Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
Hey, you are way off. I had heard about OS fanatics but I am seeing a real one now. I have been(will always be) a solaris lover forever, but have never closed my mind to other OS's and their merits, ever. Linux has no technical or economic merit, especially now when Solaris became truly free. Can we avoid statements like this please, especially if you're not going to back them up with some rationale - otherwise you'll begin to look very stupid indeed. There's *huge* benefit to both projects being active and innovative, *especially* from a technical and economic point of view. Glynn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
Repeat after me: Solaris is not Linux... Correct! And hopefully it will never be even remotely like Linux. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
you are illogical dude!! All I want to know if bash is present otherwise, does it matter if safe mode has another half a meg executable? is size the only concern? or illogical compatibility and safety restrictions apply here as well. work the damn incompatibilities if it means the world to so many developers and if it helps others to adopt Opensolaris quickly and easily. It is improper to ASSUME that just because BASH is the default on Linux, it should be the default on Solaris and OpenSolaris. Why should Solaris and OpenSolaris suddenly start to cater to the Linux crowd? Besides, bash is one of the absolute WORST ever shells. There are far better shells, namely (pd)ksh, (t)csh, zsh and so on. Consider this quite rudimentary example: bash: ls -l /tmp/ ; sleep 10 bash: syntax error near unexpected token `;' tcsh: ls -l /tmp/ ; sleep 2 [1] 12745 total 416 [output omitted for brevity] [1]Done ls -l /tmp/ opensolaris better learn from linux(or any OS for that matter) if it is to be adopted widely. the arrogance you show has brought many a down. There is nothing Solaris or OpenSolaris can learn from Linux. Linux is one of the worst pieces of SW in history of Informatics. However, Linux would do far better if it only learned from corporate UNIXes like Solaris, IRIX and HP-UX, instead of just trying to imitate their look-and-feel, and failing at that miserably as well. As a former Linux system engineer, I have nothing good to say for technical merits of Linux. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Besides, bash is one of the absolute WORST ever shells. There are far better shells, namely (pd)ksh, (t)csh, zsh and so on. Consider this quite rudimentary example: bash: ls -l /tmp/ ; sleep 10 bash: syntax error near unexpected token `;' tcsh: ls -l /tmp/ ; sleep 2 [1] 12745 total 416 [output omitted for brevity] [1]Done ls -l /tmp/ Solaris Bourne shell: $ ls -l /tmp/ ; sleep 10 syntax error: `newline or ;' unexpected Solaris Korn shell: $ ls -l /tmp/ ; sleep 10 ksh: syntax error: `newline or ;' unexpected pdksh: $ ls -l /tmp/ ; sleep 10 pdksh: syntax error: `;' unexpected ATT ksh93: $ ls -l /tmp/ ; sleep 10 ksh93: syntax error: `;' unexpected Your point being? That bash does implement some sort of Bourne/POSIX shell command language instead of the csh one? Ridiculous. There is nothing Solaris or OpenSolaris can learn from Linux. Linux is one of the worst pieces of SW in history of Informatics. [...] As a former Linux system engineer, I have nothing good to say for technical merits of Linux. How very convincing. Gunnar ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
This is ridiculous! So why does Solaris come with JDS/GNOME and GRUB if it is not Linux? Because UNIX makes a clear separation of [I]mechanism[/I] and [I]policy[/I]. Just because Solaris implements a window manager or managers popular on Linux does not make it any more or less like Linux. You really should read The Art of UNIX Programming by Eric S. Raymond. In his book, he writes: [I]Rule of Separation: Separate policy from mechanism; separate interfaces from engines.[/I] http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s06.html#id287 This is one of the core UNIX concepts. You must understand this concept in order to understand UNIX. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, UNIX admin wrote: ... ...the Linux crowd... The Linux crowd, The UNIX crowd. Ug. soapbox By my experience, I'd say _at least_ 70% of the world's Linux/UNIX sys admins and developers would put themselves in the Linux/UNIX crowd not one or the other. The rest fall about 20% in the church of Linux and 10% in the church of UNIX. This is based on my attendance and participation in about 13 Linux/UNIX conferences over the last 5 years (7 LinuxWorlds, 4 USENIX Conferences and 5 LISA Conferences). /soapbox Eric ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Eric Boutilier wrote: ... This is based on my attendance and participation in about 13 Linux/UNIX conferences over the last 5 years... Correction: That should have said 16. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
you are way off. I had heard about OS fanatics but I am seeing a real one now. I have been(will always be) a solaris lover forever, but have never closed my mind to other OS's and their merits, ever. linux is a pretty darn good OS and getting better everyday, with lots of hard working and talented people doing their best to create something good. And abusing their intelligence just because you are ux-admin, is fanaticism at its best. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
Theo Schlossnagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's worse than adding double hyphened long options? Also require no hyphen for other tools: http://jerkcity.com/jerkcity2434.html PS wars have been started by ATT in 1984. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED](work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
Jake Hamby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're right. At least my comment led to an interesting discussion, as I didn't know about star and its functionality. It might also be worthwhile to look at FreeBSD's tar, which is fast, automatically recognizes .gz and .bz2 archives (and decodes them internally) and was written to be as compatible as possible. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/usr.bin/tar/ From the man page: STANDARDS There is no current POSIX standard for the tar command; it appeared in p1003.1-96 but was dropped from p1003.1-2001. The options used by this implementation were developed by surveying a number of existing tar implementations as well as the old POSIX specification for tar and the current POSIX specification for pax. The ustar and pax interchange file formats are defined by p1003.1-2001 for the pax command. I see not reason why FreeBSD people did start another tar implementation recently. All issues, the FreeBSD people did have with GNU tar have been addressed with star since a long time. The only reason for creating this new program is a religuous background. The new BSD tar implementation does not implement anything that has not been present in star for years. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED](work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
Eric Boutilier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am I the only one that doesn't like the --something-or-other options of GNU related software? Personally, I now consider it preferable (like a little bonus) when a tool or command provides long option equivalents for short options. Why? If long options are present, then people will use them and if people use them, they are not POSIX compliant anymore. Do you like to see tons of new incompatible shell scripts as we already have on Linux for the same reason? Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED](work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If long options are present, then people will use them and if people use them, they are not POSIX compliant anymore. Who or what is not POSIX compliant? The people? :-) But even if you are talking about scripts, this is not correct. A script that invokes a utility using a long option can very well be a conforming POSIX application using extensions if the non-standard requirement is documented. Long options are usually consistent extensions because they cannot occur in the standard itself; their occurrence in implementations is only discouraged, but not prohibited by the standard. I personally rather dislike long options too. But again, it is not acceptable to misrepresent the standard. Gunnar ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote: I see not reason why FreeBSD people did start another tar implementation recently. Initially performance, now licensing. GNU tar was used by FreeBSD up until recently. libarchive was written to speed up the FreeBSD pkg* tools, and then it was realized that it could be extended to a BSD-licensed tar implemented using libarchive later, chris ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote: Initially performance, now licensing. GNU tar was used by FreeBSD up until recently. libarchive was written to speed up the FreeBSD pkg* tools, and then it was realized that it could be extended to a BSD-licensed tar implemented using libarchive I cannot see that it would give more performance than star. star at the time libarchive was started was: * GPL * not a library that made it no more of an option than GNU tar, which at least had the advantage of already being used later, chris ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
Chris Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I cannot see that it would give more performance than star. star at the time libarchive was started was: * GPL * not a library Before that lib project started, I did aproach the FreeBSD people and offered to change star's license to *BSD. They were not interested. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED](work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Gunnar Ritter wrote: Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If long options are present, then people will use them and if people use them, they are not POSIX compliant anymore. ... ... But again, it is not acceptable to misrepresent the standard... +1. Most people will interpret the word non-compliance to mean something that is prohibited by the standard. Eric ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote: Eric Boutilier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am I the only one that doesn't like the --something-or-other options of GNU related software? Personally, I now consider it preferable (like a little bonus) when a tool or command provides long option equivalents for short options. Why? Well that's kind of like asking me why I like listening to Randy Travis. I like what I like, period. Well I suppose that's not a fair analogy as it's a little easier to quantify why a person likes certain aspects of software environments than why they like certain types of music. So the main reason why is using long options in personal scripts and such (emphasis on personal) is a quick-n-handy method of making it self-documenting. Eric ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, John Martinez wrote: On Jul 14, 2005, at 5:38 PM, Sunil wrote: have you considered providing gnu like long options and/or compatibility for star? it will be perfect if there was only one tar utility and all gnu programs with gnu options for /usr/bin/tar don't just die on solaris. I can try doing this mapping if you point me to source of star. Am I the only one that doesn't like the --something-or-other options of GNU related software? Please don't do this to Solaris! No, you are not alone :) The one big thing I absolutely *hate* is the '--help', when a '-?' should do the trick (and usually did on non-gnu stuff). $ ls -? ls: invalid option -- ? Try `ls --help' for more information. Augh! :) -- Jon Trulsonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ID: 1A9A2B09, FP: C23F328A721264E7 B6188192EC733962 PGP keys at http://radscan.com/~jon/PGPKeys.txt #include std/disclaimer.h I am Nomad. -Nomad ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
have you considered providing gnu like long options and/or compatibility for star? it will be perfect if there was only one tar utility and all gnu programs with gnu options for /usr/bin/tar don't just die on solaris. I can try doing this mapping if you point me to source of star. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
On Jul 14, 2005, at 5:38 PM, Sunil wrote: have you considered providing gnu like long options and/or compatibility for star? it will be perfect if there was only one tar utility and all gnu programs with gnu options for /usr/bin/tar don't just die on solaris. I can try doing this mapping if you point me to source of star. Am I the only one that doesn't like the --something-or-other options of GNU related software? Please don't do this to Solaris! -john smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
On 7/14/05, Sunil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: have you considered providing gnu like long options and/or compatibility for star? it will be perfect if there was only one tar utility and all gnu programs with gnu options for /usr/bin/tar don't just die on solaris. I can try doing this mapping if you point me to source of star. I think all the ones worth supporting have been done already, you can probably find sources and binaries here: ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/star/ Along with a STAR vs GNUTAR (though a bit old it probably is still correct): ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/star/STARvsGNUTAR -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
Jörg Schilling wrote: The main features of GNU tar is compliance problems. I recommend to avoid GNU tar whereever possible. You cannot replace /usr/bin/tar with a program that does not implement the features os /usr/bin/tar without creating hard to track down problems. You're right. At least my comment led to an interesting discussion, as I didn't know about star and its functionality. It might also be worthwhile to look at FreeBSD's tar, which is fast, automatically recognizes .gz and .bz2 archives (and decodes them internally) and was written to be as compatible as possible. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/usr.bin/tar/ From the man page: STANDARDS There is no current POSIX standard for the tar command; it appeared in p1003.1-96 but was dropped from p1003.1-2001. The options used by this implementation were developed by surveying a number of existing tar implementations as well as the old POSIX specification for tar and the current POSIX specification for pax. The ustar and pax interchange file formats are defined by p1003.1-2001 for the pax command. HISTORY A tar command appeared in Seventh Edition Unix. There have been numerous other implementations, many of which extended the file format. John Gilmore's pdtar public-domain implementation (circa November, 1987) was quite influential, and formed the basis of GNU tar. GNU tar was included as the standard system tar in FreeBSD beginning with FreeBSD 1.0. This is a complete re-implementation based on the libarchive library. BUGS POSIX and GNU violently disagree about the meaning of the -l option. Because of the potential for disaster if someone expects one behavior and gets the other, the -l option is deliberately broken in this implementation. -- Jake This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, John Martinez wrote: On Jul 14, 2005, at 5:38 PM, Sunil wrote: have you considered providing gnu like long options and/or compatibility for star? it will be perfect if there was only one tar utility and all gnu programs with gnu options for /usr/bin/tar don't just die on solaris. I can try doing this mapping if you point me to source of star. Am I the only one that doesn't like the --something-or-other options of GNU related software? Personally, I now consider it preferable (like a little bonus) when a tool or command provides long option equivalents for short options. Eric ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
Although I must say, when it comes to the development of _Sun_ Solaris, characterizing the process that way (NO, NOT THERE!!) actually isn't all that far from reality. and somehow that holds true for any OSS project with 3 developers: linus' linux (just look how many patches redhat and suse have in their srpm), gnome.org's tree (goneme wasn't really successful, but they weren't allowed to commit just because gnome is opensource), all those fights around commit bits in the various *bsds, .. and that's probably a good thing -no idea why opensolaris should be held to a different standard.. patrick mauritz This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
you are illogical dude!! All I want to know if bash is present otherwise, does it matter if safe mode has another half a meg executable? is size the only concern? or illogical compatibility and safety restrictions apply here as well. work the damn incompatibilities if it means the world to so many developers and if it helps others to adopt Opensolaris quickly and easily. opensolaris better learn from linux(or any OS for that matter) if it is to be adopted widely. the arrogance you show has brought many a down. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
On 7/11/05, Sunil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: opensolaris better learn from linux(or any OS for that matter) if it is to be adopted widely. the arrogance you show has brought many a down. Since no official opensolaris distribution exists, then any person that makes their own opensolaris distribution is free to do what you're proposing and your argument serves little point since you're free to do whatever you please as no choice has been established. As many have said before, you have the ability to do whatever you please (within reason) with an opensolaris distribution of your own. So, go forth, and create your bountiful distribution full of all the choices you wish to make. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solaris vs. Linux
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote: Joe Halpin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rich Teer wrote: On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Sunil wrote: /bin/bash is compatible. our shell scripts (with #!/bin/sh at top) Not completely so (or at least, that was the case historically). The points of incompatibility are very small, and I've never run into one. Then you seem to have never tried to abort a layered make system with ^C. Smake includes a lot of code just wo work around this kind of bash bugs on Linux. In bash on Linux or in bash in general? Bye, Dragan -- Dragan Cvetkovic, To be or not to be is true. G. BooleNo it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
