i, Aug 15, 2014 at 10:42 -0600:
>>>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:55 PM, William Orr
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hey,
>>>>>
>>>>> I found some inconsistent behavior with dd(1) when it comes to
>>>>> specifying arguments
On 8/18/14 12:00 PM, William Orr wrote:
Reply inline.
On 08/16/2014 10:34 AM, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
Alan Somers wrote this message on Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 10:42 -0600:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:55 PM, William Orr wrote:
Hey,
I found some inconsistent behavior with dd(1) when it comes to
Reply inline.
On 08/16/2014 10:34 AM, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> Alan Somers wrote this message on Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 10:42 -0600:
>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:55 PM, William Orr wrote:
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> I found some inconsistent behavior with dd(1) when it c
Alan Somers wrote this message on Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 10:42 -0600:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:55 PM, William Orr wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > I found some inconsistent behavior with dd(1) when it comes to specifying
> > arguments in -CURRENT.
> >
> > [ wor
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:55 PM, William Orr wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I found some inconsistent behavior with dd(1) when it comes to specifying
> arguments in -CURRENT.
>
> [ worr on terra ] ( ~ ) % dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null
> count=18446744073709551616
> dd: count: Resul
Hey,
I found some inconsistent behavior with dd(1) when it comes to specifying
arguments in -CURRENT.
[ worr on terra ] ( ~ ) % dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null
count=18446744073709551616
dd: count: Result too large
[ worr on terra ] ( ~ ) % dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null
count
