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 b
On Tuesday 19 July 2005 12:49 am, UNIX admin wrote:
> It's like working with Windows: I am not going to waste my time playing
> with toys (Windows, Linux) when I could be doing real work on UNIX and get
> paid wads of cash for doing it.
Sounds like some type of panacea.;-)
--
Alan DuBoff - Sun
> 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
truly free.
> 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
truly free.
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 tale
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
opensolaris-discu
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, UNIX admin wrote:
>
> ...
> ...the Linux crowd...
"The Linux crowd", "The UNIX crowd". Ug.
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 20
> 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.
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 `;'
>
>
> 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
> 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
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 on
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 provi
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...
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.
The
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:
> 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
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 rea
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
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
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 t
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 AT&T in 1984.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353
John Martinez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am I the only one that doesn't like the --something-or-other options
> of GNU related software? Please don't do this to Solaris!
I don't like --something but I have to admit that makes sense to use
--something to distinct betwen a combination of signle
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.
>
Star is using long options since 198
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
> > do
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 righ
On Jul 14, 2005, at 9:51 PM, Rich Teer wrote:
John wrote:
Am I the only one that doesn't like the --something-or-other options
of GNU related software? Please don't do this to Solaris!
No, you're not alone!
What's worse than adding double hyphened long options? Also require
no hyphen
John wrote:
> Am I the only one that doesn't like the --something-or-other options
> of GNU related software? Please don't do this to Solaris!
No, you're not alone!
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group
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 ma
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 mapping
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 p
> 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 a
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Sunil wrote:
> 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
The idea of safe mode is to present a fairly minimal environemnt,
with few bells and whistles.
> executable? is size the only concern
but you were the one who wanted to see KDE on solaris as close to linux as
possible if not more, were you not?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
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 distri
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 ma
Ian Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why only on Linux and not in general? Because the other OSes have the
> > alternatives as to sh?
> >
> I've seen similar problems on Solaris, child processes continue to run
> when the parent is ^C'd.
Of course, the problem is not OS specific once you
Dragan Cvetkovic wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Dragan Cvetkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Then you seem to have never tried to abort a layered make system
with ^C.
Smake includes a lot of code just wo work around this kind o
Dragan Cvetkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> In bash on Linux or in bash in general?
> >
> > This applied to any OS that uses bash as /bin/sh, however my
> > workarounds in "smake" are only active on Linux.
>
> Why only on Linux and not in general? Because the other OSes have the
> alternativ
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Dragan Cvetkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Then you seem to have never tried to abort a layered make system with ^C.
Smake includes a lot of code just wo work around this kind of bash bugs
on Linux.
In b
Dragan Cvetkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 comple
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 incompatibi
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 incompatibility are very small, and
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 incompatibility are very small, and I've never run into one.
One thing that can be said in fav
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).
> it fixed sooner than you would make /bin/sh POSIX compliant. People
> have put in lot of effort there.
That's great to hear.
> Even if the Solaris bourne shell isn't POSIX
> compliant (which I have
> perhaps wrongly assumed it was), you still have the
> issue of backwards
> compatability, and that is a paramount feature in
> enterprise level
> systems.
/bin/bash is compatible. our shell scripts (with #!/bin/sh at top) fr
46 matches
Mail list logo
