The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS

Linux on an 8088 and 64k of RAM? 8)

I guess the 68000 was also an option...

--
"In practice, though, Linux users are just as controlled by the distro
makers and FOSS app developers as commercial users are by Microsoft
and closed-source app developers." - DumFSck, lying shamelessly

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> clinker wrote:
>> Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible an
>> operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and Windows
>> existence as it is known today.
>
> most things are *possible*
>
>> OS2 had a good run for example. It is still alive and well in some
>> proprietary industrial equipment because it is impervious to hacks as no
>> one remembers it.

We also had Amigas and Atari ST's, before it become impractical to
compete with the Wintel juggernaut on the desktop.

If Micro$oft could push all of those (at least somewhat) established
platforms out of the market, what chance does a newcomer have?

>But the thing is, again from my perspective, as a user, not a developer
>of operating systems, is that what you want - and IBM, Red Hat etc
>understand this - is a reliable secure bug free platform on which to
>write applications that is easily ported to whatever hardware is available.
>
>And in that context 30 years of development beats a new kid on the block
>every day.

It's almost impossible to come from behind, in these markets.

--
"The middle 32 characters look very random - but it looks like you
stop at the letter 'f'. * why stop at letter f?" - "DFS", putting
his ignorance on display

On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 18:23:36 -0600, clinker wrote:

> Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible an
> operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and Windows
> existence as it is known today.
>

We just need to remove the "Linux" from GNU/Linux.

GNU was/is a project to develop a completely free (as in freedom
and not beer) Unix, and it has succeeded admirably except for a viable
OS. Hence GNU selected Linux as its OS.

But GNU has an OS; it's called "Hurd." It works but it cannot
yet compete with the functionality of Linux. Even Dr. Richard
Stallman, the main protagonist of GNU, admits that the architecture
of Hurd was something of a mistake.

Hurd is still alive, if not kicking, however:

https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/

I would love to see Hurd revitalized and to assume the role of
the GNU kernel, replacing Linux.

Then, with GNU as the steward, Unix would be totally free (as in freedom
and not beer).

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

Lester Thorpe wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 18:23:36 -0600, clinker wrote:
>
>> Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible an
>> operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and Windows
>> existence as it is known today.
>
> We just need to remove the "Linux" from GNU/Linux.
>
> GNU was/is a project to develop a completely free (as in freedom
> and not beer) Unix, and it has succeeded admirably except for a viable
> OS. Hence GNU selected Linux as its OS.

Not "OS"... it's "kernel".

> But GNU has an OS; it's called "Hurd." It works but it cannot
> yet compete with the functionality of Linux. Even Dr. Richard
> Stallman, the main protagonist of GNU, admits that the architecture
> of Hurd was something of a mistake.
>
> Hurd is still alive, if not kicking, however:
>
> https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/
>
> I would love to see Hurd revitalized and to assume the role of
> the GNU kernel, replacing Linux.
>
> Then, with GNU as the steward, Unix would be totally free (as in freedom
> and not beer).

The Hurd mentality :-)

--
My analyst told me that I was right out of my head,
But I said, "Dear Doctor, I think that it is you instead.
Because I have got a thing that is unique and new,
To prove it I'll have the last laugh on you.
'Cause instead of one head -- I've got two.
And you know two heads are better than one.

On 20/09/2024 12:59, chrisv wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS
>
> Linux on an 8088 and 64k of RAM? 8)
>
> I guess the 68000 was also an option...
>

The original Unix ran on less that 128K RAM
Original PC was up to 256 K RAM IIRC

You couldn't run MSDOS on 16K RAM!

A basic text only Linux would run OK on 128K

--
“A leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,
“We did this ourselves.”

― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

On 20/09/2024 at 15:57, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Lester Thorpe wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 18:23:36 -0600, clinker wrote:
>>
>>> Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible an
>>> operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and Windows
>>> existence as it is known today.
>>
>> We just need to remove the "Linux" from GNU/Linux.
>>
>> GNU was/is a project to develop a completely free (as in freedom
>> and not beer) Unix, and it has succeeded admirably except for a viable
>> OS. Hence GNU selected Linux as its OS.
>
> Not "OS"... it's "kernel".
>
>> But GNU has an OS; it's called "Hurd." It works but it cannot
>> yet compete with the functionality of Linux. Even Dr. Richard
>> Stallman, the main protagonist of GNU, admits that the architecture
>> of Hurd was something of a mistake.
>>
>> Hurd is still alive, if not kicking, however:
>>
>> https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/
>>
>> I would love to see Hurd revitalized and to assume the role of
>> the GNU kernel, replacing Linux.
>>
>> Then, with GNU as the steward, Unix would be totally free (as in freedom
>> and not beer).
>
> The Hurd mentality :-)
>

Perhaps it could be rewritten in Rust, as an alternative to a new Linux
kernel written in Rust as opposed to writing bits of the current kernel
in Rust.

--
Chris Elvidge, England
I WILL STOP PHONING IT IN

On 2024-09-20, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> clinker wrote:
>>
>>> OS2 had a good run for example. It is still alive and well in some
>>> proprietary industrial equipment because it is impervious to hacks as no
>>> one remembers it.
>
> We also had Amigas and Atari ST's, before it become impractical to
> compete with the Wintel juggernaut on the desktop.
>
> If Micro$oft could push all of those (at least somewhat) established
> platforms out of the market, what chance does a newcomer have?

The Amiga would have fared much better if Commodore's board wasn't
so busy running the company into the ground while siphoning off
bigger salaries than IBM's bigwigs were getting.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | We'll go down in history as the
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | first society that wouldn't save
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | itself because it wasn't cost-
/ \ if you read it the right way. | effective. -- Kurt Vonnegut

On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 18:40:49 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

>
> The Amiga would have fared much better if Commodore's board wasn't
> so busy running the company into the ground while siphoning off
> bigger salaries than IBM's bigwigs were getting.
>

Who gives a flying fuck about 50-year-old computing. That shit
is long dead and buried so why the need to resurrect the stench?

The future, and present, is GNU/Linux/FOSS/FreeBSD.

Keep your comments progressive and keep your nostalgia up
your fucking ass where it belongs.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 17:35:52 +0100, Chris Elvidge wrote:

>
> Perhaps it could be rewritten in Rust, as an alternative to a new Linux
> kernel written in Rust as opposed to writing bits of the current kernel
> in Rust.
>

Why Rust?

Rust is just another fucking crutch for all the fucking retards who
could not master computer science sufficiently to master C.

C is the ultimate and only programming language.

But the problem is that C requires a sophistication and maturity
that 99% of "programmers" do not possess.

All those who advocate Rust only attest to their retarded and
hopeless programming "expertise."

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

Lester Thorpe wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 17:35:52 +0100, Chris Elvidge wrote:
>
>> Perhaps it could be rewritten in Rust, as an alternative to a new Linux
>> kernel written in Rust as opposed to writing bits of the current kernel
>> in Rust.
>
> Why Rust?
>
> Rust is just another fucking crutch for all the fucking retards who
> could not master computer science sufficiently to master C.
>
> C is the ultimate and only programming language.
>
> But the problem is that C requires a sophistication and maturity
> that 99% of "programmers" do not possess.
>
> All those who advocate Rust only attest to their retarded and
> hopeless programming "expertise."

I'm of the theory that all programmers should know how to create resources and
dispose of them the instant they are not needed.

- Via auto scope
- Via constructors and destructors
- Via malloc() and rigorous calls of free()
- Fsck garbage collection (for the most part)

--
Rincewind looked down at him and grinned slowly. It was a wide, manic, and
utterly humourless rictus. It was the sort of grin that is normally
accompanied by small riverside birds wandering in and out, picking scraps
out of the teeth.
-- Terry Pratchett, "The Lure of the Wyrm"

On Fri, 9/20/2024 7:59 AM, chrisv wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS
>
> Linux on an 8088 and 64k of RAM? 8)
>
> I guess the 68000 was also an option...
>

GCC came out in 1987. Linux in 1991. There may be
something to the timing there. Maybe it wouldn't have
been as easy, to do it earlier.

The 8088 was 1979.
The 68000 was 1979.

The 68000 apparently had the address lines to operate 16MB of memory.
But at the time, our 68000 design had 128KB on it. The thing was,
DRAM was its own worst enemy at the time, a super-crude technology,
intended to make engineers jump from a second floor window. It's a good
thing we only had 128KB, at the time. The DRAM chips could only withstand
-0.5V of undershoot. Once a genius in the DRAM industry, figured out a way
to allow the undershoot to be -2.0V, that is when DRAM began to be more practical.
Our system was a "cost be damned" prototype, so I feel we would have had
more memory, if who ever designed it, had wanted to add more. (The machine was
a freaking disaster, and FCC part 15, it would have blown the front end off
the test instruments - I took a machine home, and it wiped out all television
reception. We had a lot to learn back then, about emissions.)

https://wiki.console5.com/tw/images/thumb/1/1c/MC68000-MC68010-MC68HC000-64-DIL-Pinout.png/270px-MC68000-MC68010-MC68HC000-64-DIL-Pinout.png?20110817192929

By 1987 or 1991, I expect there was enough memory, for a person
to have aspirations. I don't think you could easily rush Linux
out the door earlier. Maybe you could have done your first version
on a mainframe. They had core memory.

Paul

On 2024-09-20 22:59, Paul wrote:
> On Fri, 9/20/2024 7:59 AM, chrisv wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS
>>
>> Linux on an 8088 and 64k of RAM? 8)
>>
>> I guess the 68000 was also an option...
>>
>
> GCC came out in 1987. Linux in 1991. There may be
> something to the timing there. Maybe it wouldn't have
> been as easy, to do it earlier.
>
> The 8088 was 1979.
> The 68000 was 1979.

The equivalent to the 68000 was the 8086. Or, the equivalent to the 8088
was the 68008.

....

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 20/09/2024 at 20:20, Lester Thorpe wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 17:35:52 +0100, Chris Elvidge wrote:
>
>>
>> Perhaps it could be rewritten in Rust, as an alternative to a new Linux
>> kernel written in Rust as opposed to writing bits of the current kernel
>> in Rust.
>>
>
> Why Rust?
>
> Rust is just another fucking crutch for all the fucking retards who
> could not master computer science sufficiently to master C.
>
> C is the ultimate and only programming language.
>
> But the problem is that C requires a sophistication and maturity
> that 99% of "programmers" do not possess.
>
> All those who advocate Rust only attest to their retarded and
> hopeless programming "expertise."
>
>

Woosh ---->

--
Chris Elvidge, England
I WILL NOT WASTE CHALK

In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> People don't want to pay for operating systems any more. The *only*
> place Microsoft hangs on is the desktop, and desktop sales are now more
> or less commercial. Not many average dudes buy a desktop when they can
> have a fondleslab or a big fuck off 'rob me' mobile phone...
>
> Only hardcore gamers
>
> Nothing of any real significance has come out of Microsoft for ages.
>
> It is really a cash cow now. It will dwindle and get sold off. Gates has
> his billions.

Any major future dwindling of M$ won't be due to Windows losing
dominance, since it's already down to just 12.8% of their revenue
in 2022:
https://businessquant.com/microsoft-revenue-by-product

Money-wise they're mainly a "cloud" company now, selling services
that may often run on Linux. In fact they're making contributions
to Linux kernel development now, so it really is a brave new world:

Microsoft Engineer Sends Rust Linux Kernel Patches For In-Place
Module Initialization
https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-Rust-In-Place-Module-Init

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 9/20/2024 6:15 PM, Chris Elvidge wrote:
> On 20/09/2024 at 20:20, Lester Thorpe wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 17:35:52 +0100, Chris Elvidge wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps it could be rewritten in Rust, as an alternative to a new Linux
>>> kernel written in Rust as opposed to writing bits of the current kernel
>>> in Rust.
>>>
>>
>> Why Rust?
>>
>> Rust is just another fucking crutch for all the fucking retards who
>> could not master computer science sufficiently to master C.
>>
>> C is the ultimate and only programming language.
>>
>> But the problem is that C requires a sophistication and maturity
>> that 99% of "programmers" do not possess.
>>
>> All those who advocate Rust only attest to their retarded and
>> hopeless programming "expertise."
>>
>>
>
> Woosh ---->

"Lester Thorpe" (real name Larry A Piet) is a strange OCD idiot that's
been haunting cola for 9 years with blustering lies about his
programming skills.

Here are some of his STUPID, contradictory comments about himself,
programming and programming languages:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
"_I_ am the pinnacle of intellectual and physical perfection.
GNU/Linux is, like me, perfect in every way."

"C Programmer Extraordinaire"

"True programmers, i.e. the ones that actually move the world, use
exclusively C and Linux. I know this because I am one of them."

"Anyone probably could beat me in a coding contest."

"Assembly Only From Now On"

"My one-and-only language is C."

"I declare that I will henceforth write ALL PROGRAMS in the lovely
x86_64 assembly language. ALL. FOREVER."

"I program only in C and will ALWAYS do so."

"C++ is for degenerate sissies"

"Users of C++, and all OO garbage, are assholes to the core."

"The highest paid "programmer" in all of Silicon Valley would likely
flunk out of Comp Sci 101."

"About 99% of "professional" programming positions only utilize the
latest framework fashion-of-the-day."

"C, C++, Ada, Python, etc., are for high-level pussies."

"If I had to write a word-count routine it would be the best possible by
using assembly SIMD and multi-threading."

"Holy fuck! I am only a single human being. The GIMP people want me to
implement netpbm HDR formats. The ImageMagick folks want me to
implement AI. Give this poor boy a fucking break! But I am a FOSS
person. I can do anything and everything and I can do it all extremely
well."

"HPC = High-Performance Computing and is the ONLY area of REAL
COMPUTING. Everything else is fashionable bullshit. GNU/Linux, in the
right hands (like mine), excels at HPC."

"I am heavily involved in virtually ALL AREAS of contemporary computing"

left side of his mouth:
"I am a human being of upstanding moral character and integrity."

right side of his mouth:
"You and your whole fucking family lineage are a pack of genetic
inferiors. You all should voluntarily line up at the nearest
dog gassing chamber and help to clean up the gene pool."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

heh! That's just so you know what kind of blathering clown you're
dealing with.

When he says "99% of 'programmers' do not possess", that includes him.

He makes a low income living at some kind of Windows/MS Office job, ie
he can't hack it as a Linux/FOSS developer of any kind.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 18:23:36 -0600, clinker wrote:

> OS2 had a good run for example. It is still alive and well in some
> proprietary industrial equipment because it is impervious to hacks as no
> one remembers it.

It wasn’t impervious to hacks. I remember reading the original programming
manual, and noticing about four different ways to crash or hang the
system.

On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 09:41:06 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> DOS is still used in a lot of industrial kit ...

You mean the obsolete, unsupported, proprietary MS-DOS or DR-DOS, or the
Open Source, still being developed, FreeDOS?

> There is evidence that Linux itself is getting bloated, and in need of
> the same 'back to basics' approach that Linus dud 30 years ago.

It’s just as modular as it always was. You can even build it for certain
architectures that completely lack memory protection.

> Linux is like C. It has its issues, but everyone understands them
> everyone can program in it and it works well enough. And it doesn't need
> licenses to be paid to use it.
>
> And sometimes its easier to fix bugs in it than to rewrite it in Rust
> etc.

You do know that the Linux kernel is accepting Rust code now, don’t you?

On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 18:40:49 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> The Amiga would have fared much better if Commodore's board wasn't so
> busy running the company into the ground while siphoning off bigger
> salaries than IBM's bigwigs were getting.

The Amiga made a giant leap in hardware capability, then stood still as
competitors surpassed it. For example, the Apple Mac was able to improve
its hardware with minimal breakage in app compatibility, because of its
good software abstractions. Whereas Amiga apps had to work directly with
the hardware, so that hardware could not be improved without breaking
those apps.

On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 17:34:06 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> The original Unix ran on less that 128K RAM

Remember, other OSes were more efficient than that, because they were
mostly written in assembly language. Unix, being written in C, was larger
and slower.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 18:23:36 -0600, clinker <azigni@yahoo.com> wrote in
<eg3HO.8194$MxR.395@fx47.iad>:

> Not to derail this thread, which is a good one, but it is possible an
> operating system will be developed that threaten both Linux and Windows
> existence as it is known today.
>
> OS2 had a good run for example. It is still alive and well in some
> proprietary industrial equipment because it is impervious to hacks as no
> one remembers it.

Is it 64-bit yet?

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.11.0 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
"Confucius say: Man who run behind truck get exhausted."

On Fri, 9/20/2024 5:19 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-09-20 22:59, Paul wrote:
>> On Fri, 9/20/2024 7:59 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS
>>>
>>> Linux on an 8088 and 64k of RAM?   8)
>>>
>>> I guess the 68000 was also an option...
>>>
>>
>> GCC came out in 1987. Linux in 1991. There may be
>> something to the timing there. Maybe it wouldn't have
>> been as easy, to do it earlier.
>>
>> The 8088 was 1979.
>> The 68000 was 1979.
>
> The equivalent to the 68000 was the 8086. Or, the equivalent to the 8088 was the 68008.

At the time, people knew better than to buy the 8088 or the 68008.

But good things come from following the theme. In this article,
is a description of Torvalds early equipment. And partially
why he was inclined to work on Linux. It was the poor quality
of the stuff that was coming on the machines he was buying :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_QL # A thing that used the 68008

"Linux

Linus Torvalds has attributed his eventually developing the Linux kernel,
likewise having pre-emptive multitasking, in part to having owned a Sinclair QL
in the 1980s.

Because of the lack of support, particularly in his native Finland, Torvalds
became used to writing his own software rather than relying on programs written
by others.[28] In part, his frustration with Minix, on the Sinclair,[29] led,
years later, to his purchase of a more standard IBM PC compatible on which he
would develop Linux.

In 'Just for Fun', Torvalds wrote, "Back in 1987, one of the selling points of
the QL was that it looked cool", because it was "entirely matte black, with a
black keyboard" and was "fairly angular". He also wrote he bought a floppy controller
so he could stop using microdrives, but the floppy controller driver was bad,
so he wrote his own. Bugs in the operating system, or discrepancies with the
documentation, that made his software not work properly, got him interested in
operating systems.

"Like any good computer purist raised on a 68008 chip," Torvalds "despised PCs",
but decided in autumn 1990 to purchase a 386 custom-made IBM PC compatible,
which he did in January 1991.
"

I think you can see there, how that over-developed the muscles in his middle finger.

Paul

On 20/09/2024 20:11, Lester Thorpe wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 18:40:49 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>>
>> The Amiga would have fared much better if Commodore's board wasn't
>> so busy running the company into the ground while siphoning off
>> bigger salaries than IBM's bigwigs were getting.
>>
>
> Who gives a flying fuck about 50-year-old computing. That shit
> is long dead and buried so why the need to resurrect the stench?
>
> The future, and present, is GNU/Linux/FOSS/FreeBSD.
>
> Keep your comments progressive and keep your nostalgia up
> your fucking ass where it belongs.
>
>
Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
Who put caltrops in your underwear then?
--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

On 20/09/2024 20:20, Lester Thorpe wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 17:35:52 +0100, Chris Elvidge wrote:
>
>>
>> Perhaps it could be rewritten in Rust, as an alternative to a new Linux
>> kernel written in Rust as opposed to writing bits of the current kernel
>> in Rust.
>>
>
> Why Rust?
>
> Rust is just another fucking crutch for all the fucking retards who
> could not master computer science sufficiently to master C.
>
> C is the ultimate and only programming language.
>
> But the problem is that C requires a sophistication and maturity
> that 99% of "programmers" do not possess.
>
> All those who advocate Rust only attest to their retarded and
> hopeless programming "expertise."
>
>
Ah, Just another troll

--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

On 20/09/2024 22:19, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-09-20 22:59, Paul wrote:
>> On Fri, 9/20/2024 7:59 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> If Linux had existed we would never have had DOS
>>>
>>> Linux on an 8088 and 64k of RAM?   8)
>>>
>>> I guess the 68000 was also an option...
>>>
>>
>> GCC came out in 1987. Linux in 1991. There may be
>> something to the timing there. Maybe it wouldn't have
>> been as easy, to do it earlier.
>>
>> The 8088 was 1979.
>> The 68000 was 1979.
>
> The equivalent to the 68000 was the 8086. Or, the equivalent to the 8088
> was the 68008.
>
> ...
>
FSVO 'equivalent' :-)

--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

Le 20-09-2024, Lester Thorpe <lt@gnu.rocks> a écrit :
>
> Who gives a flying fuck about 50-year-old computing.

For a fact: *YOU*. And you proved it in every one on your messages.

Every tool you promote is an old tool, every tool you despise is a
modern tool. Whatever your choices, the terminal, the editor, the GUI
(you say you don't use GUI but you are stuck in the old fvwm by the
way).

And for the programming languages, it's the same story.

You say python is only for people who can't master C (which is designed
for you by your own definition, but it's another subject). This argument
can look real because python is easier to use than C to accomplish
simple things (which is a good thing for anyone who can master what's
needed and use the right tool for the job but it's another subject).

But this argument falls apart when you use it for rust. Because rust is
far from an easy language to master. So you are using it hopping that
nobody knows better, but it proves only you have no idea about what rust
is and hope it's right. And it proves, at the same time that you have no
idea about what python is and you are right in saying that it's easier
than C only by mere luck.

So you prove your real argument against rust is because it's a new
language. And you prove, at the same time that your real argument
against python is because it's newer than C, too.

> Keep your comments progressive and keep your nostalgia up
> your fucking ass where it belongs.

You should read your sentence again and again before any of your
message. But, as always, you are the one never following your own
advices.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io