On 13Nov27:2356+1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 27/11/13 23:37, David L. Craig wrote:
On 13Nov27:1423+1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 27/11/13 13:49, David L. Craig wrote:
On 13Nov26:1545-0500, David L. Craig wrote:
On 13Nov26:1437-0500, Mark Haase wrote:
Therefore, a Linux
On 13Nov26:1437-0500, Mark Haase wrote:
Therefore, a Linux distribution has 2 choices: (1) wait for upstream
patches for bugs/vulnerabilities as they are found, or (2) recompile all
packages with optimizations disabled. I don't think proposal #2 would get
very far...
Well, there's always -O1
On 13Nov26:1545-0500, David L. Craig wrote:
On 13Nov26:1437-0500, Mark Haase wrote:
Therefore, a Linux distribution has 2 choices: (1) wait for upstream
patches for bugs/vulnerabilities as they are found, or (2) recompile all
packages with optimizations disabled. I don't think proposal
ozymandias G desiderata [really?] wrote:
Of course, this would be a different story if the web of trust were in
more common usage, but it's not, outside of debian-maintainers and
some small klatches of die-hard cypherpunks, some of whom are too
paranoid to admit who they know anyway.
Besides
Davy Gigan wrote:
Try to execute a csh script without this command present in your path,
it won't work very well ;-)
Maybye it should be a symbolic link to /usr/bin/test ?
#!/bin/csh
[ -d /bin ] echo cool ;
Actually, this is classic Bourne shell syntax--the [ hard
link to test goes back
Davy Gigan wrote:
Try to execute a csh script without this command present in your path,
it won't work very well ;-)
Maybye it should be a symbolic link to /usr/bin/test ?
#!/bin/csh
[ -d /bin ] echo cool ;
Actually, this is classic Bourne shell syntax--the [ hard
link to test goes back
6 matches
Mail list logo
