I received the TAWK code base from Pat Thompson roughly four years ago. A friend an I have been enhancing it and are now up to version 6.6. If you were a Thompson customer before Pat closed up shop, I can send you a copy of v6.6. It runs only onWindows.
~~ Paul
I received the TAWK code base from Pat Thompson roughly four years ago. A friend an I have been enhancing it and are now up to version 6.6. If you were a Thompson customer before Pat closed up shop, I can send you a copy of v6.6. It runs only onWindows.
~~ Paul
On Monday, 15 February 2016 at 03:58:31 UTC-7, PaulCAnagnos wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In article <20220428131244.865@kylheku.com>,
Kaz Kylheku <480-992-1380@kylheku.com> wrote:
On 2022-04-28, Jeff Paranich <jparanich@gmail.com> wrote:
^^^^^^^
On Monday, 15 February 2016 at 03:58:31 UTC-7, PaulCAnagnos wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please avoid necroposting, without an amunt of justification
proportional to the "years old" parameter.
Don't be silly. It does not become you.
On Monday, 15 February 2016 at 03:58:31 UTC-7, PaulCAnagnos wrote:Windows.
I received the TAWK code base from Pat Thompson roughly four years ago. A friend an I have been enhancing it and are now up to version 6.6. If you were a Thompson customer before Pat closed up shop, I can send you a copy of v6.6. It runs only on
been working on. For all I know you (Paul), and Pat, are dead and the damage is done - TAWK is gone, never to be re-built or cross-compiled for Linux. Maybe at least consider selling the source for release, so that a group of individuals can group
~~ Paul
I know TAWK was a commercial product, many years ago. What's it going to take to get the source code public? It sounds like TAWK is at extreme risk of being lost forever as your post is now 6 years old without even a new closed-source release you've
On Monday, 15 February 2016 at 03:58:31 UTC-7, PaulCAnagnos wrote:
I received the TAWK code base from Pat Thompson roughly four years
ago. A friend an I have been enhancing it and are now up to version
6.6. If you were a Thompson customer before Pat closed up shop, I can
send you a copy of v6.6. It runs only on Windows.
~~ Paul
I know TAWK was a commercial product, many years ago. What's it going
to take to get the source code public? It sounds like TAWK is at
extreme risk of being lost forever as your post is now 6 years old
without even a new closed-source release you've been working on. For
all I know you (Paul), and Pat, are dead and the damage is done -
TAWK is gone, never to be re-built or cross-compiled for Linux. Maybe
at least consider selling the source for release, so that a group of >individuals can group together and make this happen? It's not like
keeping TAWK closed source is going to get an iota of financial gain in
this day and age.
On 2022-04-28, Jeff Paranich <jparanich@gmail.com> wrote:
^^^^^^^
On Monday, 15 February 2016 at 03:58:31 UTC-7, PaulCAnagnos wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please avoid necroposting, without an amunt of justification
proportional to the "years old" parameter.
1) Why try to keep using tawk instead of just using gawk or switching to some other tool that's currently still being actively developed,
supported, and documented?
2) If tawk has some features that gawk doesn't then why not put the
effort into contributing support of such features to gawk instead of resurrecting tawk?
3) Given we already have BWK awk, "one true awk", oawk, nawk, BSD awk,
XPG awk, busybox awk, gawk, and maybe others I'm forgetting), is
whatever tawk brings to the table really worth it to have yet another
awk variant around to muddy the waters further on what an "awk" script is?
Regards,
Ed.
Regarding "raising from the dead" old threads. It's zero-cost to you; newsgroups are hanging by a thread - be gracious, there are still
people posting at all.
dollar business - it would probably not have a single pull request - but it's terrible to lose such a significant piece of work. There are so many competitors (as you point out), there's probably not a huge motivation to extend TAWK; but certainly I1) Why try to keep using tawk instead of just using gawk or switching to
some other tool that's currently still being actively developed,
supported, and documented?
2) If tawk has some features that gawk doesn't then why not put the
effort into contributing support of such features to gawk instead of
resurrecting tawk?
3) Given we already have BWK awk, "one true awk", oawk, nawk, BSD awk,
XPG awk, busybox awk, gawk, and maybe others I'm forgetting), is
whatever tawk brings to the table really worth it to have yet another
awk variant around to muddy the waters further on what an "awk" script is? >>
Regards,
Ed.
Not unfounded comments - but also perhaps for all the same reasons these arguments can justify why TAWK should be open source now, in the name of preservation if nothing else. I agree, nobody is going to take the source and run with it as a million
Regarding "raising from the dead" old threads. It's zero-cost to you; newsgroups are hanging by a thread - be gracious, there are still people posting at all.
Not unfounded comments - but also perhaps for all the same reasons these >arguments can justify why TAWK should be open source now, in the name of >preservation if nothing else.
In article <21502b9c-8539-4278...@googlegroups.com>,
Jeff Paranich <jpar...@gmail.com> wrote:
Not unfounded comments - but also perhaps for all the same reasons these >arguments can justify why TAWK should be open source now, in the name of >preservation if nothing else.This makes the most sense. It was an interesting and powerful program
at the time, and interesting code is usually worth reading to learn from. (Even the gawk maintainer has revived old Unix code to make it more
easily available for reading and for playing with [see his github].)
It's unlikely that anyone would invest the effort to make tawk on
Linux production worthy, but stranger things have happened. Although, without the source, we'll never know.
re: "tell us what it is about tawk that you can't do in gawk"
Not to beat a dead fish, but I always used TAWK to "compile" awk programs
so end-users would not hack them.
I am NOT asking for the GNU volunteers to undertake that task.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 291 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 153:30:25 |
| Calls: | 6,611 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,162 |
| Messages: | 5,311,549 |