Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> >Hey, colour ls is _useful_!
> Use white background Xterm. Come again?
Ugh!
> One of the biggest mistakes RH ever did was happily jumping off _that_
> cliff to follow SuSE.
Colour ls predates both Red Hat and SuSE.
-- Jamie
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
Hey, colour ls is _useful_!
Use white background Xterm. Come again?
Ugh!
One of the biggest mistakes RH ever did was happily jumping off _that_
cliff to follow SuSE.
Colour ls predates both Red Hat and SuSE.
-- Jamie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
ect: Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jamie Lokier) writes:
>
> >Alexander Viro wrote:
> >> ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing paperclip". As colourized ls.
>
> >Hey, colour ls is _useful_!
>
> Use white background Xter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jamie Lokier) writes:
>Alexander Viro wrote:
>> ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing paperclip". As colourized ls.
>Hey, colour ls is _useful_!
Use white background Xterm. Come again?
First thing I do on _all_ RH installations is "rm /etc/profile.d/colorls*"
One of the biggest
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jamie Lokier) writes:
Alexander Viro wrote:
ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing paperclip". As colourized ls.
Hey, colour ls is _useful_!
Use white background Xterm. Come again?
First thing I do on _all_ RH installations is "rm /etc/profile.d/colorls*"
One of the biggest
does everyone hate gcc 2.95?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jamie Lokier) writes:
Alexander Viro wrote:
ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing paperclip". As colourized ls.
Hey, colour ls is _useful_!
Use white background Xterm. Come again?
First thing I do on _all_ RH installations i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Is this a problem where the code produced by 2.95 was non-optimal in some
significant way or simply incorrect, or is it really just a subjective
"takes to long to compile XXX" thing?
Andrew Purtell
NAI Labs at Network Associates, Inc.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Is this a problem where the code produced by 2.95 was non-optimal in some
significant way or simply incorrect, or is it really just a subjective
"takes to long to compile XXX" thing?
Andrew Purtell
NAI Labs at Network Associates, Inc.
Alexander Viro wrote:
> ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing paperclip". As colourized ls.
Hey, colour ls is _useful_!
> Or --ignore-fail-on-non-empty as rmdir option. Or "let's replace config
> files with directories full of one-liners since packagers can't be arsed
> to learn sed(1)" religion.
Alexander Viro wrote:
ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing paperclip". As colourized ls.
Hey, colour ls is _useful_!
Or --ignore-fail-on-non-empty as rmdir option. Or "let's replace config
files with directories full of one-liners since packagers can't be arsed
to learn sed(1)" religion.
"John Anthony Kazos Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been
> compiling kern els successfully (read: not one single (ever) error in
> compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for more than a year now. What's the big
> deal?
GCC has traditionally been
On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 11:12:24PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> No, better yet,
> what is a good version to use when porting to a new processor (actually
> an old processor)? I've pulled the source to gcc (2.95.2) and binutils
> (2.10) in prep for a port to a new/old machine. If these
Hi there,
> I hate it because it compiles much more slowly than 2.72 and for
> my purposes,
Hm, have not checked that. Did you do benchmarks here ?
at least, the resulting code is not any faster on
> any of the following platforms: x86, SPARC, MIPS, PA-RISC, and Alpha.
Hm,
quick check of
Larry McVoy said ...
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 04:28:41AM +, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:
> > What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been
> > compiling kernels successfully (read: not one single (ever) error
> > in compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for more than a year now.
Larry McVoy said ...
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 04:28:41AM +, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:
What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been
compiling kernels successfully (read: not one single (ever) error
in compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for more than a year now. What's
Hi there,
I hate it because it compiles much more slowly than 2.72 and for
my purposes,
Hm, have not checked that. Did you do benchmarks here ?
at least, the resulting code is not any faster on
any of the following platforms: x86, SPARC, MIPS, PA-RISC, and Alpha.
Hm,
quick check of dgemm
On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 11:12:24PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, better yet,
what is a good version to use when porting to a new processor (actually
an old processor)? I've pulled the source to gcc (2.95.2) and binutils
(2.10) in prep for a port to a new/old machine. If these versions
"John Anthony Kazos Jr." [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been
compiling kern els successfully (read: not one single (ever) error in
compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for more than a year now. What's the big
deal?
GCC has traditionally been a
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Larry McVoy wrote:
> hand picked tests. No faster. Just compiles slower. Add to that
> some distributions BRAINDEAD default of havving colorgcc be the default
> compiler (can you say fork perl to fork gcc? Can you say STUPID?), and
ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 04:28:41AM +, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:
> What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been
> compiling kernels successfully (read: not one single (ever) error
> in compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for more than a year now. What's the
> big deal?
[Fix
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 04:28:41AM +, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:
What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been
compiling kernels successfully (read: not one single (ever) error
in compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for more than a year now. What's the
big deal?
[Fix your
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Larry McVoy wrote:
hand picked tests. No faster. Just compiles slower. Add to that
some distributions BRAINDEAD default of havving colorgcc be the default
compiler (can you say fork perl to fork gcc? Can you say STUPID?), and
ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing
22 matches
Mail list logo