Re: fgets() equivalent?

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

Ben Voigt [C++ MVP] wrote:

I didn't attack you.

I have accepted at face value your claim that you've been working in this field longer than I've been alive. I've assumed that you have a lot of wisdom to share with the group. But so far your sharing has started a lot of arguing and overall provided very little value to the question originally asked. I'm trying to help, just as others have helped me when my postings left (considerable) room for improvement.

This is attacking. I did not start this thread of Got chas and nit picking, and further more, your input has nothing been to attack. Who the hell do you think you are?

If you notice, I think I was the one of the two original responses, the OP thanks. I think you are out of line to stay I provided little value, when I posted good code and excellent feedback.

You on the other hand would rather NOT SHUT UP and rather ATTACK me, and that CERTAINLY does not have any value here.


However, I will say it is WELL UNDERSTOOD concept for a very long time and its applicable to many fields. If that is new to you, then you should not attack people because you are ignorant of it.

Did you even read my message?

Did you read mine? I don't do so.

You didn't state that "Cooked" or "Raw" were standard, others did.

Who?

You challenged them to point to the standards,

I challenged Mr. Roberts. One person. Not THEM. Who is THEM?

they pointed you to the Single Unix Specification.

Who is they?

Read the message again. Specifically, Mr. Robert's specific analogy which I don't it was 100% correct. I uncategorically showed why it was not complete and lacked concepts that that were not not generically viewed as COOKED/RAW related.

You are using the terms in non-standard ways

HOG WASH!

and refuse to acknowledge the existence of a standard.

There is NO COOKED vs RAW standard. Its a generalized concept in practice, a concept of translation vs non-translation, a concept of conformity vs left untouch. You don't need a STANDARD for that understanding.

Now in regard to the telecommunications it is a WELL UNDERSTOOD concept. The concept of COOK and RAW predated UNIX and no one in their right mind is going to attribute the idea to Unix only.

But where is the IETF standard for COOKED? Where is the ANSI standard? What are the specifications?

Again, keep in mind that I was the one who first brought it on this thread, and the Irony is I did speak as it as if it was a well understood practice, a "standard." So I fail to see how you wish to blurt out I fail to recognized it. It was a few others who was trying to point out it didn't apply to Unix file I/O. They are not 100% correct.

Perhaps it didn't exist when you started working -- fine,
> don't refer to the standard in your own work, you seem to
do quite well without it.

What on earth are you talking about!

But do abide by the standard usage of the words when communicating
> with others, or there will be nothing but confusion and
hard feelings all around.

The only hard feelings is your own. I was the one who brought it up as it was a KNOWN concept, as it was a "STANDARD" or "well known practice."

I wasn't the one who began to CHALLENGE where it applies and doesn't apply.

So I have no idea what you are talking ahout.

As for the "layers", no, its NOT DATA FLOW. LAYERS!! Again, if you disagree then show with TECHNICAL DETAILS what you think is correct.

Some time between when you went to school and when I did, they started teaching this thing called the Open Systems Interconnection Basic Reference Model which is the classic example of layering. Your example showed only three layers. You demand technical details, here they are:

Your so-called "layers":

- client application
- sender device
- transmission
- receiver device
- server application

The "layers" the way everyone else has learned to see them and discuss them.

HOG-WASH. The OSI layers are NOT the way everyone sees it and among my related peers, it is rarely discussed. No need to. It is all understood. It is well established.

Transmission is the lowest layer shown, it deals with signalling, medium reservation and contention, error detection, etc.
The sender and receiver device form the next layer up. They are both in the same layer. Depending on whether you used the term in a hardware or software sense, the interface protocol atop that layer might be the interrupts and I/O ports or DMA buffers, or the OS hardware abstraction layer for networking devices.
The client and server application are in the highest of the three layers, dealing with interpretation of the data in some application-specific sense.

Ben, your inexperience is showing because in your vain attempt to show knowledge, to attack and trump me, you fail to point out or don't know the various differences.

If you want and expect EVERYONE to go into this level details, this form of cyberspace telecommunications would of died long ago, and if you expect that of yourself, then I will make sure I hold you up to it.

But for you to think I was making things up, implying I was changing the OSI layers, is foolish. I didn't they were OSI layers! Did I?

A reasonable person of knowledge would instance;y recognize the symmetry and instantly see exactly the "layman" approach I took for this illustration.

I was not wrong at all in my writing, and if you read more deeply, I was making the relationship in how the terminal client/server telecommunications into the relevant parts, specifically with the ideas of cooking. But if noticed, I also hinted at other possible issues at the physical and networking layers. which I see incidently, you have no quarry with. You just want to attack me for some rather nonsensical stuff, and you are wondering who is wasting bandwidth? Who attacked who first? You. Who decided it was better to post confrontational useless material to increase the thread wasteful bandwidth? You.

Stop attacking me.

--
HLS
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: fgets() equivalent?
    ... I didn't attack you. ... standard terminologies. ... As for the "layers", no, its NOT DATA FLOW. ... The sender and receiver device form the next layer up. ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.kernel)
  • Re: Magic Flight: A New Public Key Algorithm stronger? than factoring
    ... attack to multiple layers. ... for all x,k1,k2 vectors of NUMTERMS integers mod FIELDMASK+1 ... This is I believe NOT implied by the linearity of layers, ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: IJN and sound velocity profile
    ... layers to determine their attack or approach lane. ... I've never read that IJN subs were equiped with such a device or that IJN ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: |[4E] The Devils in the Details
    ... isn't it kind of weird that he has a standard mace ... attack, a standard tail attack, and a standard attack that lets him ...
    (rec.games.frp.dnd)
  • Re: |[4E] The Devils in the Details
    ... isn't it kind of weird that he has a standard mace attack, a standard tail attack, and a standard attack that lets him attack with both mace and tail? ...
    (rec.games.frp.dnd)