The Anonix Project (124, permasaged)

1 Name: Cudder !MhMRSATORI!!L0f5nl0+ : 2008-05-10 06:41 ID:apPW4NZm

Since 4chan's /prog/ has become little more than meme spamming, I decided I'd try here.

Me and a group of anons are working on a POSIX-compliant OS, which will be developed anonymously and be public domain. Currently we've started on replacing GNU's Coreutils with Anoncoreutils, and have around 1/3 of the utilities finished. This is both an experiment in anonymous software development and an attempt to eliminate the bloat that GNU's programs tend to have.

Anyone is welcome to join in with this, as long as they don't leave a name and don't mind writing code for the public domain.

More info at http://rechan.eu.org/ac/ and http://rechan.eu.org/ax/

75 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-20 09:12 ID:Heaven

>>74
err... "int" instead of "it"

76 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-20 10:21 ID:Heaven

I included the file which defined intmax_t, I could've easily typedef'd it with the largest integer type the compiler supported (long long in this case). I didn't include the math lib because I'm only compiling, not linking.

long long is also C99. So you can't do that. You fail once more.

77 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-20 10:22 ID:Heaven

You fucking faggots, no matter how many times it is explained to you that your codes are broken...

78 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-20 11:36 ID:Heaven

>>40

> I believe in ``trust the programmer'', i.e. I know what I'm doing, and if I make a mistake I'm smart enough to figure out what it is; IMHO relying on warnings just offloads too much thought to the (dumb) machine

>>74

> no idea what was wrong with mkdir, but the updated version compiles fine.

79 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-20 11:52 ID:Heaven

>>78
Those are two different people, and I'm guessing neither of them wrote mkdir.

I don't see anything wrong with the fold though.

80 Name: HAHAHaruhi!6mHaRuhies : 2008-05-20 12:09 ID:Heaven

>>76
long long is also gcc, IBMcc, HP's cc, and several others. They put it in c99 because of this existing practice.

As an aside, we're thinking of adding a "long long long" to AnonCC which, if the machine supports it, will be at least 128 bits. (Yes, we're making plans for beyond Anoncoreutils already, sinec development is pretty quick right now.)

81 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-20 12:24 ID:Heaven

>>79
it demonstrates that "trusting the programmer" is stupid, not everyone knows what they're doing, and if someone makes a mistake other people aren't smart enough to figure out what it is

anyway i'm looking forward to the june update so i can compile it on my OLPC and see how much shit breaks

maybe i'll dig my mac quadra with A/UX out of the garage too

82 Name: Cudder !MhMRSATORI!!L0f5nl0+ : 2008-05-20 13:25 ID:Heaven

>>81
Someone else fixed mkdir, not me (nor do I know who did). Whoever did didn't log the change, and I don't feel like bringing up the diff.

>and if someone makes a mistake other people aren't smart enough to figure out what it is

mkdir.c works now, so someone was smart enough to find the bug. I don't care who did it, the important thing was it got fixed.

Are you the guy who posted a pic of /g/ on an OLPC on /g/?

83 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-20 15:12 ID:Heaven

>>74
mkdir had inline too.

mkfifo assumes mode_t is signed.
dectooct returns -1 if you give it a number that has the digits 8 or 9 in it. you store the int result of dectooct in the mode_t variable mode and then check to see if it's equal to -1 to determine whether the mode supplied by the user is valid:

if(mode == -1) {
fprintf(stderr, "%s: invalid mode\n", argv[0]);
return 1;
}

mode cannot ever be -1 if mode_t is unsigned (which it is on my system), so it continues on and tries to set the mode to 0177777.

also, mkfifo really needs to be indented.

84 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-20 18:16 ID:Heaven

>>80

As an aside, we're thinking of adding a "long long long" to AnonCC which, if the machine supports it, will be at least 128 bits.

You show your ignorance once more. At this point I think you're just a troll and you're not serious.
First of all, there is nothing that says long long can't be 128 bits. Secondly, the hardware doesn't have to support qwords to have your type being 128 bits. You clearly know shit about anything, regarding anything.
Your whole dectoot function is broken, and its call with atoi() is also broken and shows how little you know about security.
Use this:
unsigned int foo;
if(sscanf(optarg, "%o", &foo) != 1) { /* error */ }

You silly faggots, another bug found in your code. I find these bugs just by looking at the code, without even loading it at my damn editor. You stupid faggots, you damn imbeciles.
No matter how many times I'll point out your errors you'll still persist that you somehow have a "project" with correct code and whatnot. I really hate you faggot.

85 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-20 18:17 ID:Heaven

>>84
dang, not qword. It doesn't have to support 128bit types.

86 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-20 18:17 ID:Heaven

>>85
I mean units. dammit.

87 Name: HAHAHaruhi!6mHaRuhies : 2008-05-20 23:22 ID:Heaven

>First of all, there is nothing that says long long can't be 128 bits

You missed the part about "at least". Also

long >= 32 bits
long long >= 64 bits
long long long >= 128 bits (the next logical step?)

I know the hardware doesn't have to support 128-bit types for it to be in the language, but this is more of an extension than anything else. AnonCC plans are very vague right now, we might not even add triple-long if it serves no useful purpose.

>>83,84
Yeah, the whole dectooct() is retarded and we're going to rewrite it. It doesn't even support the POSIX symbolic modes (+w, -r, g=o, etc.) Your hate only makes us more determined to fix it.

88 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-21 05:13 ID:Heaven

> long long long >= 128 bits (the next logical step?)

Just a suggestion... If you have 128-bit integers at all, call them int128_t and uint128_t (and intleast128_t, uintleast128_t, intfast128_t, uintfast128_t, intmax_t, and uintmax_t).
If you want to also have a 128-bit long long long that's fine, but if you don't have the standard names it's fucking useless.
Also, if you're planning on writing a new C compiler that doesn't support C99, don't bother.

89 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-21 08:26 ID:Heaven

>>88
typedef long long long int int128_t
typedef unsigned long long long int uint128_t

etc.

90 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-21 09:03 ID:Heaven

>>89
int128_t must be exactly 128 bits, and a two's complement integer.
long long long if existant is not required to be that.
What HAHAFAGGOT doesn't understand is that ISO C permits 'long long' to be 128 bits. or long to be 256 bits. long long long would be a useless addition.
You know what your problems are?
That a), I could write all the code you've written so far in less than a day, and b) that I reported a bug to you, I showed you how to fix it and you still haven't fixed it, which means that you can't or that you are bored. Clearly your "project" will fail. It's good for trolling but nothing more.

91 Name: Cudder !MhMRSATORI!!L0f5nl0+ : 2008-05-21 11:19 ID:Heaven

>>90
if we add 3-long, we decide how long it's going to be and 128 seems like a good length. yes long long could be 128 on a wider machine but then 3-long will be even bigger still, like 256. and if long is 256, we'll make long long 512 and long long long 1024. but this is purely theoretical, no ordinary machines we know of are this wide and certainly none of us own one.

i have no idea how much she wrote, but she spends more time discussing the project with us than writing code. she also has IRL to contend with, like the rest of us. a/x is just a side project, not full-time work.

what bug are you talking about? if you're complaning about the versions on REchan right now not having been fixed, shut the fuck up and learn to read because i explained like three fucking times already ***THE UPDATES WILL BE RELEASED IN JUNE***

and the more you say a/x is going to fail, the more incentive you give us to work harder on it.

92 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-21 12:13 ID:Heaven


if we add 3-long, we decide how long it's going to be and 128 seems like a good length. yes long long could be 128 on a wider machine but then 3-long will be even bigger still, like 256. and if long is 256, we'll make long long 512 and long long long 1024. but this is purely theoretical, no ordinary machines we know of are this wide and certainly none of us own one.

Then shall we add a long long long long too? It will be long before hardware will support more than 5-6 integer units, and it may not ever be necessary. So long long long is not useful, nor is long long long long, etc. Damn you and your fucking logic. This clearly needs to be in software level, and there are already very good libraries out there (psst, the best is from gnu) for bignum arithmetic.

what bug are you talking about?

All the bugs I pointed out that you alone would never find.


shut the fuck up and learn to read because i explained like three fucking times already ***THE UPDATES WILL BE RELEASED IN JUNE***

Funny, as I said before it would take me less than a day to "update" (ie completely rewrite) all the code you've already written. By the way, I do not have sufficient knowledge nor will to code a whole operating system, linker, compiler, etc etc, which you supposedly want to code. If it takes you so much to update code which normally would take 1 day for any normal programmer, really, what the fuck are you doing?

and the more you say a/x is going to fail, the more incentive you give us to work harder on it.

No matter how much you are going to work on it, it will fail. Be cause you are retarded, you have a woman in your team which is beyond retardism, I mean, how much gayer can you be. You lack the knowledge, and the brain power. It is not a matter of "trying".

P.S. total absolute failures. you and your banal ideas, curse you all. Gedanken tomfools.

93 Name: !w4lolitaKs : 2008-05-21 13:45 ID:Heaven

Thanks for the input, but you missed this:

>but this is purely theoretical

We're considering a triple long, not desperately thinking of adding one. Enough talk about longs, it's getting rather long.

>Funny, as I said before it would take me less than a day to "update" (ie completely rewrite) all the code you've already written.

And I wrote an ANSI C compiler in ANSI C when I was 12. PROVE IT! Besides, we have other things to do than work on a/x 24/7.

> If it takes you so much to update code which normally would take 1 day for any normal programmer

And again you fail at reading comprehension. We have our own private-but-open (read the posts again, you might just figure out how to access it) repository and FTP server. The code there is the most recent and all the bugs are fixed there. BUT WE ARE NOT UPLOADING IT TO RECHAN UNTIL JUNE.

>Be cause you are retarded, you have a woman in your team which is beyond retardism

lol, resorting to misogyny now?

94 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-21 15:06 ID:Heaven

So now the public basically isn't allowed to contribute. Or, we can throw random code snippets into the void, but only the double secret ninja hackers in your uncharted island repository can have any clue what's actually happening.

And there's so much progress among them that all the code we can see is irrelevant.

95 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-21 19:52 ID:Heaven

>>93
Look fucktard, resorting to misogynism (not misogyny, learn English) fuck yes. I hate women, because they are retarded, stupid, retarded and not suited for programming. Just what the fuck do you think OS developing is? Your damn playground? You can't develop for shit if you don't know your shit, shithead.
And I wrote an ANSI C compiler in ANSI C when I was 12. PROVE IT! Besides, we have other things to do than work on a/x 24/7.

I have already proven it by showing you all these bugs you have. I'm not just posting here, I post at /prog/ as well. I have showed you bugs there too. Basically you can't write a code that doesn't have bugs. And that's because you are shit programmers. Maybe good trolls, but shit programmers.
The fact that you consider a triple long shows how stupidfucktarded you are. Just don't consider it. It's a stupid idea.
And anyway, how the fuck do you want me to prove it? Write all the code for you, post it here so you can steal it? Fuck you, faggots. Your desperation shows with such posts.
I HATE YOU. SAGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

96 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-22 03:14 ID:Heaven

This thread sucks. Please stop posting here.

97 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-22 04:22 ID:Heaven

Wow, a project destined for failure before it was even thought of. Enjoy wasting your time, faggots.

98 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-22 06:10 ID:Heaven

http://rechan.eu.org/s/ is broken.
you can't even write a simple php script and you're writing an operating system?

99 Name: Cudder !2TZtn9Z7zI!!L0f5nl0+ : 2008-05-22 10:16 ID:Heaven

>>98
Didn't notice that. There's nothing wrong with r4:

>[Thu May 22 05:05:40 2008] [error] [client x.x.x.x] PHP Warning: file_put_contents(index.htm) [function.file-put-contents]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /chroot/home/rechaneu/rechan.eu.org/html/s/r4.php on line 285, referer: http://rechan.eu.org/s/

Stop jumping to conclusions. It was working before we moved hosts. And now it's been fixed.

100 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-22 10:56 ID:Heaven

>>99
Everything you've ever coded is bad and you should feel bad.

101 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-22 12:03 ID:Heaven

>>99
No it wasn't, the whole site was broken before you moved.
http://wakaba.c3.cx/soc/kareha.pl/1108009355/n180-

102 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-23 13:01 ID:apPW4NZm

Hmm... I was looking through the BSD source tree and wondering why BSD doesn't have their own compiler? They seem to use gcc too.

103 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-05-23 14:24 ID:Heaven

>>102
Apparently 4.4BSD, the final release of the original which the current distributions of BSD are descended from, switched from a truly ancient compiler (1970s vintage) called "pcc" to gcc. I'm not certain why; pcc might have been AT&T owned at the time, or just suffering from neglect.

A maintainer appeared last year and started working on pcc again, and there's talk that the more ideological BSDs (i.e. not FreeBSD) might switch back to using it.

104 Post deleted.

105 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-06-01 04:03 ID:apPW4NZm

106 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-06-01 06:52 ID:Heaven

107 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-06-01 09:57 ID:o77g6cSx

>>102,105
i lol'd at !6mHaRuhies, !MhMRSATORI!!L0f5nl0+ and above having the same ID

108 Name: HAHAHaruhi!6mHaRuhies : 2008-06-01 19:59 ID:Heaven

>>107
We're posting through the local repo server. It's so you can identify what posts are from the Anonix core group (which manages file releases among other things) to prevent someone else from faking a release filled with GNU copypasta.

109 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-06-02 05:23 ID:Heaven

>>108
What, being a tripfag isn't adequate proof of your identity?

Also, you should mention somewhere your shit isn't BSD 4.3 compatible and requiring _XOPEN_SOURCE=600 or similar to compile without spewing undefined identifiers, at least on my system.

Also, ISO C90 still doesn't support 'long long'.

110 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-06-02 07:19 ID:Heaven

>>109
a/c isn't Windows compatible either now is it?

Try compiling on a fully POSIX compliant system.

Compile the few progs that use 'long long' in C99 mode if you must.

111 Name: 109 : 2008-06-02 12:36 ID:Heaven

> Try compiling on a fully POSIX compliant system.

I'm running Ubuntu on an OLPC. Care to suggest what I can install on an OLPC that's fully POSIX compliant, since that apparently isn't?

112 Name: HAHAHaruhi!6mHaRuhies : 2008-06-03 01:40 ID:Heaven

>>111
MINIX ought to work, but I'm using LFS with the include files edited to naturally define the POSIX stuff (instead of having it locked inside #ifdef's).

(Not too familiar with OLPC, but I think it's a standard PC architecture which should be fine.)

113 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-06-09 03:04 ID:o77g6cSx

rechan is down halp

114 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-06-10 09:01 ID:apPW4NZm

>>113
works now, probably just server maintenence

115 Name: HAHAHaruhi!6mHaRuhies : 2008-06-18 04:47 ID:apPW4NZm

116 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-07-21 08:00 ID:ypIp/jYN

int haxanus (void) {
printf("file not found, DESU\n");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}

117 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-07-22 03:26 ID:rYmf8Fff

>>116
That is distasteful.

118 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2008-08-07 20:25 ID:rtuaM8jN

Eliminating the bloat that GNU utilities have? Command line programs?

You people are tripping.

119 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2009-03-20 19:52 ID:ueqlybyn

lol permasaged

120 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2009-10-29 17:47 ID:L5K0Hweo

RAGE FAGGOTS, RAGE!

Also, Boxxy.

Also THE GAME!

121 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2009-11-22 11:08 ID:PSB0el/0

HAX MY ANUS!

122 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2010-02-26 10:48 ID:GoK6iFkf

     | \
     |Д`)   No one is here.
     |⊂     I can dance now !
     |

     ♪  ☆
   ♪   / \    RANTA TAN
      ヽ(´Д`;)ノ   RANTA TAN
         (  へ)    RANTA RANTA
          く       TAN

   ♪    ☆
     ♪ / \   RANTA RANTA
      ヽ(;´Д`)ノ  RANTA TAN
         (へ  )    RANTA TANTA
             >    TAN

123 Name: #!/usr/bin/anonymous : 2010-10-27 08:42 ID:GoK6iFkf

>122

i see you, but that doesn't count in a permasaged thread anyway

124 Post deleted.

Name: Link:
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
More options...
Verification: