Re: [arch-general] Mutt Compile-time Configuration

talkingarch users who haven't got g.u.i. running may have problems with that sidebar due to graphical character output from that feature messing up their screen readers. There could be other or additional reasons I know nothing about yet too. On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, Dutch Ingraham wrote:

Re: [arch-general] Mutt Compile-time Configuration

On 20/08/16 at 02:09am, Thibaut Marty wrote: On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 01:39:28AM +0200, Bruno Pagani wrote: I think that the packager just didn’t see this addition and only bounced the pkgver. There is an open ticket about this: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/50445. This would be

Re: [arch-general] Mutt Compile-time Configuration

On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 01:39:28AM +0200, Bruno Pagani wrote: > I think that the packager just didn’t see this addition and only bounced the > pkgver. There is an open ticket about this: > https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/50445. This would be surprising, as the new compile-time option was

Re: [arch-general] Mutt Compile-time Configuration

Le 20 août 2016 01:09:06 GMT+02:00, Dutch Ingraham a écrit : >Hello all: > >Mutt 1.7.0 was just released.[1] One new feature is the sidebar, which >up to now required a patched version of mutt from the AUR. However, it >is a >compile-time option and it appears as though the Arch

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 16:40:32 -0500, Yaro Kasear wrote: >People who don't know PS would still have to look up how to do >the same thing on there. That is already part of my point of view. If we have a problem and don't know how to solve it, we not necessarily use the keywords "bash", "dash" or

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

Consider also that getting PowerShell doesn't solve the "how do I" problem. People who don't know PS would still have to look up how to do the same thing on there. If you're already familiar with Linux, and chances are you are if you're using Archlinux, then PowerShell won't solve any problems

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

www.my-favoured-search-engine.com Search term: linux shell how to do this and that If you don't know how to find the size and name of the three largest files in a directory, but only of those files that have a size value that is a prime number in MiB and a file name that does contain the

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

On 08/19/2016 02:06 PM, Leonid Isaev wrote: > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 07:31:03PM +0200, Jérôme M. Berger wrote: >> On 08/19/2016 03:28 AM, Hunter Connelly via arch-general wrote: >>> Bash:ls -l | sed 's/ \+/,/g' | cut -d',' -f 5,9 | sort -g | tail -3 >> >> -->ls -sS | head -4 |

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

On Friday, 19 August 2016 12:06:42 CEST Leonid Isaev wrote: > Since when ls(1) et al are a part of bash? Are you guys comparing > apples with oranges, i.e. bash + coreutils and powershell? Yes, somewhere in the thread it is already decided that powershell is more like python than bash. --

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 07:31:03PM +0200, Jérôme M. Berger wrote: > On 08/19/2016 03:28 AM, Hunter Connelly via arch-general wrote: > > Bash:ls -l | sed 's/ \+/,/g' | cut -d',' -f 5,9 | sort -g | tail -3 > > -->ls -sS | head -4 | tail -3 > > > PowerShell: ls -file | sort -pr

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

On 08/19/2016 06:12 PM, Jayesh Badwaik wrote: > Okay, then other factors come in, Google and Redhat "actively" develop free > software. This > means that if they first write some software and then put a patent > application for it, most > often, the patent application can be invalidated

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

On 08/19/2016 03:28 AM, Hunter Connelly via arch-general wrote: > Bash:ls -l | sed 's/ \+/,/g' | cut -d',' -f 5,9 | sort -g | tail -3 -->ls -sS | head -4 | tail -3 > PowerShell: ls -file | sort -pr length | select length, name -l 3 -- mailto:jeber...@free.fr

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

I'm gonna go with Guus on this one. Compared to batch, it's a blessing. Looking at this from a pure practical standpoint, I would very much enjoy being able to administer the odd Windows server from my Arch box. I'll still hate every minute of it, but how nice would it be not to have to use a

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

A beer from me too. -- Cheers Jayesh Badwaik signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

On Friday, 19 August 2016 10:58:26 CEST Doug Newgard wrote: > Which is also moot. Google and RedHat both have patent portfolios that > they can and do defend. Okay, then other factors come in, Google and Redhat "actively" develop free software. This means that if they first write some software

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

On Friday, 19 August 2016 17:47:58 CEST Sebastiaan Lokhorst via arch-general wrote: > Then Microsoft has given you a license to use that patent under the > conditions listed above, and they cannot sue you. > > Please correct me if I'm mistaken. They can still sue you according to wikipedia.

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

On 19-08-2016 16:05, Sebastiaan Lokhorst via arch-general wrote: > 2016-08-19 16:28 GMT+02:00 Mauro Santos via arch-general < > arch-general@archlinux.org>: >> >> Make no mistake, they are after profits and do whatever it takes to keep >> the money flowing >> > > So do Red Hat and Google. But

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

2016-08-19 17:36 GMT+02:00 Jayesh Badwaik : > > The point was patents. > A company can give out licenses to use a patent. If Microsoft would have patented stuff in PowerShell, but then releases them with the following license included: > Permission is hereby granted,

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 05:13:32PM +0200, Kwang Moo Yi via arch-general wrote: > I mean, we don't even know all the people who contributed to the Linux > Kernel are (well,.. I suppose technically you can, but you know what I > mean). True, and take in account that Microsoft guys had contributed

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

On Friday, 19 August 2016 17:33:28 CEST Kwang Moo Yi via arch-general wrote: > I can't help pointing out that PowerShell is MIT. The point was patents. -- Cheers Jayesh Badwaik signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

Like that lwtter to opensource programmers? On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, 17:09 Lee Fuller via arch-general, < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote: > Microsoft have set a precedent of unnecessary vile arrogance towards Linux > and the companies you cite here don't. I think that is fundamentally why > most

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

On 08/19/2016 05:16 PM, Jayesh Badwaik wrote: systemd is GPL and not patented by Red Hat (I won't be surprised if it does potentially probably violates some patents somewhere on the earth anyway), Chromium is BSD, MIT etc. I can't help pointing out that PowerShell is MIT. Cheers, Kwang

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

Jayesh Badwaik wrote: > systemd is GPL and not patented by Red Hat (I won't be surprised if it does > potentially > probably violates some patents somewhere on the earth anyway), Chromium is > BSD, MIT If Sun owned patents on SMF, then it probably violates

Re: [arch-general] arch-general Digest, Vol 142, Issue 24

On 08/18/2016 08:49 PM, arch-general-requ...@archlinux.org wrote: > Send arch-general mailing list submissions to > arch-general@archlinux.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.archlinux.org/listinfo/arch-general > or, via email, send a

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

On 19-08-2016 15:58, Lee Fuller via arch-general wrote: > Mauro - Could I please quote you verbatim in a post on my personal website? > It' gets very little traffic and so there's nothing really for you to gain, > but I simply couldn't write anything better and feel that your quote > summarises my

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

On Friday, 19 August 2016 17:05:15 CEST Sebastiaan Lokhorst via arch-general wrote: > So do Red Hat and Google. But does that keep us from using systemd or > Chromium? > > Please stop this unfounded, tinfoil hat "Micro$oft sucks!!11" whining. > If there is an actual reason why you shouldn't use

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

On 19/08/16 16:05, Sebastiaan Lokhorst via arch-general wrote: Please stop this unfounded, tinfoil hat "Micro$oft sucks!!11" whining. If there is an actual reason why you shouldn't use a product, please say so, but this "don't use it because Microsoft made it" nonsense is ridiculous. They

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

On 08/19/2016 05:08 PM, Lee Fuller via arch-general wrote: Microsoft have set a precedent of unnecessary vile arrogance towards Linux and the companies you cite here don't. I think that is fundamentally why most people have responded with scepticism. For me, defining something *good* and *bad*

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

Microsoft have set a precedent of unnecessary vile arrogance towards Linux and the companies you cite here don't. I think that is fundamentally why most people have responded with scepticism. *Kind Regards,Lee Fuller* *PGP Fingerprint : *

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

2016-08-19 16:28 GMT+02:00 Mauro Santos via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org>: > > Make no mistake, they are after profits and do whatever it takes to keep > the money flowing > So do Red Hat and Google. But does that keep us from using systemd or Chromium? Please stop this unfounded,

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

Mauro - Could I please quote you verbatim in a post on my personal website? It' gets very little traffic and so there's nothing really for you to gain, but I simply couldn't write anything better and feel that your quote summarises my own view on the news. The address is https://leefuller.io -

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

I couldn't have put it better myself, Mauro. *Kind Regards,Lee Fuller* *PGP Fingerprint : * 4ACAEBA4B9EE1B3A075034302D5C3D050E6ED55A On 19 August 2016 at 15:28, Mauro Santos via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote: > On 19-08-2016 14:27, Stephen E.

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

This, just this. is exacly why i also avoid microsoft shitware. On 19-08-16 16:28, Mauro Santos via arch-general wrote: On 19-08-2016 14:27, Stephen E. Baker via arch-general wrote: As a PowerShell user, it certainly has it's place, but it's place is pretty niche in the linux world, so +1 for

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

On 19-08-2016 14:27, Stephen E. Baker via arch-general wrote: > As a PowerShell user, it certainly has it's place, but it's place is > pretty niche in the linux world, so +1 for the AUR. Given that it comes from Microsoft they must have some agenda to fulfill, I'd rather not touch this even with

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016, 7:30 PM Hunter Connelly via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote: > >Specifically, if any of you will be using it, if you think it should be in the main repos, what this might mean for the future, etc. I plan on trying to use it to manage Windows Servers from my

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

On 8/19/2016 6:21 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: Hunter Connelly via arch-general wrote: Here's an example I found on Reddit in the thread about this on /r/linux. Both of the following commands find the size and name of the three largest files in a directory. Bash:

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

Hunter Connelly via arch-general wrote: > Here's an example I found on Reddit in the thread about this on /r/linux. > Both of the following commands find the size and name of the three largest > files > in a directory. > > Bash:ls -l | sed 's/ \+/,/g' | cut

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

Jeroen Mathon via arch-general wrote: > A lot of standard scripts will not function correctly. The same applies if you install "csh" as your shell. UNIX allows you to shoot you into your foot if you like. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.net(home)

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

(Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:59:00AM +0200) Jeroen Mathon via arch-general : > Will that shebang work correctly with powershell? This is the os's job, not bash's or powershell's, to work correctly with shebang. From the shell point of view a script is no different to a binary, as long as it is

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

Will that shebang work correctly with powershell? On 19-08-16 11:52, Tinu Weber wrote: On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:39:11 +0200, Jeroen Mathon via arch-general wrote: Using powershell as your default shell will be a total disaster. A lot of standard scripts will not function correctly.

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:39:11 +0200, Jeroen Mathon via arch-general wrote: > Using powershell as your default shell will be a total disaster. > > A lot of standard scripts will not function correctly. Scripts are supposed to have a shebang, so I don't exactly get your problem. People are also

Re: [arch-general] Opinions on PowerShell?

On 08/19/2016 07:20 AM, Jeroen Mathon via arch-general wrote: Shipping PowerShell to linux will be a total disaster. Why would it be a disaster? One more option for Linux that is totally up to the user's freedom to choose. I would personally never use it, but it's nice that now I can