Re: Mozilla retires Firefox 4 from security support
Le 23/06/2011 14:30, Jerry a écrit : On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 08:02:23 -0400 Robert Huff articulated: Jerry writes: From URL: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9217837/Mozilla_retires_Firefox_4_from_security_support. Obviously users of version 4 will be more or less forced to update to version 5 which is now in the ports system. What amazes me is how quick support was pulled from version 4. My morning-fogged mind says Version 4 was out less than a year. Correct! When Microsoft EOL'd a ten year old OS (XP) the wailing's from certain factions was deafening. Now with Mozilla EOLing a product less than a year old the sounds of silence seem to be propagating. The best part is that many of my add-ons again no longer work. From what I can see in the ports system, and I may be wrong, there is not an option to use the version 4 either although remnants of version 3x seem to still be available. It appears that a user is forced into version 5 from version 4. Wow, and people bitch about Microsoft's update policies. The major difference is that when updating Microsoft's OS from a major version to another you have to pay. I'm not flaming, I just want to focus on the fact that this products have not the same constraints. What is surprising is why it is not a 4.1 release, I'm not following Firefox development but I'm surprised how fast they've gone from a major release to another. What has been changed in FF 5 that needs this release number change ? -- Bastien Semene Administrateur Réseau Système Cyanide Studio - FRANCE ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: lockf command
Hi Nikos, I was stupid not to think about this... And it is a nice tip to use a new shell as a running process. However, I re-read the lockf man and saw : By default, lockf waits indefinitely to acquire the lock. Everything is clear now. Thanks ! Le 13/04/2011 15:23, Nikos Vassiliadis a écrit : On 4/13/2011 12:08 PM, Bastien Semene wrote: I wish that if command #2 can't acquire the lock, lockf exits (exit 0 would be nice). If I set -t 1, lockf is quite what I'm waiting for. But I like to do this in a clear way : if it can't acquire the lock it exits, no timeout wait. Am I misunderstanding something ? What should I change ? You should use -t0, something like: lab# lockf -t 0 /tmp/lock /bin/csh You have mail. lab# lockf -t 0 /tmp/lock /bin/csh lockf: /tmp/lock: already locked lab# echo $? 75 lab# HTH, Nikos ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
