[#1263] Draft of the updated Ruby FAQ — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

33 messages 2000/02/08

[#1376] Re: Scripting versus programming — Andrew Hunt <andy@...>

Conrad writes:

13 messages 2000/02/15

[#1508] Ruby/GTK and the mainloop — Ian Main <imain@...>

17 messages 2000/02/19
[#1544] Re: Ruby/GTK and the mainloop — Yasushi Shoji <yashi@...> 2000/02/23

Hello Ian,

[#1550] Re: Ruby/GTK and the mainloop — Ian Main <imain@...> 2000/02/23

On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 02:56:10AM -0500, Yasushi Shoji wrote:

[#1516] Ruby: PLEASE use comp.lang.misc for all Ruby programming/technical questions/discussions!!!! — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@...>

((FYI: This was sent to the Ruby mail list.))

10 messages 2000/02/19

[#1569] Re: Ruby: constructors, new and initialise — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>

The following message is a courtesy copy of an article

12 messages 2000/02/25

[ruby-talk:01438] Re: perl2ruby conversion guide

From: "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@...>
Date: 2000-02-16 05:59:10 UTC
List: ruby-talk #1438
From: Dave Thomas <Dave@thomases.com>
To: ruby-talk ML <ruby-talk@netlab.co.jp>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 11:37 PM
Subject: [ruby-talk:01434] Re: perl2ruby conversion guide


> "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@jump.net> writes:
>
> > From: Dave Thomas <Dave@thomases.com>
> > > If people are planning on writing FAQs and the like, you might want to
> > > consider stealing the system we use for the FAQ.
> >
> > Do you know if it will run under cygwin32b20?
>
> It might, but you'd probably have to do a heap of tweaking. The
> sgml-tools package is a mixture of the nsgmls package (which may or
> may not run under Windows), Perl, LaTeX and other assorted stuff.

Hmm. Would rather learn more Ruby. Would rather work on FAQ.

What Linux package/system/release or whatever do you use?

> > If not, it just might motivate me to get a new system with enough memory
and
> > horsepower to run both Linux and Win2000 on the same box with the (don't
> > recall vendor) virtual machine system.
>
> That shouldn't be the only thing to motivate you to run Linux!

It's not. It's the N+1st thing (albeit with a small N and a large 1).

> Did you
> read the article that said that Microsoft admitted to 65,000 bugs in
> Win2K? My guess is there's more, but the bug tracking system hit 16
> bit overflow.

Isn't that several tens of thousands fewer bugs than last time?

Conrad



In This Thread