most other people use a email client that breaks lines automaticly making the
best use of a gui interface.
I think I have subscribed to the email list, but instead of getting the
posted messages, I have been receiving a bunch of emails that read like this:
---
You are watching the forum
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
Anyway, as I mentioned to you in a separate email, the way this forum is
set up really does not speak well for whatever community it intends to
represent.
Agreed. Derek and the rest of the group, can we scrap the forums (or maybe
make them R/O) and
People who use a Browser to write mail need to set up the editing window
to be wide enough (e.g. 130 chars) and then manually insert line breacks.
Jörg
The problem with manually inserting line breaks is that, after you go back to
edit your message,
the entire paragraph will usually get totally
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 02:07:29PM -0400, Dragan Cvetkovic wrote:
Anyway, as I mentioned to you in a separate email, the way this forum is
set up really does not speak well for whatever community it intends to
represent.
Agreed. Derek and the rest of the group, can we scrap the forums (or
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 02:07:29PM -0400, Dragan Cvetkovic wrote:
Or, as I said before, let us set a news server for opensolaris.org groups.
What are the objections to gmane?
Gmane is fine, but I think it is set as R/O i.e. you can't post
Openoffice.org already provides a pretty decent (and current) port.
Why reinvent the wheel?
Almost all the Linux distros have their own OOo packages. But, wait. How many
Linux distros are there competiting against each other?
Perhaps this is one of the biggest differences between Solaris and
exec /bin/ksh -o vi
As we alrerady have discussed before, this is a
really bad idea
as it may make a system unusable if /usr could not be
mounted.
Technically speaking: yes, agreed.
However, nowdays there is no need to carve up the disk into separate
FileSystems; it's not an efficient
I hope you don't do it by putting something like:
exec ksh
into .profile like many people do. This would make
your system
unusable in single user mode when /usr has not yet
been mounted
See my post above.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/14/05, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Danek Duvall wrote:
I vote for changing the default shell to a better
one.
Ah, but then the question is, which one. You might
choose ksh over bash
for various reasons, others might prefer tcsh, and
some of us know that zsh
is the One True Shell. If nothing else, the bourne
shell is
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 03:26:17PM -0700, Jake Hamby wrote:
are enabled). While you may argue that Linux developers are at
fault for using bash-specific features in their scripts, it's like
I wouldn't argue it, because it's a fact. It's fine for Linux to
assume GNU features in /bin/sh. It's
On 7/14/05, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
On 7/14/05, Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/14/05, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, George Jereza wrote:
How to measure openness? What about like look, but
no touch! Or if you must touch, go ahead ... NO, NOT
THERE!! :-)
:-)
Although I must say, when it comes to the development of _Sun_ Solaris,
characterizing the process that way (NO, NOT THERE!!)
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Eric Boutilier wrote:
...
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...
I guess I should also add (in case it's not obvious)...
I of course think
Stefan Teleman wrote:
On 7/12/05, Tao Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is ridiculous!
So why does Solaris come with JDS/GNOME and GRUB if it is not Linux?
i don't know why, after reading this sentence, i suddenly get the urge
to reasess a few things in life.
Like reconfiguring life's
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 03:58:37PM -0700, George Jereza wrote:
I'm wondering if this a statement of one individual or
We're all individuals. Corporate entities don't have fingers or vocal
cords because they're not alive.
talking about OpenSolaris and not Solaris. Kinda begs
an important
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 04:15:52PM -0700, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
We're all individuals.
I'm not.
Danek
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Sunil wrote:
The operating system on your thousands of Linux boxes have never
had to worry about satisfying the needs of millions of customers
while retaining backwards compatibility. It is a certainty that if
SUN decided to change the default shell that at least some of their
customers (if not
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilitie
s/sh.html
this doc says 'set -o vi' should set vi command line editing mode. As far as I
remember, 'set -o vi' only works in ksh. So, how is /bin/sh compiliant to this
standard?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
On 7/7/05, Gerhard S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you please quote the part of POSIX that
forbids having working cursor keys in a shell?
Hint: You won't find it. There isn't any.
I never said that it did. But, it does require certain actions all the
way down to how the cursor behaves when in
The operating system on your thousands of Linux boxes
have never had
to worry about satisfying the needs of millions of
customers while
retaining backwards compatibility. It is a certainty
that if SUN
decided to change the default shell that at least
some of their
customers (if not many)
On 7/7/05, Sunil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
can you please list one such incompatibility?
Shell wise? Not specifically. But I can list a few of *many* issues
that I've had over the years when upgrading to newer Linux
distributions:
* glibc ABI changes breaking my binaries (I won't even talk about
23 matches
Mail list logo
