Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 19 Aug 2004 01:34:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fysh.org ([83.170.75.51] helo=bowl.fysh.org ident=mail) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.34) id 1BxiNh-0003KY-N7 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 01:34:46 -0700 Received: from zefram by bowl.fysh.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BxiNV-0001gl-00 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 09:34:33 +0100 Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 09:34:33 +0100 From: Zefram To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: samselpli ? Message-ID: <20040819083433.GA3076@fysh.org> References: <20040817235553.GZ3538@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20040818084944.GB24841@fysh.org> <20040818191959.GG13226@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040818191959.GG13226@chain.digitalkingdom.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-archive-position: 8499 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: zefram@fysh.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Content-Length: 1484 Lines: 28 Robin Lee Powell wrote: >Unfortunately, I think you're right. I sometimes forget the paucity of >computer knowledge of the average user; if I found other things to put >in a generalized lujvo for "program" (say, required operating system or >processor, just to pool a couple of possible places out of my ganxo), >the average user would literally have no idea how to fill them. I don't see anything so unfortunate about it. I don't think places for OS and processor are appropriate for the lujvo we're talking about. OS and processor are relevant from the programmer's point of view, but they're not fundamental aspects of a program. Many programs are portable. We need a word to express the relationship between a program and the OS/processor that it relies on, but I think "pilno" may be that word. I suggest that a grammatical distinction between OS and processor is not required here. >And sysadmins, like me, prefer samru'e. That would be a "process" in the Unix sense? That is, a distinct thread of running code, viewed from within the OS. To my mind this is not particularly close to the concept of "program"; a process could be said to always be running a program, but it will run different programs from time to time (programs invoke each other). (I'm using "program" in its most general sense, to include what we'd normally call a "function". The distinctions between system call, function, library, and program are gradually blurring in real life anyway.) -zefram