10/9    Prof. David Huffman, inventor of the codes that bear his name, died
        Thursday. He was 74. See URL for more info:
http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/press_releases/archive/99-00/10-99/huffman.htm
        -brg
        \_ Oh good.  Thus begins the end of all this compression nonsense
           which is killing the drive to higher bandwidth and storage.
           \_ It may have actually encourage mass storage systems.
              Huffman encoding is behind MPEG encoding schemes.  If
              it weren't for MPEG we wouldn't even bother trying to
              store music and video at all creating less demand for
              mass storage.
           \+ throughput is everything!

10/10   Stupid Linux question:  I just installed linux on my computer
        and I try to do some *SIMPLE* programming (i.e. 15 line code).
        Using the makefile I stolen from CS60b, I changed it, and
        compiled it fine.  But when I try to execute the compiled
        code myProg, it said "Command not found."
        Is this even an linux question? or I used wrong g++ options?
        because I don't see any .o files split out.
        Thanks in advance                       -kngharv
        \_ maybe because . isn't in your environment path. modify your .cshrc
           \_ yeah I'd echo $PATH and see if . is in there.  If not
              PATH=.:$PATH.  You're mostly likely running sh (echo $SHELL)
              also.  ohmigod i feel like wssg
        \_ what makes you so sure it 'compiled it fine' ?  Lack of .o files
                        \_ in that you're giving stupid and dangerous advice?
                \_ Everyone on soda should do this, then cd /tmp and run ls
                   \_ well that was exciting
                \_ Dummyhead.  If you must have a . in your path, it goes at
                   the end.  Sheesh!
                \_ I read somewhere it's a security issue to have . in your
                   path. Why is that? Oh well, I have it in my path anyway.
                   \_ Anyone can write an evil program and name it /tmp/mroe.
                      Then, if you cd /tmp and mistype "more", you'll end up
                      running their evil program.  It's even worse if you
                      have . at the beginning of your path -- then the evil
                      program could be named "more" and you don't even have
        \_ Stupid linux user doesn't have or doesn't know what . in the
           path means.
                      to make a typo!

                      The right thing to do is to leave . out of your path
                      entirely; it's easy to type ./program when you want to
                      run a program from the current directory.  This also
                      saves you from silly mistakes when you (say) write a
                      program called "test"; if you have . at the end of your
                      path, it'll run /bin/test instead of your program, but
                      if you type ./test it'll work as you expect.
        \_ what makes you so sure make 'compiled it fine' ?  Lack of .o files
           is a good sign that it did not.
        \_ Shouldn't this be referred to as a 'stupid linux user question',
           since its clearly not linux being stupid here.
           \_ The problem is not linux specific.  It is specific to the
              stupidity of the user who obviously has not bothered to divine
              the meaning of the error message "Command not found."  That
              this guy is talking about cs_60_b should be a telling statement.
                \_ telling what?  That he's forgotten UNIX in the 4+ years it
                   must have been since he took the class?
                \_ Yeah, back in the day when we ate potstickers and downed
                   bad vodka with BH whiling away the hours adding more and
                   more kool features to our scheme adventure game on the
                   vax 11/780.  If only I'd learned mips/java/oops, I'd have
                   skills that will be good forever instead of outdated in
                   6 months like everyone who came before me.

10/10   Does anyone happen to know of a way *in windoze 95* to run a
        program with a list of arguments > 1024 chars long?  I'm trying
        to link, and it's chopping off the line in the bat file at this
        length.  Thanks.
        \_ Why are you trying to do anything beyond hello.c on a win95 box?
           You do understand that it's just a dos box with a gui on it?  You're
           lucky M$ upped a line length to 1024.  Earlier versions had 128.
           \_ There is no good reason for the shell to look at only the first
           32 characters after #! in UNIX. -- ilyas
        \_ Isn't there some funky thing you can do with an @FOO.TXT
           argument which takes the rest of the arguments from a file?
           I don't know that it's standard, but I've seen a lot of
           programs that supported something like that.
           Barring that, if you just have a lot of object files,
           couldn't you just do the windoze equivalent of
                ld -x -r -o onehalf.o <half my object files>
                ld -x -r -o otherhalf.o <my other object files>
                gcc -o myprog  onehalf.o otherhalf.o -lfoo -lbar etc.?
           -brg