Hey,
you are way off. I had heard about OS fanatics but I
am seeing a real one now. I have been(will always be)
a solaris lover forever, but have never closed my
mind to other OS's and their merits, ever.
Linux has no technical or economic merit, especially now when Solaris became
Repeat after me: Solaris is not Linux...
Correct!
And hopefully it will never be even remotely like Linux.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
you are illogical dude!! All I want to know if bash
is present otherwise, does it matter if safe mode has
another half a meg executable? is size the only
concern? or illogical compatibility and safety
restrictions apply here as well. work the damn
incompatibilities if it means the world to
UNIX admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Besides, bash is one of the absolute WORST ever shells. There are far
better shells, namely (pd)ksh, (t)csh, zsh and so on.
Consider this quite rudimentary example:
bash:
ls -l /tmp/ ; sleep 10
bash: syntax error near unexpected token `;'
tcsh:
ls -l
This is ridiculous!
So why does Solaris come with JDS/GNOME and GRUB if
it is not Linux?
Because UNIX makes a clear separation of [I]mechanism[/I] and [I]policy[/I].
Just because Solaris implements a window manager or managers popular on Linux
does not make it any more or less like Linux.
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, UNIX admin wrote:
...
...the Linux crowd...
The Linux crowd, The UNIX crowd. Ug.
soapbox
By my experience, I'd say _at least_ 70% of the world's Linux/UNIX sys
admins and developers would put themselves in the Linux/UNIX crowd not
one or the other. The rest fall about
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Eric Boutilier wrote:
...
This is based on my attendance and
participation in about 13 Linux/UNIX conferences over the last 5 years...
Correction: That should have said 16.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
you are way off. I had heard about OS fanatics but I am seeing a real one now.
I have been(will always be) a solaris lover forever, but have never closed my
mind to other OS's and their merits, ever.
linux is a pretty darn good OS and getting better everyday, with lots of hard
working and
Theo Schlossnagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's worse than adding double hyphened long options? Also require
no hyphen for other tools:
http://jerkcity.com/jerkcity2434.html
PS wars have been started by ATT in 1984.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353
Jake Hamby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're right. At least my comment led to an interesting discussion, as I
didn't know about star and its functionality. It might also be worthwhile to
look at FreeBSD's tar, which is fast, automatically recognizes .gz and .bz2
archives (and decodes them
Eric Boutilier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am I the only one that doesn't like the --something-or-other options
of GNU related software?
Personally, I now consider it preferable (like a little bonus) when a
tool or command provides long option equivalents for short options.
Why?
If long
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If long options are present, then people will use them and if people use them,
they are not POSIX compliant anymore.
Who or what is not POSIX compliant? The people? :-)
But even if you are talking about scripts, this is not correct. A script
that
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
I see not reason why FreeBSD people did start another tar implementation
recently.
Initially performance, now licensing. GNU tar was used by FreeBSD up until
recently. libarchive was written to speed up the FreeBSD pkg* tools, and
then it was
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Initially performance, now licensing. GNU tar was used by FreeBSD up until
recently. libarchive was written to speed up the FreeBSD pkg* tools, and
then it was realized that it could be extended to a BSD-licensed tar
implemented using
Chris Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I cannot see that it would give more performance than star.
star at the time libarchive was started was:
* GPL
* not a library
Before that lib project started, I did aproach the FreeBSD people
and offered to change star's license to *BSD.
They were
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Gunnar Ritter wrote:
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If long options are present, then people will use them and if people use
them,
they are not POSIX compliant anymore.
...
...
But again, it is not acceptable to misrepresent the standard...
+1. Most
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Eric Boutilier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am I the only one that doesn't like the --something-or-other options
of GNU related software?
Personally, I now consider it preferable (like a little bonus) when a
tool or command provides long option
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, John Martinez wrote:
On Jul 14, 2005, at 5:38 PM, Sunil wrote:
have you considered providing gnu like long options and/or compatibility
for star? it will be perfect if there was only one tar utility and all gnu
programs with gnu options for /usr/bin/tar don't just die
have you considered providing gnu like long options and/or compatibility for
star? it will be perfect if there was only one tar utility and all gnu programs
with gnu options for /usr/bin/tar don't just die on solaris.
I can try doing this mapping if you point me to source of star.
This message
On Jul 14, 2005, at 5:38 PM, Sunil wrote:
have you considered providing gnu like long options and/or
compatibility for star? it will be perfect if there was only one
tar utility and all gnu programs with gnu options for /usr/bin/tar
don't just die on solaris.
I can try doing this
On 7/14/05, Sunil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
have you considered providing gnu like long options and/or compatibility for
star? it will be perfect if there was only one tar utility and all gnu
programs with gnu options for /usr/bin/tar don't just die on solaris.
I can try doing this mapping
Jörg Schilling wrote:
The main features of GNU tar is compliance problems.
I recommend to avoid GNU tar whereever possible.
You cannot replace /usr/bin/tar with a program that
does not implement
the features os /usr/bin/tar without creating hard to
track down problems.
You're right. At
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, John Martinez wrote:
On Jul 14, 2005, at 5:38 PM, Sunil wrote:
have you considered providing gnu like long options and/or
compatibility for star? it will be perfect if there was only one
tar utility and all gnu programs with gnu options for /usr/bin/tar
don't just
Although I must say, when it comes to the development
of _Sun_ Solaris,
characterizing the process that way (NO, NOT
THERE!!) actually isn't
all that far from reality.
and somehow that holds true for any OSS project with 3 developers: linus'
linux (just look how many patches redhat and suse
you are illogical dude!! All I want to know if bash is present otherwise, does
it matter if safe mode has another half a meg executable? is size the only
concern? or illogical compatibility and safety restrictions apply here as well.
work the damn incompatibilities if it means the world to so
On 7/11/05, Sunil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
opensolaris better learn from linux(or any OS for that matter) if it is to be
adopted widely. the arrogance you show has brought many a down.
Since no official opensolaris distribution exists, then any person
that makes their own opensolaris
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Joe Halpin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rich Teer wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Sunil wrote:
/bin/bash is compatible. our shell scripts (with #!/bin/sh at top)
Not completely so (or at least, that was the case historically).
The points of
27 matches
Mail list logo
