On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:56 AM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
There was no court
Gordon Messmer gordon.mess...@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/27/2015 12:28 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Up to now, nobody could explain me how a mixture of GPL and BSD can be
legal as
this would require (when following the GPL) to relicense the BSD code under
GPL
in order to make the whole be
Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
There was no court case, but VERITAS published a modifed version of gtar
where
additional code was added by
Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
No, you posted some ranting misconceptions about why you don't see a
need for it. But if you actually believed any of that yourself, then
you would
Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
If you did read the CDDL, you did of course know that the CDDL places work
limits at file limits and that the CDDL does not try to impose any
restriction on sources that are not in a file marked as CDDLd. So the CDDL of
course does
Gordon Messmer gordon.mess...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm reasonably certain that a script with no shebang will run with
/bin/sh. I interpret your statement to mean that if a user is using ksh
and enters the path to such a script, it would also run in ksh. That
would only be true if you sourced
Stephen Harris li...@spuddy.org wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 09:47:24AM -0700, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 04/24/2015 03:57 AM, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
if you leave it out the script will run in whatever environment it
currently is in.
I'm reasonably certain that a script with no
Valeri Galtsev galt...@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
#!/bin/sh
readlink /proc/$$/file
( note that that file is because I'm using FreeBSD /proc, for Linux you
may need to replace the line with something like:
readlink /proc/$$/exe
And on a platform that implements a
Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:04 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
My first RH was 5, late nineties. First time I looked at linux and
installed, it was '95, and slack. (We'll ignore the Coherent that I
installed on my beloved 286 in the late 80's).
Stephen Harris li...@spuddy.org wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:38:25AM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Fascinating. As I'd been in Sun OS, and started doing admin work when it
became Solaris, I'd missed that bit. A question: did the license agreement
include payment, or was it just
m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Ah. I don't remember if I was using csh, or ksh, and didn't realize about
bash. I *think* I vaguely remember that sh seemed to be more capable than
I remembered.
If you like to check what the Bourne Shell did support in the late 1980s, I
recommend you to fetch recent
John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
oh fun, just did some tests (using c6.latest). if you're in bash,
./script (sans shebang) runs it in bash. if you're in dash or csh,
./script runs it in sh.if you're in ksh, it runs it in ksh.
See my other mail.
The scripts (unless marked)
Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
as a whole means generally BUT allowing for exceptions.
OK, great. That clears it up then.
Maybe this helps:
The BSD license does not
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Do you like to discuss things or do you like to throw smoke grenades?
The only thing I'd like to discuss is your reason for not adding a
dual license to make your code as usable and probably as
On 04/27/2015 12:28 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Up to now, nobody could explain me how a mixture of GPL and BSD can be legal as
this would require (when following the GPL) to relicense the BSD code under GPL
in order to make the whole be under GPL.
The GPL doesn't require that you relicense any
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
The GPL is all that gives you permission to distribute. If it is
void then you have no permission at all to distribute any covered
code.
Fortunately judges know better than you
If you read the
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
No, you posted some ranting misconceptions about why you don't see a
need for it. But if you actually believed any of that yourself, then
you would see there was no harm in adding a dual license to
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
as a whole means generally BUT allowing for exceptions.
OK, great. That clears it up then.
Maybe this helps:
The BSD license does not permit to relicense the code, so you cannot put BSD
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
If you combine ZFS and Linux, you create a permitted collective
work and the GPL cannot extend it's rules to the CDDLd separate and
m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
First, I was not aware that the US had declared any part of the GPL null
Just ask US lawyers. one of them sits on the other side of the corridor of
my office, another is the well known Lawrence Rosen.
For Europe check the reasoning of the cases from Harald Welte.
Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
The GPL is all that gives you permission to distribute. If it is
void then you have no permission at all to distribute any covered
code.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Yes, if you mean what is described here as 'the original 4-clause'
license, or BSD-old:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
Do you like to discuss things or do you like to throw smoke grenades?
Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Do you like to discuss things or do you like to throw smoke grenades?
The only thing I'd like to discuss is your reason for not adding a
dual
Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Yes, if you mean what is described here as 'the original 4-clause'
license, or BSD-old:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
Do you like to
On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:38 AM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
This is the SVr4 Bourne Shell, so you need to take into account what has been
added with Svr4:
Is there any difference between your osh and the Heirloom Bourne Shell?
Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:38 AM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
This is the SVr4 Bourne Shell, so you need to take into account what has
been
added with Svr4:
Is there any difference between your osh and the Heirloom
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
I would be interested to understand why Heirloom seems to so well known and my
portability attempts seem to be widely unknown.
Not sure why it matters with a standalone application like sh, but I
Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
I would be interested to understand why Heirloom seems to so well known and
my
portability attempts seem to be widely unknown.
Not sure why it
On Apr 27, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Heirloom added support for uname -S and for some linux ulimit extensions but
then stopped working on the code after a few months
Ah. I had no idea it was in a state of disrepair.
I see that you
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
And the problem is the GPL. I recommend you to work on making all GPL code
freely combinable with other OSS.
Of course the problem it the GPL. Glad you recognize that. It's
whole point is the
On 04/27/2015 06:43 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
I started with UNOS in 1982 as my first UNIX like. UNOS in fact was
the first UNIX clone and it was a real time OS. In February 1985, I
switched to a Sunthe first Sun that made it to Europe. Jörg
Charles River UNOS was actually Tandy's first
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
You should read the GPL and get help to understand it. The GPL does not forbid
this linking. In contrary, the GPOL allows any GPLd program to be linked
against any library under and license. If this
Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
4. CDDL annoys a lot of people.
The CDDL does not annoy people, this is just a fairy tale from some OSS
enemies.
The following irritates me, I am a ?people,? and I am
Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
The schily tools act as a container to publish the current code state.
There is
no such maintained web page.
I was referring to the summary on the SourceForge page, where you just list
the contents of the package without explaining why one would
On Apr 27, 2015, at 10:10 AM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
I was referring to the summary on the SourceForge page, where you just list
the contents of the package without explaining why one would want to
download it.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
4. CDDL annoys a lot of people.
The CDDL does not annoy people, this is just a fairy tale from some OSS
enemies.
The following irritates me, I am a “people,” and I am not an OSS enemy:
Warren Young w...@etr-usa.com wrote:
Yes, I realize that osh is closer to the original Bourne shell. My point is
that you can?t expect people to just know, without having been told, why they
want bsh, or osh, bosh, or smake, or?
Most of these tools compete with tools that are already in
Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
And the problem is the GPL. I recommend you to work on making all GPL code
freely combinable with other OSS.
Of course the problem it the GPL. Glad
Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
You should read the GPL and get help to understand it. The GPL does not
forbid
this linking. In contrary, the GPOL allows any GPLd program to be
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
There was no court case, but VERITAS published a modifed version of gtar where
additional code was added by binary only libraries from VERITAS. The FSF did
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
If you combine ZFS and Linux, you create a permitted collective work and the
GPL cannot extend it's rules to the CDDLd separate and independend work ZFS of
course.
Which countries' copyright laws
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
You can't distribute GPLd programs unless 'the work as a whole' is
covered by the GPL. There can't be a distinction between binary and
source since one is derived from the other.
Now you just need
Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
If you combine ZFS and Linux, you create a permitted collective work and
the
GPL cannot extend it's rules to the CDDLd separate and independend work
On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 12:32 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Now you just need to understand what as a whole means
Yes, in english, 'work as a whole' does mean complete. And the normal
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
The GPL makes claims that are in conflict with the law because these claims
are
not amongst what the list in the law permits and that are thus void.
The GPL is all that gives you permission to
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Always Learning cen...@u64.u22.net wrote:
Yes, in english, 'work as a whole' does mean complete. And the normal
interpretation is that it covers everything linked into the same
process at runtime unless there is an alternate interface-compatible
component
Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
You can't distribute GPLd programs unless 'the work as a whole' is
covered by the GPL. There can't be a distinction between binary and
source since
Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
The GPL makes claims that are in conflict with the law because these claims
are
not amongst what the list in the law permits and that are thus void.
Can we take the license wanking off the list please? I don't think
either of the people arguing are actually lawyers, so it has no
relevance.
--
Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 14:21 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Can we take the license wanking off the list please? I don't think
either of the people arguing are actually lawyers, so it has no
relevance.
Relevance is not dependent on being, or not being, a lawyer. Relevance
for inclusion on the
Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Always Learning cen...@u64.u22.net wrote:
Yes, in english, 'work as a whole' does mean complete. And the normal
interpretation is that it covers everything linked into the same
process at runtime unless there is
On 04/24/15 06:07, E.B. wrote:
I'm sure most people here know about Dash in Debian. Have there
been discussions about providing a more efficient shell in Centos
for use with heavily invoked non-interactive scripts?
With sh being a link to bash in Centos I don't know if it would
explode if the
Stephen Harris li...@spuddy.org wrote:
Bash was bigger than ksh in the non-commercial Unix world because of ksh88
licensing problems. Back in 1998 I wanted to teach a ksh scripting
course to my local LUG, but ATT (David Korn himsef!) told me I couldn't
give people copies of the shell to take
Pete Geenhuizen p...@geenhuizen.net wrote:
Initially Bourne was used because it was typically a static binary,
because the boot process didn't have access to any shared libraries.
When that changed it became a bit of a moot point, and you started to
see other interpreters being used.
Stephen Harris li...@spuddy.org wrote:
AFAIR, ksh was OSS (but not using an OSI approved license) since 1997.
Since
In 1998 each user had to sign a license; you couldn't give away copies
to other people.
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 14:09:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Korn
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 7:02 AM, mark m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
I'm sure most people here know about Dash in Debian. Have there
been discussions about providing a more efficient shell in Centos
for use with heavily invoked non-interactive scripts?
With sh being a link to bash in Centos I don't
On 04/24/15 06:57, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
On 04/24/15 06:07, E.B. wrote:
I'm sure most people here know about Dash in Debian. Have there
been discussions about providing a more efficient shell in Centos
for use with heavily invoked non-interactive scripts?
With sh being a link to bash in
It was the mid/late-90s, but I seem to recall Bourne being the default
shell, although sh/ksh/csh were all available with a typical install.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Scott Robbins scot...@nyc.rr.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:02:56AM -0400, mark wrote:
On 04/24/15 06:57, Pete
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:32:45AM -0400, Scott Robbins wrote:
Wasn't Solaris, which for awhile at least, was probably the most popular
Unix, using ksh by default?
Solaris /bin/sh was a real real dumb version of the bourne shell.
Solaris included /bin/ksh as part of the core distribution (ksh88
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:02:56AM -0400, mark wrote:
On 04/24/15 06:57, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
On 04/24/15 06:07, E.B. wrote:
I'm sure most people here know about Dash in Debian. Have there
been discussions about providing a more efficient shell in Centos
for use with heavily invoked
Initially Bourne was used because it was typically a static binary,
because the boot process didn't have access to any shared libraries.
When that changed it became a bit of a moot point, and you started to
see other interpreters being used.
Even though Solaris started using ksh as the
Stephen Harris li...@spuddy.org wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:32:45AM -0400, Scott Robbins wrote:
Wasn't Solaris, which for awhile at least, was probably the most popular
Unix, using ksh by default?
Solaris /bin/sh was a real real dumb version of the bourne shell.
Solaris included
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 03:15:27PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Stephen Harris li...@spuddy.org wrote:
Bash was bigger than ksh in the non-commercial Unix world because of ksh88
licensing problems. Back in 1998 I wanted to teach a ksh scripting
course to my local LUG, but ATT (David
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:54:48AM -0400, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
Even though Solaris started using ksh as the default user environment,
almost all of the start scrips were either bourne or bash scripts. With
Bash having more functionality the scripts typically used the
environment that
Stephen Harris li...@spuddy.org wrote:
Solaris /bin/sh was a real real dumb version of the bourne shell.
If you like to create portable scripts, you can do this by downloading:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/
and using osh as a reference implementation. Osh is the
m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Fascinating. As I'd been in Sun OS, and started doing admin work when it
became Solaris, I'd missed that bit. A question: did the license agreement
include payment, or was it just restrictive on distribution?
Everything other than ksh93 is closed source. The POSIX
On Fri, April 24, 2015 12:04 pm, John R Pierce wrote:
On 4/24/2015 9:47 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 04/24/2015 03:57 AM, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
if you leave it out the script will run in whatever environment it
currently is in.
I'm reasonably certain that a script with no shebang will run
I believe if you re-read a little more closely, the whole point of the
exercise was not to have the #! at the top of the script.
On 04/24/2015 01:36 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Fri, April 24, 2015 12:04 pm, John R Pierce wrote:
On 4/24/2015 9:47 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 04/24/2015 03:57
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:04 PM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
On 4/24/2015 9:47 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 04/24/2015 03:57 AM, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
if you leave it out the script will run in whatever environment it
currently is in.
I'm reasonably certain that a script
On 4/24/2015 3:07 AM, E.B. wrote:
I'm sure most people here know about Dash in Debian. Have there
been discussions about providing a more efficient shell in Centos
for use with heavily invoked non-interactive scripts?
perl or python are much better choices for complex scripts that need
Stephen Harris wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 03:15:27PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Stephen Harris li...@spuddy.org wrote:
Bash was bigger than ksh in the non-commercial Unix world because of
ksh88 licensing problems. Back in 1998 I wanted to teach a ksh
scripting
course to my local
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:12 AM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
On 4/24/2015 3:07 AM, E.B. wrote:
I'm sure most people here know about Dash in Debian. Have there
been discussions about providing a more efficient shell in Centos
for use with heavily invoked non-interactive scripts?
On 04/24/2015 03:57 AM, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
if you leave it out the script will run in whatever environment it
currently is in.
I'm reasonably certain that a script with no shebang will run with
/bin/sh. I interpret your statement to mean that if a user is using ksh
and enters the path
On 4/24/2015 10:47 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 04/24/2015 03:57 AM, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
if you leave it out the script will run in whatever environment it
currently is in.
I'm reasonably certain that a script with no shebang will run with
/bin/sh. I interpret your statement to mean that
On 4/24/2015 9:47 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 04/24/2015 03:57 AM, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
if you leave it out the script will run in whatever environment it
currently is in.
I'm reasonably certain that a script with no shebang will run with
/bin/sh. I interpret your statement to mean that
On 04/24/2015 09:59 AM, Steve Lindemann wrote:
A script with no shebang will run in the environment of the account
running the script.
Bad test on my part, apparently.
$ python
import os
os.execv('/home/gmessmer/test', ('test',))
Traceback (most recent call last):
File stdin, line 1, in
Interesting thread i started! Sorry if my question was too vague: --
On Fri, 4/24/15, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
The Bourne Shell is also much faster than bash. In special on platforms like
Cygwin, where Microsoft enforces extremly slow process creation.
This
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:04 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
My first RH was 5, late nineties. First time I looked at linux and
installed, it was '95, and slack. (We'll ignore the Coherent that I
installed on my beloved 286 in the late 80's).
snip
You mean you missed all the fun with Xenix on
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:45 PM, E.B. emailbuilde...@yahoo.com wrote:
Interesting thread i started! Sorry if my question was too vague: --
On Fri, 4/24/15, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
The Bourne Shell is also much faster than bash. In special on platforms like
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:04 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
My first RH was 5, late nineties. First time I looked at linux and
installed, it was '95, and slack. (We'll ignore the Coherent that I
installed on my beloved 286 in the late 80's).
snip
You mean you missed all
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:38:25AM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Fascinating. As I'd been in Sun OS, and started doing admin work when it
became Solaris, I'd missed that bit. A question: did the license agreement
include payment, or was it just restrictive on distribution?
In 1990, when I
On 04/24/15 05:59, Les Mikesell wrote:
The original ksh wasn't open source and might even have been an
extra-cost item in ATT unix. And the early emulations weren't
always complete so you couldn't count on script portability. I
generally thought it was safer to use perl for anything that took
On 4/24/2015 12:32 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 04/24/2015 09:59 AM, Steve Lindemann wrote:
A script with no shebang will run in the environment of the account
running the script.
Bad test on my part, apparently.
$ python
import os
os.execv('/home/gmessmer/test', ('test',))
Traceback
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 09:47:24AM -0700, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 04/24/2015 03:57 AM, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
if you leave it out the script will run in whatever environment it
currently is in.
I'm reasonably certain that a script with no shebang will run with
/bin/sh. I interpret your
Stephen Harris wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:38:25AM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Fascinating. As I'd been in Sun OS, and started doing admin work when it
became Solaris, I'd missed that bit. A question: did the license
agreement include payment, or was it just restrictive on
85 matches
Mail list logo
