On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 22:13:55 -0400
Nick wrote:
> Indeed, I'm surprised rc wasn't mentioned 'til now. I confess
> several times I have tried it, enjoyed it, then gradually gone back
> to just using bourne shell, because it's what I live in... I should
> change my default shell to rc to force my
Quoth M Farkas-Dyck:
> > Is there any shell to recommend as suckless
>
> rc
Indeed, I'm surprised rc wasn't mentioned 'til now. I confess
several times I have tried it, enjoyed it, then gradually gone back
to just using bourne shell, because it's what I live in... I should
change my default sh
way to go reinventing reinventing reinventignan reinvyebuy unsaugint
reinventing reinventuayasgsjgisdgh sg the wehhlt.
Thanks for your attention.
On 4/18/14, M Farkas-Dyck wrote:
> On 18/04/2014, FRIGN wrote:
>> I also don't like the idea of lambda-functions, but this depends on
>>
On 18/04/2014, FRIGN wrote:
> I also don't like the idea of lambda-functions, but this depends on
> personal taste.
Yes, I prefer combinators, but they alone are in many cases cumbersome.
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 3:56 PM, FRIGN wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:47:28 -0400
> Lee Fallat wrote:
>
>> I third this- IPython supports doing things like ls and cd in its
>> shell, and to execute anything else using /bin/sh, just do ! at the
>> beginning (so you can do piping and other common
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:47:28 -0400
Lee Fallat wrote:
> I third this- IPython supports doing things like ls and cd in its
> shell, and to execute anything else using /bin/sh, just do ! at the
> beginning (so you can do piping and other common shell tasks without
> weird behavior).
>
> There is al
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 21:14:54 +0200 Calvin Morrison
> wrote:
>> A suckless shell in my mind would be one closer to Python with baked
>> in support for execution and piping
>
> Yes, Python with less batterie
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:27:53 -0400
Calvin Morrison wrote:
> Why is Python suckless? I think it is a very well defined language,
> lots of documentation, and they take time to curate the language
> rather than letting it evolve without a guiding hand
I suppose your question actually was, why Pyth
Greetings everyone.
sinit 0.9[0] has been released today on suckless.org.
The code is hosted on git[1] and we also have a dedicated
tools page[2].
You'll find everything you need to know in the code and in
the provided README. I am planning to post some usage information
in the wiki.
Please no
>>
>> Honestly assuming that the POSIX shell is anything other than
>> horseshit, full of weird rules, plenty of non-standard-shells
>> surrounding it, poor variable handling, barely working functions, a
>> lack of decent scoping, and more crap like that, why are we even
>> looking at implmeneting
On 18/04/2014, FRIGN wrote:
> I checked out some of them and
> the according POSIX-specification[0] and wondered how much work it
> would be to reimplement it and, of course, if there is any reason to do
> so.
Too much work, no good reason. We already have mksh.
> The main issue we are facing to
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:17:11 -0400
Calvin Morrison wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Honestly assuming that the POSIX shell is anything other than
> horseshit, full of weird rules, plenty of non-standard-shells
> surrounding it, poor variable handling, barely working functions, a
> lack of decent scoping, and mo
Greetings.
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 21:14:54 +0200 Calvin Morrison
wrote:
> A suckless shell in my mind would be one closer to Python with baked
> in support for execution and piping
Yes, Python with less batteries, compilation, scripting and better pip‐
ing support should be ideal.
Sincerely,
C
Hi,
Honestly assuming that the POSIX shell is anything other than
horseshit, full of weird rules, plenty of non-standard-shells
surrounding it, poor variable handling, barely working functions, a
lack of decent scoping, and more crap like that, why are we even
looking at implmeneting a posix shell
Good evening,
I was wondering if you could recommend certain shell-implementations.
Now, the reason why I'm asking is that I checked out some of them and
the according POSIX-specification[0] and wondered how much work it
would be to reimplement it and, of course, if there is any reason to do
so.
B
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:45:48AM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:51:25 +0100
> Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
>
> > Interesting, maybe we could mention this in the wiki page and/or README.
>
> Good idea!
> But on which wiki-page particularly?
We should make tools/ubase/index.md and t
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 11:51:30 +0200
Markus Wichmann wrote:
> Nope, that wasn't my question. Rather, I'd like to know why the OP wants
> to use switch_root in his initrd instead of pivot_root, as the latter is
> easier to use and already included in ubase. And it doesn't depend on
> the filesystem
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:10:23PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:07:46AM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> > so implementing that tool is a one-liner in c
> >
> > so it is easy to add if it's missing from ubase
>
> We already have pivot_root in ubase. Markus is basic
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:51:25 +0100
Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> Interesting, maybe we could mention this in the wiki page and/or README.
Good idea!
But on which wiki-page particularly?
Cheers
FRIGN
--
FRIGN
19 matches
Mail list logo
