03:26 GMT, Randall Hyde <randyhyde@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> You might want to check out the Linux version of "The Art of Assembly
> Language" at http://webster.cs.ucr.edu
> Cheers,
> Randy Hyde
> 
> 

Nothing I've read so far about HLA impresses me, and it looks like I'll
be installing NASM today. But will take a look anyway. 

Thanks, Randy.

-- 
Alan C    this post ends with    w
                                 q

Alan Connor wrote:

> 0.98.08-1 recent enough?

Well... even more recent would be better. The "debug info" for stabs was 
added in 0.98.37, but that was badly messed up and 0.98.38 was released 
quick as a bug-fix. 0.98.08 was okay, I guess - there have been a number 
of bugs fixed since then - the 16-bit Gnu extensions have been added, 
and the debug info, I think those are the only new features that would 
interest you...

http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=6208

I guess you'd want the "-1" RPM version - or get the source and build it 
yourself (should be able to just "./configure"/"make"/"make install"). 
Hope you'll find that it meets your needs...

Best,
Frank

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 02:05:49 -0500, Frank Kotler <fbkotler@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Alan Connor wrote:
> 
>> 0.98.08-1 recent enough?
> 
> Well... even more recent would be better. The "debug info" for stabs was 
> added in 0.98.37, but that was badly messed up and 0.98.38 was released 
> quick as a bug-fix. 0.98.08 was okay, I guess - there have been a number 
> of bugs fixed since then - the 16-bit Gnu extensions have been added, 
> and the debug info, I think those are the only new features that would 
> interest you...
> 
> http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=6208
> 
> I guess you'd want the "-1" RPM version - or get the source and build it 
> yourself (should be able to just "./configure"/"make"/"make install"). 
> Hope you'll find that it meets your needs...
> 
> Best,
> Frank
> 
> 
> 
> 

Post saved to disk. Thanks Frank. Building from source is fine. I run
Debian and Slack.....

-- 
Alan C    this post ends with    w
                                 q

"Alan Connor" <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote in message news:dyTpb.8339>
> Nothing I've read so far about HLA impresses me, and it looks like I'll
> be installing NASM today. But will take a look anyway.
>
> Thanks, Randy.
>

Perhaps, then, you might consider describing what you're looking for
and then we can offer more directed help.
cheers,
Randy Hyde

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 16:43:48 GMT, Randall Hyde <randyhyde@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> "Alan Connor" <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote in message news:dyTpb.8339>
>> Nothing I've read so far about HLA impresses me, and it looks like I'll
>> be installing NASM today. But will take a look anyway.
>>
>> Thanks, Randy.
>>
> 
> Perhaps, then, you might consider describing what you're looking for
> and then we can offer more directed help.
> cheers,
> Randy Hyde
> 
> 

Just to understand the fundamentals of programming, what is going on "under
the hood" in a language like C.

-- 
Alan C    this post ends with    w
                                 q

Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote in message news:<%FRrb.6420$nz.5001@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 16:43:48 GMT, Randall Hyde <randyhyde@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > "Alan Connor" <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote in message news:dyTpb.8339>
> >> Nothing I've read so far about HLA impresses me, and it looks like I'll
> >> be installing NASM today. But will take a look anyway.
> >>
> >> Thanks, Randy.
> >>
> > 
> > Perhaps, then, you might consider describing what you're looking for
> > and then we can offer more directed help.
> > cheers,
> > Randy Hyde
> > 
> > 
> 
> Just to understand the fundamentals of programming, what is going on "under
> the hood" in a language like C.

They are actually two different things, and should not be confused:

1. The fundamentals of programming include things like algorithm
analysis, program structure, and the logical analysis of a problem to
derive a solution. Any language can be used to learn this stuff, even
pseudocode that is never once interpreted, compiled, or executed.
(Admittedly, that is a rather bad way of learning it: Hands-on is the
way to go for the technical sciences.) In fact, high-level languages
(like Python and Lisp, /not/ like C) are the best for learning the
true fundamentals, because you don't need to manage the complexity
introduced by the language.

2. Under-the-hood stuff is, indeed, assembly. But you can learn a bit
about how the computer works at the base level by writing C programs:
You get bitwise operators, memory pointers with full pointer
arithmetic, and different types with different underlying
representations. Admittedly, you'll want to get down to assembly soon
enough, but it doesn't have to be (and, really, shouldn't be) your
first language.

So, you should decide what you want to learn and pick a language based
on that determination.

I wouldn't be much of a pedant if I didn't recommend a book, so here
goes: "The Art of Computer Programming" by Donald Knuth. It is /the/
text for the fundamentals of programming, and it points up an
interesting caveat in my above arguments: Knuth defined his own
assembly language for a fictional machine, based loosely around the
generic CISC minicomputer that thrived in the 1960s-1970s. He used
/that/ to teach the fundamentals, proving that with intelligent use,
any language can be used to teach the basics. Even if it is pseudocode
that is never once interpreted, compiled, or executed.* ;)

*There now exist programs that emulate Knuth's fictional machine, and
the GNU Compiler Collection can produce the assembly language Knuth
defined in TAoCP. But all that is quite beside the point.

On 10 Nov 2003 15:07:39 -0800, August Derleth <libertarian232003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote in message news:<%FRrb.6420$nz.5001@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

<snip>

>> 
>> Just to understand the fundamentals of programming, what is going on "under
>> the hood" in a language like C.
> 
> They are actually two different things, and should not be confused:
> 
> 1. The fundamentals of programming include things like algorithm
> analysis, program structure, and the logical analysis of a problem to
> derive a solution. Any language can be used to learn this stuff, even
> pseudocode that is never once interpreted, compiled, or executed.
> (Admittedly, that is a rather bad way of learning it: Hands-on is the
> way to go for the technical sciences.) In fact, high-level languages
> (like Python and Lisp, /not/ like C) are the best for learning the
> true fundamentals, because you don't need to manage the complexity
> introduced by the language.

I'm pretty good at sh, which is a high-level language and have started
on C.

> 
> 2. Under-the-hood stuff is, indeed, assembly. But you can learn a bit
> about how the computer works at the base level by writing C programs:
> You get bitwise operators, memory pointers with full pointer
> arithmetic, and different types with different underlying
> representations. Admittedly, you'll want to get down to assembly soon
> enough, but it doesn't have to be (and, really, shouldn't be) your
> first language.
> 
> So, you should decide what you want to learn and pick a language based
> on that determination.
> 

C

> I wouldn't be much of a pedant if I didn't recommend a book, so here
> goes: "The Art of Computer Programming" by Donald Knuth. It is /the/
> text for the fundamentals of programming, and it points up an
> interesting caveat in my above arguments: Knuth defined his own
> assembly language for a fictional machine, based loosely around the
> generic CISC minicomputer that thrived in the 1960s-1970s. He used
> /that/ to teach the fundamentals, proving that with intelligent use,
> any language can be used to teach the basics. Even if it is pseudocode
> that is never once interpreted, compiled, or executed.* ;)

Been hearing that name, "Knuth" quite a bit. Guess it's time to pick
it up.....Hmmmmmm 3rd edition, 3 volumes....

> 
> *There now exist programs that emulate Knuth's fictional machine, and
> the GNU Compiler Collection can produce the assembly language Knuth
> defined in TAoCP. But all that is quite beside the point.
> 

No. That's fascinating. I use GCC. This looks like a really good path
to take. Thanks a lot.

-- 
Alan C    this post ends with    w
                                 q

Alan Connor wrote:
> On 10 Nov 2003 15:07:39 -0800, August Derleth <libertarian232003@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>I wouldn't be much of a pedant if I didn't recommend a book, so here
>>goes: "The Art of Computer Programming" by Donald Knuth. It is /the/
>>text for the fundamentals of programming, and it points up an
>>interesting caveat in my above arguments: Knuth defined his own
>>assembly language for a fictional machine, based loosely around the
>>generic CISC minicomputer that thrived in the 1960s-1970s. He used
>>/that/ to teach the fundamentals, proving that with intelligent use,
>>any language can be used to teach the basics. Even if it is pseudocode
>>that is never once interpreted, compiled, or executed.* ;)
> 
> 
> Been hearing that name, "Knuth" quite a bit. Guess it's time to pick
> it up.....Hmmmmmm 3rd edition, 3 volumes....

It's not cheap, but it's worth every penny.  If you only ever buy three 
books on computer programming, it should probably be these three.

Ed

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:25:11 GMT, Ed Beroset <beroset@mindspring.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Alan Connor wrote:
>> On 10 Nov 2003 15:07:39 -0800, August Derleth <libertarian232003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>>I wouldn't be much of a pedant if I didn't recommend a book, so here
>>>goes: "The Art of Computer Programming" by Donald Knuth. It is /the/
>>>text for the fundamentals of programming, and it points up an
>>>interesting caveat in my above arguments: Knuth defined his own
>>>assembly language for a fictional machine, based loosely around the
>>>generic CISC minicomputer that thrived in the 1960s-1970s. He used
>>>/that/ to teach the fundamentals, proving that with intelligent use,
>>>any language can be used to teach the basics. Even if it is pseudocode
>>>that is never once interpreted, compiled, or executed.* ;)
>> 
>> 
>> Been hearing that name, "Knuth" quite a bit. Guess it's time to pick
>> it up.....Hmmmmmm 3rd edition, 3 volumes....
> 
> It's not cheap, but it's worth every penny.  If you only ever buy three 
> books on computer programming, it should probably be these three.
> 
> Ed
> 

That's quite a recommendation. I believe I have found the key I have been
looking for. Many thanks. I have begun the process of acquiring them. Maybe
I will have the discipline to annotate "The C Programming Language" for
novices, once I have the education and experience to do so.

---------------------------

Begin Rant <<EOR

More and more, as I get into computers, I am getting the impression that 
real development ended around 1985, (the X Window System) and that everything 
since then has been nothing but extensions on that foundation, with no 
fundamental changes, despite the hype.

Eye-Candy and Point-and-Click are not, to my mind, even worthwhile, much
less "stunning developments".

And turning the computer/internet into a virtual shopping mall reserved
for the world's elite is nothing but a crime.

EOR

:-)

-- 
Alan C    this post ends with    w
                                 q

"Alan Connor" <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote in message news:wXWrb.6719$nz.3599@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Begin Rant <<EOR
>
> More and more, as I get into computers, I am getting the impression that
> real development ended around 1985, (the X Window System) and that everything
> since then has been nothing but extensions on that foundation, with no
> fundamental changes, despite the hype.

Which, of course, was copied from the Lisa & Mac, which was copied
from the Xerox Star, which was based on the Dynabook project.
I guess this is the Unix user's version of Bill Gates saying "Microsoft is
a leader in innovation" :-)


> Eye-Candy and Point-and-Click are not, to my mind, even worthwhile, much
> less "stunning developments".

The fact that the software industry is geared towards others' needs pisses
me off, too, sometimes.


> And turning the computer/internet into a virtual shopping mall reserved
> for the world's elite is nothing but a crime.

As the world's elite, almost by definition, are the only ones who have
access to the internet, what else would you expect from it?
Cheers,
Randy Hyde

"Alan Connor" <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote in message news:%FRrb.6420$nz.5001@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 16:43:48 GMT, Randall Hyde >
> Just to understand the fundamentals of programming, what is going on "under
> the hood" in a language like C.
>

Then I would recommend using the assembler whose syntax your C
compiler produces -- i.e., Gas for GCC, MASM for VC, TASM for BCC,
etc.

That way, you can look at your compiler's output when you've got a question
about how something works "under the hood" and the compiler's output
will make more sense to you. Also, learning the compiler's assembly syntax
will help you should you wish to use in-line assembly at some point or another.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:18:56 GMT, Randall Hyde <randyhyde@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> "Alan Connor" <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote in message news:wXWrb.6719$nz.3599@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Begin Rant <<EOR
>>
>> More and more, as I get into computers, I am getting the impression that
>> real development ended around 1985, (the X Window System) and that everything
>> since then has been nothing but extensions on that foundation, with no
>> fundamental changes, despite the hype.
> 
> Which, of course, was copied from the Lisa & Mac, which was copied
> from the Xerox Star, which was based on the Dynabook project.
> I guess this is the Unix user's version of Bill Gates saying "Microsoft is
> a leader in innovation" :-)
> 

No. I am talking about computers in general, not specific OSs. I just chose
the X Window system as an example of the maturation of graphical capability.

> 
>> Eye-Candy and Point-and-Click are not, to my mind, even worthwhile, much
>> less "stunning developments".
> 
> The fact that the software industry is geared towards others' needs pisses
> me off, too, sometimes.
> 

You want to be a smart ass, then you will shut up and take a hike.

The rest of this post and the other one both deleted unseen.


Alan C

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:59:01 GMT
Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote:

:You want to be a smart ass, then you will shut up and take a hike.

It is not up to you who does, or does not, post to this group.

-- The Moderator

"Charles A. Crayne" <ccrayne@crayne.org> wrote in message
news:20031111122721.553204e9.ccrayne@crayne.org...
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:59:01 GMT
> Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote:
>
> :You want to be a smart ass, then you will shut up and take a hike.
>
> It is not up to you who does, or does not, post to this group.
>
> -- The Moderator
>

Alan C (under this name and other pseudonyms) is a serial troll; he has been
active in a number of newsgroups recently, including comp.lang.c.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ewMrb.8401%24HoK.2079%40news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

-- 
Regards
Alex McDonald

Alan Connor wrote:
> ---------------------------
>
> Begin Rant <<EOR
>
> More and more, as I get into computers, I am getting the impression
that
> real development ended around 1985, (the X Window System) and that
everything
> since then has been nothing but extensions on that foundation, with
no
> fundamental changes, despite the hype.
>
> Eye-Candy and Point-and-Click are not, to my mind, even worthwhile,
much
> less "stunning developments".
>
> And turning the computer/internet into a virtual shopping mall
reserved
> for the world's elite is nothing but a crime.
>
> EOR

Basically, that's about the long and the short of it all...some
elements haven't really been developed since the 1960s and 1970s...you
know, it's the old trick...all the initial spark of innovation dries
up, so they just "repackage" everything over and over with new names
and new colours and stuff...Hoping no-one will notice that they're
pretty much being sold the same thing again and again...

Unfortunately, the more "big bucks" an industry becomes, the more the
creativity and imagination gets sucked out of it...the basic reason
being that imagination and creativity is a _risky_ business...and with
so much money and careers floating around, no-one - rightly, in a
sense - wants to be playing fast and loose with untried and untested
ideas...so all those quirky little "experiments" people once played
around with, they just can't find the backing...

Hence, the music industry increasingly churns out boy bands singing
cover versions ("sex sells" is a _tried and trusted_ concept so line
up 5 or 6 guys or gals and, hey presto, you _know_ you've got a crowd
of screaming teenagers following them...cover versions are, of course,
the extreme of non-risk...you simply pick a song that you _know_ is a
classic and everyone Loves...you don't even dare risk a new song, in
case someone might not like it)...and every computer game these days
is, basically, Quake...Tomb Raider, of course, is a 3D Prince of
Persia featuring a "sex sells" female Indiana Jones (sporting John
Woo-style double guns)...and that's actually one of the _more_
original attempts to do something different than just more Quake!!!

"There is nothing new under the Sun"
[ Plato ]

Beth ;)

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 15:15:13 -0000, Beth <BethStone21@hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Alan Connor wrote:
>> ---------------------------
>>
>> Begin Rant <<EOR
>>
>> More and more, as I get into computers, I am getting the impression
> that
>> real development ended around 1985, (the X Window System) and that
> everything
>> since then has been nothing but extensions on that foundation, with
> no
>> fundamental changes, despite the hype.
>>
>> Eye-Candy and Point-and-Click are not, to my mind, even worthwhile,
> much
>> less "stunning developments".
>>
>> And turning the computer/internet into a virtual shopping mall
> reserved
>> for the world's elite is nothing but a crime.
>>
>> EOR
> 
> Basically, that's about the long and the short of it all...some
> elements haven't really been developed since the 1960s and 1970s...you
> know, it's the old trick...all the initial spark of innovation dries
> up, so they just "repackage" everything over and over with new names
> and new colours and stuff...Hoping no-one will notice that they're
> pretty much being sold the same thing again and again...
> 
> Unfortunately, the more "big bucks" an industry becomes, the more the
> creativity and imagination gets sucked out of it...the basic reason
> being that imagination and creativity is a _risky_ business...and with
> so much money and careers floating around, no-one - rightly, in a
> sense - wants to be playing fast and loose with untried and untested
> ideas...so all those quirky little "experiments" people once played
> around with, they just can't find the backing...
> 
> Hence, the music industry increasingly churns out boy bands singing
> cover versions ("sex sells" is a _tried and trusted_ concept so line
> up 5 or 6 guys or gals and, hey presto, you _know_ you've got a crowd
> of screaming teenagers following them...cover versions are, of course,
> the extreme of non-risk...you simply pick a song that you _know_ is a
> classic and everyone Loves...you don't even dare risk a new song, in
> case someone might not like it)...and every computer game these days
> is, basically, Quake...Tomb Raider, of course, is a 3D Prince of
> Persia featuring a "sex sells" female Indiana Jones (sporting John
> Woo-style double guns)...and that's actually one of the _more_
> original attempts to do something different than just more Quake!!!
> 
> "There is nothing new under the Sun"
> [ Plato ]
> 
> Beth ;)
> 
> 

That's about the short and long of it all :-)

I have this distro I'd like to create: IDLinux (Internet Dream Linux).

The Internet Dream:

That everyone on the planet .....

* could have a thousand massive libaries at their beck and call, and be
  be able to contribute what they had to offer to these libraries (FTP)

* could send and receive mail from anyone or any organization (SMTP/POP)

* could create and participate in discussion groups and bulletin boards
  (NNTP)

IDLinux would run only a minimal graphical mode (a lot simpler than X with
no networking capabilities...textmode abandoned only because having two
distinct modes of operation is a waste). 256 colors is just fine.

It would be capable of only the above communications protocols with text
and image editing capabilities (for static graphics only -- pictures) and
scanning and printing. (these would be done at the actual computer
with workstations for the average user. Like the original workplace Nix)

Should fit on about 10 floppies, compressed. Would use only ASM, C, and
Sh scripts.

That's a crude outline. I'm pretty sure a 386 would do the job. Unfortunately,
two years ago this month I didn't know what a floppy was, am in my 50's,
and very busy.

But never-the-less have acquired a copy of volume 1 of "The Art of Computer
Programming" and slowly working through it. VERY cool!


AC

Alan Connor wrote:

> IDLinux would run only a minimal graphical mode (a lot simpler than X with
> no networking capabilities...textmode abandoned only because having two
> distinct modes of operation is a waste). 256 colors is just fine.
[...]
> Should fit on about 10 floppies, compressed. Would use only ASM, C, and
> Sh scripts.

Well how about one bootable business-card sized CD with X, an MP3, and 
MPEG player, FTP client, web browser, spreadsheet, Sylpheed email, 
word-processor, three editors, graphics editing and viewing, Xpdf, and 
on and on?

> That's a crude outline. I'm pretty sure a 386 would do the job. Unfortunately,
> two years ago this month I didn't know what a floppy was, am in my 50's,
> and very busy.

Fortunately, somebody already did it:  http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/

Ed

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 03:30:13 GMT, Ed Beroset <beroset@mindspring.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Alan Connor wrote:
> 
>> IDLinux would run only a minimal graphical mode (a lot simpler than X with
>> no networking capabilities...textmode abandoned only because having two
>> distinct modes of operation is a waste). 256 colors is just fine.
> [...]
>> Should fit on about 10 floppies, compressed. Would use only ASM, C, and
>> Sh scripts.
> 
> Well how about one bootable business-card sized CD with X, an MP3, and 
> MPEG player, FTP client, web browser, spreadsheet, Sylpheed email, 
> word-processor, three editors, graphics editing and viewing, Xpdf, and 
> on and on?
> 
>> That's a crude outline. I'm pretty sure a 386 would do the job. Unfortunately,
>> two years ago this month I didn't know what a floppy was, am in my 50's,
>> and very busy.
> 
> Fortunately, somebody already did it:  http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/
> 
> Ed
> 

What an excellent response! Thought I'd seen every smallinux site on the
Internet (have tinylinux (stripped down slack) on my backup box. 

Am torn between hoping that is everything I want and that it isn't, because
I am learning a lot just by pursuing the dream when I can.

What a great name: damnsmalllinux!

I'll bet I can strip it down a lot, though. For an editor, ed (which I am
using right now) will work just fine. 25kb. Mail for mail....

Off the wall:  I need a newsserver, like right away, that doesn't insist you 
use https, which I don't do. Getting desperate!

Gracias.

AC