Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!samsung!rex!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Is it time for comp.lang.c.dos? Message-ID: <+1V2VOAxds13@ficc.uu.net> Date: 11 Apr 90 15:53:10 GMT References: <1990Mar29.224413.21552@xenitec.on.ca> <1990Mar31.153231.4926@druid.uucp> <1990Apr3.091427.19910@kfw.COM> <1990Apr5.191012.26651@druid.uucp> <403:Apr901:26:4290@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> <456@wattres.UUCP> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Distribution: usa Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 15 In article flee@shire.cs.psu.edu (Felix Lee) writes: > Steve Watt asks: > >It is called COMP.SYS.IBM.PC.PROGRAMMER!!!!!! > >But *why* can't we get people to use it???? > ``I'm having a problem with malloc() in Utah.'' There's nothing wrong with "I'm having a problem with malloc, I'm using Turbo C, etc...". It's the people who then carry the discussion to a comparison of the relative merits of Park City and Salt Lake City... I mean Turbo C and Microsoft C... that are the problem. We need a periodic posting for comp.lang.c, I fear. And some *polite* form letters for the folks who ask "what is int86(21), I know it's something to do with DOS, but..."? -- _--_|\ `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ 'U` \_.--._/ v