Re: make

Alan V. Shackelford (
Sat, 15 Jun 1996 22:50:13 -0400 (EDT)

On Sun, 16 Jun 1996, Daniel Lehnberg wrote:

> Isn't it a nice make patch at the end of the release-note?
> And variables names are removed but not there relative location in a
> struct and if you think you're useing the right field (since two shared
> the same value) of a struct , but you managed to use the wrong one , if
> it's corected in a later edition of the shared-lib you get another file
> length (ie. to big/small filename) you get the strange result that you
> had in make.
> It's all rather basic programming knowledge IMHO (at least in this
> maillist :)
You arrogant twit. Attitudes like yours cause big trouble for people who
are just getting started in this stuff. Just keep it up, and pretty soon
no one but seasoned programmers will be able to run this kernel and get
any real work done. Won't that be nice? You can have it all for yourself.
I swear if I hear many more of you saying "it's really just basic
programming" I'm gonna wipe this disk and start learning NT or something.
Sure it's fun to learn new stuff, and explore as you grow, but the basic
guts of the system (ie. the kernel, make, and a reasonable mail delivery
system) should drop in and work, right out of the box. All your pompous
remarks won't change that basic fact.

Now, one of you guys who DOES understand the inside workings of this
system, please sit down and provide simple, concise, 1-2-3 insstructions
on how to:

1). fix make
2). fix sendmail
3). fix uugetty

I know, it's in the docs. So interpret the docs for us, so we can get
back on line.

One net to rule them all, one net to find them, one net to bring them all
and using Unix bind them.