On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 13:45:46 +0000, Geoff Clare wrote:

> Muttley wrote:
>
>> talk is an age old unix util that allows people on the same machine to
>> chat.
>> Even MacOS has it installed.
>
> "Even" MacOS? It's required for UNIX® conformance - if MacOS didn't
> have talk, it wouldn't be able to be certified as UNIX.

_[/Users/scott]_(scott@Mac-Studio)🍏_
$ type talk
talk is /usr/bin/talk
_[/Users/scott]_(scott@Mac-Studio)🍏_
$ uname -a
Darwin Mac-Studio 23.2.0 Darwin Kernel Version 23.2.0: Wed Nov 15 21:55:06
PST 2023; root:xnu-10002.61.3~2/RELEASE_ARM64_T6020 arm64

That checks out -- it's in the current MacOS. The man page reports:

HISTORY
The talk command appeared in 4.2BSD.

In FreeBSD 5.3, the default behaviour of talk was changed
to treat local-to-local talk requests as originating and
terminating at localhost. Before this change, it was
required that the hostname (as per gethostname(3))
resolved to a valid IPv4 address (via gethostbyname(3)),
making talk unsuitable for use in configurations where
talkd(8) was bound to the loopback interface (normally for
security reasons).
_ _ _ _ _

"ytalk" let's you talk with more than one person at a time, iirc.

--
-Scott System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.12.4 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
"Nostalgia isn't what it used to be."

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 19:30:10 -0000 (UTC)
vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wibbled:
>$ uname -a
>Darwin Mac-Studio 23.2.0 Darwin Kernel Version 23.2.0: Wed Nov 15 21:55:06
>PST 2023; root:xnu-10002.61.3~2/RELEASE_ARM64_T6020 arm64

You need to update. The current arm kernel is 24.1.0 dated Oct 2024.

On 12/9/24 10:21, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 09.12.2024 10:11, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 09:37:54 +0100
....
>>> WRT IRC you may have missed the requirements in my OP; one was:
>>> * instantly/synchronously exchanging any typed characters
>>
>> I suggest you consult harry potter for that then.
>
> (I suppose here you just want play the troll.) But how does that
> comment address in any way my question? - I don't know anything
> about "Harry Potter", BTW; if you want to discuss that better
> open an own post in an appropriate newsgroup.

Key feature of "Harry Potter" - he lives in a world where magic is real.
This is Muttley's way of telling you that he thinks that your
specification can only be achieved by using magic, that it's
incompatible with the real world.
Taken literally, "instantly" is indeed impossible, but I doubt that you
intended it literally.

On 10.12.2024 23:57, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 12/9/24 10:21, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 09.12.2024 10:11, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 09:37:54 +0100
> ...
>>>> WRT IRC you may have missed the requirements in my OP; one was:
>>>> * instantly/synchronously exchanging any typed characters
>>>
>>> I suggest you consult harry potter for that then.
>>
>> (I suppose here you just want play the troll.) But how does that
>> comment address in any way my question? - I don't know anything
>> about "Harry Potter", BTW; if you want to discuss that better
>> open an own post in an appropriate newsgroup.
>
> Key feature of "Harry Potter" - he lives in a world where magic is real.

Thanks. - So much I knew of those books/films. :-)
It appears to be impossible to evade hearing of Harry Potter. ;-)
(I've even seen some, to be honest, but not sure I saw any film
completely. I like fantasy, but not this sort of fairy tales;
so it's useless to discuss that specific genre-variant with me.)

It was merely meant as a hint to the poster to focus on the topic
if there's any intention to seriously contribute (which his post,
in content and tone, obviously anyway didn't intend).

> This is Muttley's way of telling you that he thinks that your
> specification can only be achieved by using magic, that it's
> incompatible with the real world.
> Taken literally, "instantly" is indeed impossible, but I doubt that you
> intended it literally.

Given that in Relativity Theory instant transmission is impossible -
light (electromagnetic waves) and information can travel only with
light speed! - and that quantum entanglement in Quantum Theory is
unlikely to have been in my mind when talking about our profane IT
tools theme, it should indeed have been obvious - but probably not
to Muttley - that it's of course not meant literally. - It was the
colloquial "instantly" used in a comparison to the other ways tools
typically communicate.

What was meant, if not obvious, I think could be easily derived
from my original post already, where I mentioned three prevalent
types of typical systems; write a complete message and <send> it
(to be seen at the addressee), write a line and <send> it, and -
what I meant - while typing the peer could see what you type (and
without an explicit <send>). - I'm sure most people understood it,
given their responses. - And tools with such characteristic have
also already been proposed.

Only Muttley seems to didn't get it, especially given that he
suggested things like IRC (that were clearly ruled out in my OP),
and that he's obviously never seen tools like the ones mentioned
(by me and others here); 'phone' and the various 'talk' variants.

(I postpone or ignore posts from people that behave like him. My
longish post might help him to understand, or maybe not - I don't
care much.)

Janis

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 17:57:00 -0500
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wibbled:
>On 12/9/24 10:21, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 09.12.2024 10:11, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 09:37:54 +0100
>....
>>>> WRT IRC you may have missed the requirements in my OP; one was:
>>>> * instantly/synchronously exchanging any typed characters
>>>
>>> I suggest you consult harry potter for that then.
>>
>> (I suppose here you just want play the troll.) But how does that
>> comment address in any way my question? - I don't know anything
>> about "Harry Potter", BTW; if you want to discuss that better
>> open an own post in an appropriate newsgroup.
>
>Key feature of "Harry Potter" - he lives in a world where magic is real.

You have to wonder what cave he lives in never to have heard of Harry Potter.

>This is Muttley's way of telling you that he thinks that your
>specification can only be achieved by using magic, that it's
>incompatible with the real world.
>Taken literally, "instantly" is indeed impossible, but I doubt that you
>intended it literally.

There are many solutions to what he wants, he only needs to google.

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 03:04:15 +0100
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wibbled:
>On 10.12.2024 23:57, James Kuyper wrote:
>Only Muttley seems to didn't get it, especially given that he
>suggested things like IRC (that were clearly ruled out in my OP),
>and that he's obviously never seen tools like the ones mentioned
>(by me and others here); 'phone' and the various 'talk' variants.

What you actually want is still unclear. If you need a communications tool
between machines there are a ton of possibilities even if you only want
character based exchange.

>(I postpone or ignore posts from people that behave like him. My
>longish post might help him to understand, or maybe not - I don't
>care much.)

I don't care either anymore. I gave you some info, use it or don't, not my
problem.

Nicolas George wrote:

> Geoff Clare , dans le message
> <at8j2l-elf.ln1@ID-313840.user.individual.net>, a écrit :
>> "Even" MacOS? It's required for UNIX® conformance - if MacOS didn't
>> have talk, it wouldn't be able to be certified as UNIX.
>
> Or they would have paid a little more money and that requirement would have
> been discarded.

Not sure if you're just being flippant or you genuinely believe that
would be possible. If the latter, then you clearly know very little
about the POSIX/UNIX standards development process. It takes a decade
or two to remove an interface from the standard, as it first needs to be
marked obsolescent (to give application writers advance notice to start
phasing out its use). Take for example the tempnam() function: mandatory
for UNIX in SUSv3 (2001), marked obsolescent (but still mandatory) in
SUSv4 (2008), removed in SUSv5 (2024).

--
Geoff Clare <netnews@gclare.org.uk>

On 12/11/24 03:35, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 17:57:00 -0500
> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wibbled:
>> On 12/9/24 10:21, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
....
>>> (I suppose here you just want play the troll.) But how does that
>>> comment address in any way my question? - I don't know anything
>>> about "Harry Potter", BTW; if you want to discuss that better
>>> open an own post in an appropriate newsgroup.
>>
>> Key feature of "Harry Potter" - he lives in a world where magic is real.
>
> You have to wonder what cave he lives in never to have heard of Harry
> Potter.

I took his comment literally, even though I thought it rather unlikely -
it's not impossible. However, his response indicated that he said it
just to make a point.

In article <vjarv0$17q4j$1@dont-email.me>,
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 10.12.2024 23:57, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 12/9/24 10:21, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>> On 09.12.2024 10:11, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 09:37:54 +0100
>> ...
>>>>> WRT IRC you may have missed the requirements in my OP; one was:
>>>>> * instantly/synchronously exchanging any typed characters
>>>>
>>>> I suggest you consult harry potter for that then.
>>>
>>> (I suppose here you just want play the troll.) But how does that
>>> comment address in any way my question? - I don't know anything
>>> about "Harry Potter", BTW; if you want to discuss that better
>>> open an own post in an appropriate newsgroup.
>>
>> Key feature of "Harry Potter" - he lives in a world where magic is real.
>
>Thanks. - So much I knew of those books/films. :-)
>It appears to be impossible to evade hearing of Harry Potter. ;-)
>(I've even seen some, to be honest, but not sure I saw any film
>completely. I like fantasy, but not this sort of fairy tales;
>so it's useless to discuss that specific genre-variant with me.)
>
>It was merely meant as a hint to the poster to focus on the topic
>if there's any intention to seriously contribute (which his post,
>in content and tone, obviously anyway didn't intend).
>
>> This is Muttley's way of telling you that he thinks that your
>> specification can only be achieved by using magic, that it's
>> incompatible with the real world.
>> Taken literally, "instantly" is indeed impossible, but I doubt that you
>> intended it literally.
>
>Given that in Relativity Theory instant transmission is impossible -
>light (electromagnetic waves) and information can travel only with
>light speed! - and that quantum entanglement in Quantum Theory is
>unlikely to have been in my mind when talking about our profane IT
>tools theme, it should indeed have been obvious - but probably not
>to Muttley - that it's of course not meant literally. - It was the
>colloquial "instantly" used in a comparison to the other ways tools
>typically communicate.
>
>What was meant, if not obvious, I think could be easily derived
>from my original post already, where I mentioned three prevalent
>types of typical systems; write a complete message and <send> it
>(to be seen at the addressee), write a line and <send> it, and -
>what I meant - while typing the peer could see what you type (and
>without an explicit <send>). - I'm sure most people understood it,
>given their responses. - And tools with such characteristic have
>also already been proposed.

Taking what you wrote literally is an obtuse reading
of the original requirements, indeed. It's rather
obvious that the requirement was character-at-a-time
transmission, as opposed to batching into larger
messages (lines or otherwise).

>Only Muttley seems to didn't get it, especially given that he
>suggested things like IRC (that were clearly ruled out in my OP),
>and that he's obviously never seen tools like the ones mentioned
>(by me and others here); 'phone' and the various 'talk' variants.
>
>(I postpone or ignore posts from people that behave like him. My
>longish post might help him to understand, or maybe not - I don't
>care much.)

Muttley's the guy who doesn't know what a compiler is,
right?

- Dan C.

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 00:55:48 -0000 (UTC)
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wibbled:
>>(I postpone or ignore posts from people that behave like him. My
>>longish post might help him to understand, or maybe not - I don't
>>care much.)
>
>Muttley's the guy who doesn't know what a compiler is,
>right?

Do change the record, you're only making yourself sound like a fool.