Apology: Unix, 2.11BSD Thread

Don,

As far as I can tell, you upset *1* person who is so over sensitive that they are probably upset by the gravitational pull of the moon.

I liked the post. I for one would find your silence a great loss.

David Eather

... and who posts anonymously, with this being his first appearance on c.a.e. Feh, just killfile him and go on.

Indeed.

You have as much "right" to speak here as any of us do (speaking for c.a.e; apologies to aus.e as that's off my beaten trail)

Agreed. See below

I think your "mistake" (?) may have been *NOT* including descriptions like these in your original posts. I.e.,

"Maximite Computer now running Unix, 2.11BSD

now has: pForth compiler Xitami webserver"

in an (admirable, though mistaken?) effort to be terse, makes the post *feel* more like an ad: "For more information, call XXX-XXXX"

OTOH, wrapping some more words around it -- perhaps *qualifying* the "headline" (e.g., "yeah, there's no VM in a UN*X that old...") so folks interested don't waste time chasing down a link only to discover this sort of "detail".

Like a "World's First 8x300 Network Stack!!"... and the fine print clarifies that it's just a piece of code that responds to pings and nothing else, etc.

In this way, it helps give others an idea of what to expect on the other end of the link (instead of just the "teaser"). And, invites discussion as to what problems might have been true challenges to the implementor ("The XYZ8000 has no support for a pushdown stack!")

Silencing any speech is rarely a good thing. Folks can always opt NOT to read your post -- in which case, it costs them nothing.

OTOH, the "Looking for a WATFIV developer for short term contract in East Nowhere" posts could surely find more appropriate environs!

All in all, your apology is gracious but, IMO, unnecessary. I, for one, enjoy the tidbits that trickle into this newsgroup as I have little time to rummage around *hoping* to stumble on things that I might be interested in. The fact that you may have an "interest" (financial or otherwise) in the topic is immaterial (we all have "interests" in the problems/questions we pose... does that make *them* inappropriate?)

Rock on,

--don

The only mistake you made was taking notice of a non contributing troll plonk it and keep contributing

Yep right on. You do have the right to paste stuff you think may be on interest, with just the usual disclaimers of not promoting riots etc

forget the critic and keep on keepin on Don

David

Don McKenzie skrev 2011-08-21 01:08:

Just interesting and informative. Keep on posting - no offence taken.

/Ben

I agree with this. Your (Don McKenzie) posts are useful, and are part of the service you provide for electronics engineers and hobbiests - you tell us all about new products and ideas. But sometimes your posts are too much just a short statement and a web link - I for one would prefer to see a little more information in the post itself rather than having to look at an external link to figure out what you are talking about.

But you don't have to be as verbose as Don Y :-)

While you're going 100% ad hominem, I you believe you could at least have made a token effort at getting your facts straight.

Let me apologize for the tone of my earlier reply at this point. I do stand by the message, but the wording was, admittedly, a little too hot-headed.

As long-time USENET citizens, I guess we both should have known better.

The issue I had with that sequence of posts was that you did not, in fact, post the news here. You just posted pointers to the news (and to your commercial homepage), with basically no explanation of what the actual story even was, apparently so as to make sure people clicked those links to find out.

That put those posts in exactly the same category as those bloody blogspot spammers. And on top of that, unlike most of those people, you seemed to be forming a pattern of doing that every single day. That was a pattern I thought needed snipped in the bud.

And all of that was impossible to learn just by looking at your original posts.

While you're going 100% ad hominem, I believe you could at least have made a token effort at getting your facts straight.

Actually, that comment (and, I believe, also the one that I quoted) was in reference to "Jeßus ."

Aw, c'mon! I try REAL HARD to work EVERY WORD I KNOW into EVERY POST -- along with at least two or three that I *don't* (I'm up to the S's, already! My goal, today, is to work "scruples" -- which everyone knows to be far more difficult than neighlples -- into the conversation.).

At least give me credit for *trying*! ;-)

About word usage, I believe you have not used yet any one of the following words: pungent, flirtatious, brobdingnagian, syncopated. I expect to see them in posts in the near future. Higher marks if two or more are used in a single sentence.

Back to embedded land...

What is/who makes the ARM9 processor with the largest built in RAM? So far found 128K, anything above this? Planned but not available yet?

Thanks,

-- Roberto Waltman

The aplikation was denyed on the grownds of too many speelink erors missink punchewashun and gramma failyours

Hell, I *know* the first two guys and am related to the third through marriage!

direction.

Don't overreact now, will you?

Karl Olsen

Thank you ! Interesting chip, but doesn't seem the right choice for me. Development boards, (the few I found, at least) are too expensive to use it for a one of a kind project.

A constant annoyance - Downloaded the data sheet, it has "Draft" watermark even though is more than one year old. I know that many products are sold for years until reaching end-of-life status with documentation that still says "Draft" of "Preliminary", still... Why do big companies do this?

-- Roberto Waltman

Documentation costs money. Product life cycles are short. Many people design to "typ" numbers/features so why bother fleshing out all the nitty-gritty details? And, if you've never fully *specified* something, you can't be held accountable to it!

(Motogorilla has always been notorious for lots of "blanks" in their specs)

It seems like (esp ARM products) the manufacturers often don't even *read* their datasheets. They piece together the various "module specs" from ARM, Ltd. Add a similar document for their own "additions" and tehn *expect* that it magically makes sense as a freestanding document.

Hear Hear. Fear not Don.