derek@carroll1.cc.edu (Derek Inksetter) (01/13/90)
In article <wZfVc0200WB68G8m1a@andrew.cmu.edu> sa1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sudheer Apte) writes: > ...I'd just like to make a little correction >to the "rm *" discussion. Somebody pointed out the common mistake of >not SHIFT'ing in time when typing "rm *.o", getting "rm *>o", and >claimed that you get just one empty file named "o". Actually, the >shell creates the file "o" before calling rm, so the command unlinks >that, too; you get nothing at all in your directory. (Not that you'd >be worrying about this minor fact when all your sources are gone, >but...) I'm not trying to pick nits, but... No, you're wrong. Well, you're right, but you're wrong. Yes, the shell creates the 'o' file before calling rm, but before doing that, it also expands the *, giving all the filenames in the directory (sans o) and passes them to rm. I assume that this is the standard order for most *nix shells. (?) It's at least true for ksh running under our SysVr3 Derek -- .sig file closed for repairs--No thru traffic
J.G.Hall@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Hall) (01/17/90)
In article <1499@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> jleitch@cs.strath.ac.uk writes: > >And, of course, the manual claimed that anything you typed in >at the keyboard could not possibly damage the hardware. This was >not true. The machine had a cassette port with remote control >to switch the motor on and off which utilised a reed relay, >so if one was to type the short program > > 10 *MOTOR1:*MOTOR0:GOTO10 > >nasty things would ensue. > Also on the beeb, removing the system ROM, and looking at it in an EPROM programmer, say, revealed a list of credits for people involved in the construction etc. You could not read this insitu as it was under memory mapped devices, and the ROM was disabled when the devices were active. jon -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- = = - yet to get a .signature file - = = -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
cmp8118@sys.uea.ac.uk (D.S. Cartwright) (01/17/90)
jleitch@cs.strath.ac.uk (James T Leitch CS88) writes: >Talking of hidden messages, on a BBC micro, if you typed : > RENUMBER 10,2345 >it came back with the message : > silly >This was the only thing you could do that would give this message. Yes. And Amcom (who produced a rather natty little Network Operating System for the Beeb that knocked the spots off Acorn's Econet) put in an early version of their E-Net NFS workstation ROM a message that appeared if you tried to do something to someone else' files: naughty. May I also briefly note that if you put a DFS 0.90 ROM the wrong way round in a Beeb Micro then turn the power on, it is possible to get a loud pop as the quartz window out of the top of the EPROM flies vertically upwards. I've seen it done, it's ever so pretty (but it does leave rather a pong of burning chip in the room ...) . Dave C, UEA, Norwich.
D.C.Halliday@newcastle.ac.uk (D.C. Halliday) (01/17/90)
>From ukc!sys.uea!cmp8118 Wed Jan 17 01:20:50 GMT 1990 > May I also briefly note that if you put a DFS 0.90 ROM the wrong way round >in a Beeb Micro then turn the power on, it is possible to get a loud pop as the >quartz window out of the top of the EPROM flies vertically upwards. I've seen >it done, it's ever so pretty (but it does leave rather a pong of burning chip >in the room ...) . > The BBC's are very good at blowing up, when the first batch of the BBC Master came out they had a battery backed set of options. At the last minute the Nicad rechargables where replaced by normal dry cells, leaving the charging circuit behind. One simple rom call and an hour or so later... BANG!!!! no more BBC. This could be used to make one hell of a virus! Dave H.