writing cgi programs in c: the system() call.

[jleslie48]

Re: writing cgi programs in c: the system() call.

Perhaps next time you will believe people when they tell you that it is
not a C problem and that you need to ask else where. Just think how much
faster you would have had the solution if you had asked around on Apache
and/or web development and/or Windows type groups when you were told to.
It would have saved you from trying a solution guaranteed to not solve
your problem.
--
Flash Gordon
If spamming me sent it to s...@spam.cause way.com
If emailing me use my reply-to address
See the comp.lang.c Wiki hosted by me athttp://clc-wiki.net/

and perhaps you will realize that I did go elsewhere when it became
the consensus that that is where my problem lay. Something I did not
realize until I came here, but then again that is why I did come here,
despite arrogant elitists, who think analyzing and questioning my
reasons for doing something is an acceptable answer.

[Kenny McCormack]

Re: writing cgi programs in c: the system() call.

In article <4fa60d75-5071-4938-9fed-26c30bd24e67@d7 7g2000hsb.googl egroups.com>,
jleslie48 <jon@jonathanle slie.comwrote:

>

>Perhaps next time you will believe people when they tell you that it is
>not a C problem and that you need to ask else where. Just think how much
>faster you would have had the solution if you had asked around on Apache
>and/or web development and/or Windows type groups when you were told to.
>It would have saved you from trying a solution guaranteed to not solve
>your problem.
>--
>Flash Gordon
>If spamming me sent it to s...@spam.cause way.com
>If emailing me use my reply-to address
>See the comp.lang.c Wiki hosted by me athttp://clc-wiki.net/

>
>and perhaps you will realize that I did go elsewhere when it became
>the consensus that that is where my problem lay. Something I did not
>realize until I came here, but then again that is why I did come here,
>despite arrogant elitists, who think analyzing and questioning my
>reasons for doing something is an acceptable answer.
>

Welcome to CLC. It's a fun newsgroup, as long as you realize that the
one thing you will never get here, from the "regs" is useful advice or
ever a kind word. The only people who give useful advice here are the
so-called trolls (that's me, Twink, and Richard). They call us trolls
because we actually dare to thumb our noses at the ruling ethic and give
useful advice. The ruling ethic is, you never do this.

But it is a fun newsgroup for giving and getting abuse.

[CBFalconer]

Re: writing cgi programs in c: the system() call.

Flash Gordon wrote:

Kenny McCormack wrote, On 26/09/08 18:14:
>

.... snip ...

>

>To Flashy: See! I was right all along. I accept your apology.

>
Bollocks. Using start did not solve the OPs problem, as started
by the OP above by the OP. Asking in an appropriate place would
have given him an answer far faster. It would probably have also
told him about the massive security hole he has just opened on
the PCs.

I suggest that the part of your message that needs isolation and
noticeability is the part about the security hole. We don't really
care what the troll knows, but we do care about the misinformation
he is passing.

Repeat - SECURITY hole.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>
Try the download section.

[CBFalconer]

Re: writing cgi programs in c: the system() call.

jleslie48 wrote:

>

>Perhaps next time you will believe people when they tell you that
>it is not a C problem and that you need to ask else where. Just
>think how much faster you would have had the solution if you had
>asked around on Apache and/or web development and/or Windows type
>groups when you were told to. It would have saved you from trying
>a solution guaranteed to not solve your problem.

>
and perhaps you will realize that I did go elsewhere when it
became the consensus that that is where my problem lay.
Something I did not realize until I came here, but then again
that is why I did come here, despite arrogant elitists, who
think analyzing and questioning my reasons for doing something
is an acceptable answer.

And perhaps you will realize that users who simply address the
topicality of a query, and redirect you in the general direction of
a better newsgroup, are in no way arrogant elitists. However the
trolls who insist on presenting off-topic information, in the full
knowledge that it is off-topic, are very definitely the arrogant
elitists.

Also, you need to train yourself to not delete attributions for any
quoted material. The attributions are those initial "Joe wrote:"
lines.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>
Try the download section.

[Ian Collins]

Re: writing cgi programs in c: the system() call.

CBFalconer wrote:

Flash Gordon wrote:

>Kenny McCormack wrote, On 26/09/08 18:14:
>>

.... snip ...

>>To Flashy: See! I was right all along. I accept your apology.

>Bollocks. Using start did not solve the OPs problem, as started
>by the OP above by the OP. Asking in an appropriate place would
>have given him an answer far faster. It would probably have also
>told him about the massive security hole he has just opened on
>the PCs.

>
I suggest that the part of your message that needs isolation and
noticeability is the part about the security hole. We don't really
care what the troll knows, but we do care about the misinformation
he is passing.
>
Repeat - SECURITY hole.
>

Too late, the OP already has window installed :)

--
Ian Collins.

[Kenny McCormack]

Re: writing cgi programs in c: the system() call.

In article <48DD85C7.DEB2E 1CF@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer <cbfalconer@mai neline.netwrote :
....

>And perhaps you will realize that users who simply address the
>topicality of a query, and redirect you in the general direction of a
>better newsgroup, are in no way arrogant elitists.

Nonsense.

>However the trolls who insist on presenting off-topic information, in
>the full knowledge that it is off-topic, are very definitely the
>arrogant elitists.

Nonsense.

>Also, you need to train yourself to not delete attributions for any
>quoted material. The attributions are those initial "Joe wrote:"
>lines.

Nonsense.
(See recent thread that explains, via Gordon Burditt, why this [clipping
the attributions] is entirely sensible)

0 for 3. Par for the course for you, Chuckie.