On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
It seems that carefully interpreting words is not one of your strengths.
I did not write "the star CLI" but "star", so it is pretty clear that I
was writing about features of the _program_ star and not properties of the
"star" CLI.
Can we please stop
Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I was talking about the star program, I never did mention the star CLI.
>
> You wrote
>
> | The only exception star use with the SUSv2 CLI is that star does not
> | allow you to use 'star cf file args' when
Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was talking about the star program, I never did mention the star CLI.
You wrote
| The only exception star use with the SUSv2 CLI is that star does not
| allow you to use 'star cf file args' when 'file' exists and is a plain
| file with a size > 0.
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Darren J Moffat wrote:
>
> Can people please grow up and take the OS advocacy elsewhere.
+100. And thank you Sunil and the other people here who use both Linux
and Solaris for your restraint.
Eric
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing lis
Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > starUsed when called as "star", "ustar" or with
> > any unknown argv[0]
>
> and that was clearly the one you were talking about.
I was talking about the star program, I never did mentio
Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> starUsed when called as "star", "ustar" or with
> any unknown argv[0]
and that was clearly the one you were talking about.
> If you like to create any new CLI variant,
No. I do not care. I was referring to your previous messag
Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > And by the way, does star also still need the "-U" option in addition
> > > to "x" to match historical tar behavior?
> > Did I miss somtheing and there is a PO
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 09:44, Sunil wrote:
> > Adding insult to injury, I used to consider Linux
> > UNIX, until foaming-at-their-mouth Linux advocates
> > kept correcting me that Linux IS NOT UNIX.
>
> ha ha haa...you got burnt by a linux fanatic...this is fun!!
> This message posted from opensola
> Adding insult to injury, I used to consider Linux
> UNIX, until foaming-at-their-mouth Linux advocates
> kept correcting me that Linux IS NOT UNIX.
ha ha haa...you got burnt by a linux fanatic...this is fun!!
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And by the way, does star also still need the "-U" option in addition
> > to "x" to match historical tar behavior?
> Did I miss somtheing and there is a POSIX standard for "star"?
But Jörg, you were previous
UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Your point being? That bash does implement some sort
> > of Bourne/POSIX
> > shell command language instead of the csh one?
> > Ridiculous.
> I wasn't trying to make a point that bash is more or less POSIX.
No, you were claiming (you should not have remov
Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 02:07 -0700, UNIX admin 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 the only one. --op
>
>
> 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% in the
> church of Linux and
> 10% in the church of UNIX. This is based on my
> attendance and
> p
Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And by the way, does star also still need the "-U" option in addition
> to "x" to match historical tar behavior?
Did I miss somtheing and there is a POSIX standard for "star"?
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
Keith M Wesolowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 06:58:24PM -0700, Jake Hamby wrote:
>
> > I just did a quick performance test of bsdtar vs. gnutar, star, and Solaris
> > tar in extracting a large (704MB uncompressed) .tar.bz2 archive:
>
> In the case of compressed files, e
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, UNIX admin 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 the only one. --options are completely uneccessary and serve
> no purpose.
>
> I sincerely hope s
> Your point being? That bash does implement some sort
> of Bourne/POSIX
> shell command language instead of the csh one?
> Ridiculous.
I wasn't trying to make a point that bash is more or less POSIX. I was trying
to make a point that bash is not very good, contrary to the popular
[I][B]trends a
Hi,
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 02:07 -0700, UNIX admin 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 the only one. --options are completely uneccessary and serve
> no purpose.
> 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 the only one. --options are completely uneccessary and serve no
purpose.
I sincerely hope such perversions will not be done to Solaris and OpenS
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005, Ian Collins wrote:
> ...
> Come on gents, take it outside.
+1
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 12:49, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Does this mean we need to igore you in future in order to
^^
if that is intended to be the pluralis majestatis, then probably so.
> be able to have a useful discussion that is not driven by
> personal attacks?
of course it woul
Gunnar Ritter wrote:
Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
particular as it is an intended one. But with your self-righteous
attitude, it must of course become negligible.
Does this mean we need to igore you in future in order to
b
Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > particular as it is an intended one. But with your self-righteous
> > attitude, it must of course become negligible.
> Does this mean we need to igore you in future in order to
> be able to have a useful disc
Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> particular as it is an intended one. But with your self-righteous
> attitude, it must of course become negligible.
Does this mean we need to igore you in future in order to
be able to have a useful discussion that is not driven by
personal attacks?
s~A
Scott Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Start with an uncompressed archive, and try again. You should also be
> careful to make sure that any disk caching/etc doesn't get in the way...
Yes, that is very important. The varying delays caused by writes
to disk can amount to the same dimension as t
Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The star commandline interface completely matches the historical tar behavior
> and GNU make has big deviations from this interface (GNU tar even does not
> work as expeceted if you play a bit with the order of options). [...]
> The only exception
Jake Hamby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As you can see, star is the fastest and gtar is the slowest. My only
> complaint with star is that you can't combine single-letter options together
> ("tar -xzf", "tar -cjvf", etc.) like you can with every other version of tar.
> I'll have to have a loo
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 06:58:24PM -0700, Jake Hamby wrote:
> I just did a quick performance test of bsdtar vs. gnutar, star, and Solaris
> tar in extracting a large (704MB uncompressed) .tar.bz2 archive:
>
> $ time gtar -xjf ~/Downloads/kde/KDEkderequired-341.tar.bz2
>
> $ bzcat ~/Downloads/kde
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 06:58:24PM -0700, Jake Hamby wrote:
> I just did a quick performance test of bsdtar vs. gnutar, star, and Solaris
> tar in extracting a large (704MB uncompressed) .tar.bz2 archive:
In the case of compressed files, especially bzip2, decompression time
dominates. You shoul
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Chris Ricker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Sunil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> thanks shawn! yes, all the options worth supporting (and which create
> problems with sun's /usr/sbin/tar) are already there. Now only if there are
> aliases for "-bz" -> "-j", "-o" -> "--no-same-owner". I think this program is
> perfect.
Star ised -bz long b
thanks shawn! yes, all the options worth supporting (and which create problems
with sun's /usr/sbin/tar) are already there. Now only if there are aliases for
"-bz" -> "-j", "-o" -> "--no-same-owner". I think this program is perfect.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
> 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 am going to flip here...nobody is doing this to Solaris, but to distros that
come out of OS...:)
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_
Josip Gracin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your complaint would probably be more suited for Sun's Solaris support
> department. Once the community creates a fully-fledged
> OpenSolaris-based distribution, then we can all discuss whether /bin/sh
> is linked to /bin/bash.
I am not sure what you u
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Sunil wrote:
> ...
> what if I want all this AND solaris kernel AND solaris libc AND zones
> AND wonderful tcp/ip stack AND Dtrace and tonnes of other
> goodiesits not over there. its here...
+1.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing l
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 07:06, Sunil wrote:
> I am not talking about distros here. that will happen eventually.
> I am talking in general about safe mode present in all official sun
> installs and whatever is present today.
Sunil, the thing is that the community is not involved in the Solaris
ope
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Sunil wrote:
> nobody is condemning solaris. We are all discussing what better we
> can do from useability point of view and make simpler, easier
> adoption.
OK, I misunderstood you. I think what you're talking about is something
teh Gentoo guys are working on.
> what if I
> You misunderstand me. I don't think it's apporpriate
> to condemn
> Solaris because it's not like Linux.
nobody is condemning solaris. We are all discussing what better we can do from
useability point of view and make simpler, easier adoption.
> If you want
> Linux, it's
> over there -->.
wh
I am not talking about distros here. that will happen eventually. I am talking
in general about safe mode present in all official sun installs and whatever is
present today.
of course distros will have the options to do whatever they like.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
39 matches
Mail list logo
