On 04/15/10 08:39, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
android isn't POSIX compliant and is probably more wide spread now
then Linux desktops... ;)
While I agree with usability over standard fetishism, it isn't really
the case that many Linux desktops are POSIX compliant.
Thomas
Static linking + Linux + BSD userland == Mastodon Linux?
http://www.mastodon.biz/
It is a lot outdated.
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 8:16 PM, finkler fink...@officinamentis.org wrote:
On 04/15/10 08:39, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
android isn't POSIX compliant and is probably more wide spread now
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 08:16:37PM +0200, finkler wrote:
While I agree with usability over standard fetishism, it isn't really
the case that many Linux desktops are POSIX compliant.
A little off-topic, but I wish to remind that, generally, standards
compatibility pursuing is not necessarily
On 4/18/10, pmarin pacog...@gmail.com wrote:
Static linking + Linux + BSD userland == Mastodon Linux?
http://www.mastodon.biz/
It is a lot outdated.
Is there any reason to use Linux 2.0 over 2.4 or 2.6?
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Dmitry Maluka dmitrymal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 08:16:37PM +0200, finkler wrote:
While I agree with usability over standard fetishism, it isn't really
the case that many Linux desktops are POSIX compliant.
A little off-topic, but I wish to
On 04/14/10 12:23, Claudio M. Alessi wrote:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 09:29:10PM +0200, pancake wrote:
I wrote tac in 9base a week ago... I would really prefer 9base before other
alternatives if we can choose. Most of them are valid replacements
+1
I would prefer plan 9 userland againsts
On 15 April 2010 07:04, finkler fink...@officinamentis.org wrote:
On 04/14/10 12:23, Claudio M. Alessi wrote:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 09:29:10PM +0200, pancake wrote:
I wrote tac in 9base a week ago... I would really prefer 9base before other
alternatives if we can choose. Most of them are
I'm running OpenBSD 4.6 and:
which arch
/usr/bin/arch
strings /usr/bin/arch
...
$OpenBSD: arch.c,v 1.11 2004/05/09 03:20:45 deraadt Exp $
which head
/usr/bin/head
strings /usr/bin/head
...
$OpenBSD: head.c,v 1.14 2007/10/31 16:29:50 jmc Exp $
... etc
So I think you may be missing something.
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 06:26:12PM +0200, finkler wrote:
This is my collection of redundancy so far:
arch uname -m
dir ls -C
groupsid -nG
head sed 11q
mkfifomknod FILE q
nlgrep -n
rmdir rm -r
tac
On 04/10/10 14:08, Jacob Todd wrote:
Head can be replaced with a script that calls `sed nq`, where n is positive
integer.
Should I even provide a head script for the sake of compatibility, or
should it simply be removed? How does stali intend to handle this?
regards,
Thomas
On 04/10/10 16:14, Kurt H Maier wrote:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 7:13 AM, finkler fink...@officinamentis.org wrote:
And this is what is missing in OBSD:
chown
having a hard time believing this
I was kind of surprised myself, but I simply can't find it in their CVS
tree [1]. Maybe I have
[2010-04-10 17:12] finkler fink...@officinamentis.org
On 04/10/10 16:14, Kurt H Maier wrote:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 7:13 AM, finkler fink...@officinamentis.org wrote:
And this is what is missing in OBSD:
chown
having a hard time believing this
I was kind of surprised myself, but I
On 04/10/10 17:32, markus schnalke wrote:
[2010-04-10 17:12] finkler fink...@officinamentis.org
On 04/10/10 16:14, Kurt H Maier wrote:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 7:13 AM, finkler fink...@officinamentis.org wrote:
And this is what is missing in OBSD:
chown
having a hard time believing this
I
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 06:26:12PM +0200, finkler wrote:
What is missing in OBSD:
base64
It's not quite the same, but OpenBSD does have b64encode/b64decode.
Part of uuencode I believe.
--Anthony J. Bentley
14 matches
Mail list logo
