On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:56 AM, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Joerg Schilling
>> wrote:
>> > Les Mikesell wrote:
>> >
>> > There was no court case, but VERITAS published a modifed version of gtar
>> > where
>> > additional code was added by
Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> If you did read the CDDL, you did of course know that the CDDL places "work
> limits" at file limits and that the CDDL does not try to impose any
> restriction on sources that are not in a file marked as CDDLd. So the CDDL of
> course does _not_ create any restriction
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Joerg Schilling
> wrote:
> > Les Mikesell wrote:
> >
> > There was no court case, but VERITAS published a modifed version of gtar
> > where
> > additional code was added by binary only libraries from VERITAS. The FSF did
> > never try to d
Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 04/27/2015 12:28 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Up to now, nobody could explain me how a mixture of GPL and BSD can be
> > legal as
> > this would require (when following the GPL) to relicense the BSD code under
> > GPL
> > in order to make the whole be under GPL.
>
>
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Joerg Schilling
> wrote:
> > >>
> >> No, you posted some ranting misconceptions about why you don't see a
> >> need for it. But if you actually believed any of that yourself, then
> >> you would see there was no harm in adding a dual licen
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> There was no court case, but VERITAS published a modifed version of gtar where
> additional code was added by binary only libraries from VERITAS. The FSF did
> never try to discuss this is public even though everybo
On 04/27/2015 12:28 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Up to now, nobody could explain me how a mixture of GPL and BSD can be legal as
this would require (when following the GPL) to relicense the BSD code under GPL
in order to make the whole be under GPL.
The GPL doesn't require that you relicense any
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
> >>
>> No, you posted some ranting misconceptions about why you don't see a
>> need for it. But if you actually believed any of that yourself, then
>> you would see there was no harm in adding a dual license to make it
>> clear to everyone
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Joerg Schilling
> wrote:
> > > >
> >> > Do you like to discuss things or do you like to throw smoke grenades?
> >>
> >> The only thing I'd like to discuss is your reason for not adding a
> >> dual license to make your code as usable and prob
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
> > >
>> > Do you like to discuss things or do you like to throw smoke grenades?
>>
>> The only thing I'd like to discuss is your reason for not adding a
>> dual license to make your code as usable and probably as ubiquitous as
>> perl. And
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Joerg Schilling
> wrote:
> >>>
> >> Yes, if you mean what is described here as 'the original 4-clause'
> >> license, or BSD-old:
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
> >
> > Do you like to discuss things or do you like to throw smo
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
>>>
>> Yes, if you mean what is described here as 'the original 4-clause'
>> license, or BSD-old:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
>
> Do you like to discuss things or do you like to throw smoke grenades?
The only thing I'd like
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Joerg Schilling
> wrote:
> >
> >> The GPL is all that gives you permission to distribute. If it is
> >> void then you have no permission at all to distribute any covered
> >> code.
> >
> > Fortunately judges know better than you
> >
>
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Joerg Schilling
> wrote:
> > > >
> >> > "as a whole" means generally BUT allowing for exceptions.
> >>
> >> OK, great. That clears it up then.
> >
> > Maybe this helps:
> >
> > The BSD license does not permit to relicense the code,
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
> > >
>> > "as a whole" means generally BUT allowing for exceptions.
>>
>> OK, great. That clears it up then.
>
> Maybe this helps:
>
> The BSD license does not permit to relicense the code, so you cannot put BSD
> code under the GPL
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
>
>> The GPL is all that gives you permission to distribute. If it is
>> void then you have no permission at all to distribute any covered
>> code.
>
> Fortunately judges know better than you
>
> If you read the reasoning from judgement
wrote:
> First, I was not aware that the US had declared any part of the GPL null
Just ask US lawyers. one of them sits on the other side of the corridor of
my office, another is the well known Lawrence Rosen.
For Europe check the reasoning of the cases from Harald Welte. One of them is
v
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Joerg Schilling
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > If you combine ZFS and Linux, you create a permitted "collective
work" and the GPL cannot extend it's rules to the CDDLd separate and
independend
>> > work ZFS of course.
>>
>
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Always Learning wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, in english, 'work as a whole' does mean complete. And the normal
> >> interpretation is that it covers everything linked into the same
> >> process at runtime unless there is an alternate interface-compa
On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 14:21 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Can we take the license wanking off the list please? I don't think
> either of the people arguing are actually lawyers, so it has no
> relevance.
Relevance is not dependent on being, or not being, a lawyer. Relevance
for inclusion on the m
Can we take the license wanking off the list please? I don't think
either of the people arguing are actually lawyers, so it has no
relevance.
--
Chris Adams
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Joerg Schilling
> wrote:
> > >
> > The GPL makes claims that are in conflict with the law because these claims
> > are
> > not amongst what the list in the law permits and that are thus void.
>
> The GPL is all that gives you permission to
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Always Learning wrote:
>
>> Yes, in english, 'work as a whole' does mean complete. And the normal
>> interpretation is that it covers everything linked into the same
>> process at runtime unless there is an alternate interface-compatible
>> component with the same
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
> >
> The GPL makes claims that are in conflict with the law because these claims
> are
> not amongst what the list in the law permits and that are thus void.
The GPL is all that gives you permission to distribute. If it is
void then you
On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 12:32 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Joerg Schilling
> wrote:
> >
> > Now you just need to understand what "as a whole" means
> Yes, in english, 'work as a whole' does mean complete. And the normal
> interpretation is that it covers ev
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Joerg Schilling
> wrote:
> > >>
> >> You can't distribute GPLd programs unless 'the work as a whole' is
> >> covered by the GPL. There can't be a distinction between binary and
> >> source since one is derived from the other.
> >
> > Now
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Joerg Schilling
> wrote:
> > >
> > If you combine ZFS and Linux, you create a permitted "collective work" and
> > the
> > GPL cannot extend it's rules to the CDDLd separate and independend work ZFS
> > of
> > course.
>
> Which countries'
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
> >
> If you combine ZFS and Linux, you create a permitted "collective work" and the
> GPL cannot extend it's rules to the CDDLd separate and independend work ZFS of
> course.
Which countries' copyright laws would permit that explicitly eve
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
> >>
>> You can't distribute GPLd programs unless 'the work as a whole' is
>> covered by the GPL. There can't be a distinction between binary and
>> source since one is derived from the other.
>
> Now you just need to understand what "as a
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Warren Young wrote:
> > >
> >>> 4. CDDL annoys a lot of people.
> >>
> >> The CDDL does not annoy people, this is just a fairy tale from some OSS
> >> enemies.
> >
> > The following irritates me, I am a ?people,? and I am not an OSS enemy:
Warren Young wrote:
> Yes, I realize that osh is closer to the original Bourne shell. My point is
> that you can?t expect people to just know, without having been told, why they
> want bsh, or osh, bosh, or smake, or?
>
> Most of these tools compete with tools that are already in CentOS. If y
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Joerg Schilling
> wrote:
> > >
> > You should read the GPL and get help to understand it. The GPL does not
> > forbid
> > this linking. In contrary, the GPOL allows any GPLd program to be linked
> > against any library under and license. I
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Warren Young wrote:
> >
>>> 4. CDDL annoys a lot of people.
>>
>> The CDDL does not annoy people, this is just a fairy tale from some OSS
>> enemies.
>
> The following irritates me, I am a “people,” and I am not an OSS enemy:
>
> http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#
On Apr 27, 2015, at 10:10 AM, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
>
> Warren Young wrote:
>
>> I was referring to the summary on the SourceForge page, where you just list
>> the contents of the package without explaining why one would want to
>> download it.
>
> I thought I don't need to make advertizin
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
> >
> You should read the GPL and get help to understand it. The GPL does not forbid
> this linking. In contrary, the GPOL allows any GPLd program to be linked
> against any library under and license. If this was not thecase, you could not
>
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Joerg Schilling
> wrote:
> > >
> > And the problem is the GPL. I recommend you to work on making all GPL code
> > freely combinable with other OSS.
>
> Of course the problem it the GPL. Glad you recognize that. It's
> whole point is the r
Warren Young wrote:
> > The schily tools act as a container to publish the current code state.
> > There is
> > no such maintained web page.
>
> I was referring to the summary on the SourceForge page, where you just list
> the contents of the package without explaining why one would want to do
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
> >
> And the problem is the GPL. I recommend you to work on making all GPL code
> freely combinable with other OSS.
Of course the problem it the GPL. Glad you recognize that. It's
whole point is the restriction against linking with anyth
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Joerg Schilling
> wrote:
> > >
> > I would be interested to understand why Heirloom seems to so well known and
> > my
> > portability attempts seem to be widely unknown.
> >
>
> Not sure why it matters with a standalone application like sh
On Apr 27, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
>
> Heirloom added support for uname -S and for some linux ulimit extensions but
> then stopped working on the code after a few months
Ah. I had no idea it was in a state of disrepair.
>> I see that you already wrote up the differences betw
On 04/27/2015 06:43 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
I started with UNOS in 1982 as my first UNIX like. UNOS in fact was
the first UNIX clone and it was a real time OS. In February 1985, I
switched to a Sunthe first Sun that made it to Europe. Jörg
Charles River UNOS was actually Tandy's first
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
> >
> I would be interested to understand why Heirloom seems to so well known and my
> portability attempts seem to be widely unknown.
>
Not sure why it matters with a standalone application like sh, but I
think a lot of people have been pu
Warren Young wrote:
> On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:38 AM, Joerg Schilling
> wrote:
> >
> > This is the SVr4 Bourne Shell, so you need to take into account what has
> > been
> > added with Svr4:
>
> Is there any difference between your osh and the Heirloom Bourne Shell?
>
> http://heirloom.sourcef
On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:38 AM, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
>
> This is the SVr4 Bourne Shell, so you need to take into account what has been
> added with Svr4:
Is there any difference between your osh and the Heirloom Bourne Shell?
http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/sh.html
I see that you already wr
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:04 PM, wrote:
> > >
> > My first RH was 5, late nineties. First time I looked at linux and
> > installed, it was '95, and slack. (We'll ignore the Coherent that I
> > installed on my beloved 286 in the late 80's).
> >
>
> You mean you missed all
wrote:
> Ah. I don't remember if I was using csh, or ksh, and didn't realize about
> bash. I *think* I vaguely remember that sh seemed to be more capable than
> I remembered.
If you like to check what the Bourne Shell did support in the late 1980s, I
recommend you to fetch recent Schily tools f
Stephen Harris wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 09:47:24AM -0700, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> > On 04/24/2015 03:57 AM, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
> > >if you leave it out the script will run in whatever environment it
> > >currently is in.
> >
> > I'm reasonably certain that a script with no shebang wi
Stephen Harris wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:38:25AM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> > Fascinating. As I'd been in Sun OS, and started doing admin work when it
> > became Solaris, I'd missed that bit. A question: did the license agreement
> > include payment, or was it just restrictive on
Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>
>
> #!/bin/sh
>
> readlink /proc/$$/file
>
>
> ( note that that "file" is because I'm using FreeBSD /proc, for Linux you
> may need to replace the line with something like:
>
> readlink /proc/$$/exe
And on a platform that implements a correct procfs-2, y
John R Pierce wrote:
> oh fun, just did some tests (using c6.latest). if you're in bash,
> ./script (sans shebang) runs it in bash. if you're in dash or csh,
> ./script runs it in sh.if you're in ksh, it runs it in ksh.
See my other mail.
The scripts (unless marked) are run by the curr
Gordon Messmer wrote:
> I'm reasonably certain that a script with no shebang will run with
> /bin/sh. I interpret your statement to mean that if a user is using ksh
> and enters the path to such a script, it would also run in ksh. That
> would only be true if you "sourced" the script from yo
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:04 PM, wrote:
>> >
>> My first RH was 5, late nineties. First time I looked at linux and
>> installed, it was '95, and slack. (We'll ignore the Coherent that I
>> installed on my beloved 286 in the late 80's).
>>
>
> You mean you missed all the fun
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:45 PM, E.B. wrote:
> Interesting thread i started! Sorry if my question was too vague: -->
>
> On Fri, 4/24/15, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
>> The Bourne Shell is also much faster than bash. In special on platforms like
>> Cygwin, where Microsoft enforces extremly slow proc
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:04 PM, wrote:
> >
> My first RH was 5, late nineties. First time I looked at linux and
> installed, it was '95, and slack. (We'll ignore the Coherent that I
> installed on my beloved 286 in the late 80's).
>
You mean you missed all the fun with Xenix on Radio Shack Mod
Interesting thread i started! Sorry if my question was too vague: -->
On Fri, 4/24/15, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> The Bourne Shell is also much faster than bash. In special on platforms like
> Cygwin, where Microsoft enforces extremly slow process creation.
This gets at what I was thinking. For s
Stephen Harris wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:38:25AM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Fascinating. As I'd been in Sun OS, and started doing admin work when it
>> became Solaris, I'd missed that bit. A question: did the license
>> agreement include payment, or was it just restrictive on distr
On 04/24/15 05:59, Les Mikesell wrote:
The original ksh wasn't open source and might even have been an
extra-cost item in AT&T unix. And the early emulations weren't
always complete so you couldn't count on script portability. I
generally thought it was safer to use perl for anything that took
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 09:47:24AM -0700, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 04/24/2015 03:57 AM, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
> >if you leave it out the script will run in whatever environment it
> >currently is in.
>
> I'm reasonably certain that a script with no shebang will run with
> /bin/sh. I interpret
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:38:25AM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Fascinating. As I'd been in Sun OS, and started doing admin work when it
> became Solaris, I'd missed that bit. A question: did the license agreement
> include payment, or was it just restrictive on distribution?
In 1990, when I s
On 4/24/2015 12:32 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 04/24/2015 09:59 AM, Steve Lindemann wrote:
A script with no shebang will run in the environment of the account
running the script.
Bad test on my part, apparently.
$ python
>>> import os
>>> os.execv('/home/gmessmer/test', ('test',))
Traceback
On 04/24/2015 09:59 AM, Steve Lindemann wrote:
A script with no shebang will run in the environment of the account
running the script.
Bad test on my part, apparently.
$ python
>>> import os
>>> os.execv('/home/gmessmer/test', ('test',))
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, i
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:04 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 4/24/2015 9:47 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>>
>> On 04/24/2015 03:57 AM, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
>>>
>>> if you leave it out the script will run in whatever environment it
>>> currently is in.
>>
>>
>> I'm reasonably certain that a script wi
I believe if you re-read a little more closely, the whole point of the
exercise was not to have the #! at the top of the script.
On 04/24/2015 01:36 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> On Fri, April 24, 2015 12:04 pm, John R Pierce wrote:
>> On 4/24/2015 9:47 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>>> On 04/24/2015 03
On Fri, April 24, 2015 12:04 pm, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 4/24/2015 9:47 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>> On 04/24/2015 03:57 AM, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
>>> if you leave it out the script will run in whatever environment it
>>> currently is in.
>>
>> I'm reasonably certain that a script with no sheba
On 4/24/2015 9:47 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 04/24/2015 03:57 AM, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
if you leave it out the script will run in whatever environment it
currently is in.
I'm reasonably certain that a script with no shebang will run with
/bin/sh. I interpret your statement to mean that i
On 4/24/2015 10:47 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 04/24/2015 03:57 AM, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
if you leave it out the script will run in whatever environment it
currently is in.
I'm reasonably certain that a script with no shebang will run with
/bin/sh. I interpret your statement to mean that i
On 04/24/2015 03:57 AM, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
if you leave it out the script will run in whatever environment it
currently is in.
I'm reasonably certain that a script with no shebang will run with
/bin/sh. I interpret your statement to mean that if a user is using ksh
and enters the path to
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:12 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 4/24/2015 3:07 AM, E.B. wrote:
>>
>> I'm sure most people here know about Dash in Debian. Have there
>> been discussions about providing a more efficient shell in Centos
>> for use with heavily invoked non-interactive scripts?
>
>
>
> per
On 4/24/2015 3:07 AM, E.B. wrote:
I'm sure most people here know about Dash in Debian. Have there
been discussions about providing a more efficient shell in Centos
for use with heavily invoked non-interactive scripts?
perl or python are much better choices for complex scripts that need
decent
wrote:
> Fascinating. As I'd been in Sun OS, and started doing admin work when it
> became Solaris, I'd missed that bit. A question: did the license agreement
> include payment, or was it just restrictive on distribution?
Everything other than ksh93 is closed source. The POSIX shell used by vari
Stephen Harris wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 03:15:27PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> Stephen Harris wrote:
>>
>> > Bash was bigger than ksh in the non-commercial Unix world because of
>> > ksh88 licensing problems. Back in 1998 I wanted to teach a ksh
scripting
>> > course to my local LUG,
Stephen Harris wrote:
> > AFAIR, ksh was OSS (but not using an OSI approved license) since 1997.
> > Since
>
> In 1998 each user had to sign a license; you couldn't give away copies
> to other people.
>
>Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 14:09:30 -0400 (EDT)
>From: David Korn
>
>If you are go
Stephen Harris wrote:
> Solaris /bin/sh was a real real dumb version of the bourne shell.
If you like to create portable scripts, you can do this by downloading:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/
and using "osh" as a reference implementation. Osh is the old SunOS Bour
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 03:15:27PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Stephen Harris wrote:
>
> > Bash was bigger than ksh in the non-commercial Unix world because of ksh88
> > licensing problems. Back in 1998 I wanted to teach a ksh scripting
> > course to my local LUG, but AT&T (David Korn himsef
Stephen Harris wrote:
> Bash was bigger than ksh in the non-commercial Unix world because of ksh88
> licensing problems. Back in 1998 I wanted to teach a ksh scripting
> course to my local LUG, but AT&T (David Korn himsef!) told me I couldn't
> give people copies of the shell to take home.
AFAI
Stephen Harris wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:32:45AM -0400, Scott Robbins wrote:
> > Wasn't Solaris, which for awhile at least, was probably the most popular
> > Unix, using ksh by default?
>
> Solaris /bin/sh was a real real dumb version of the bourne shell.
> Solaris included /bin/ksh as
Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
> Initially Bourne was used because it was typically a static binary,
> because the boot process didn't have access to any shared libraries.
> When that changed it became a bit of a moot point, and you started to
> see other interpreters being used.
When dynamic linkin
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:54:48AM -0400, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
> Even though Solaris started using ksh as the default user environment,
> almost all of the start scrips were either bourne or bash scripts. With
> Bash having more functionality the scripts typically used the
> environment that
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:32:45AM -0400, Scott Robbins wrote:
> Wasn't Solaris, which for awhile at least, was probably the most popular
> Unix, using ksh by default?
Solaris /bin/sh was a real real dumb version of the bourne shell.
Solaris included /bin/ksh as part of the core distribution (ksh8
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 7:02 AM, mark wrote:
>
>>> I'm sure most people here know about Dash in Debian. Have there
>>> been discussions about providing a more efficient shell in Centos
>>> for use with heavily invoked non-interactive scripts?
>>>
>>> With sh being a link to bash in Centos I don't
Initially Bourne was used because it was typically a static binary,
because the boot process didn't have access to any shared libraries.
When that changed it became a bit of a moot point, and you started to
see other interpreters being used.
Even though Solaris started using ksh as the defaul
It was the mid/late-90s, but I seem to recall Bourne being the default
shell, although sh/ksh/csh were all available with a typical install.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Scott Robbins wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:02:56AM -0400, mark wrote:
> > On 04/24/15 06:57, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:02:56AM -0400, mark wrote:
> On 04/24/15 06:57, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
> >
> >On 04/24/15 06:07, E.B. wrote:
> >>I'm sure most people here know about Dash in Debian. Have there
> >>been discussions about providing a more efficient shell in Centos
> >>for use with heavily
On 04/24/15 06:57, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
On 04/24/15 06:07, E.B. wrote:
I'm sure most people here know about Dash in Debian. Have there
been discussions about providing a more efficient shell in Centos
for use with heavily invoked non-interactive scripts?
With sh being a link to bash in Cento
On 04/24/15 06:07, E.B. wrote:
I'm sure most people here know about Dash in Debian. Have there
been discussions about providing a more efficient shell in Centos
for use with heavily invoked non-interactive scripts?
With sh being a link to bash in Centos I don't know if it would
explode if the l
I'm sure most people here know about Dash in Debian. Have there
been discussions about providing a more efficient shell in Centos
for use with heavily invoked non-interactive scripts?
With sh being a link to bash in Centos I don't know if it would
explode if the link was changed to something els
86 matches
Mail list logo
