Stewart C. Russell via talk wrote on 2023-04-24 19:44:
For security, of course deprecation can be a good idea. But this isn't
for security. This is merely FSF being petty.
Yeah, it's weird.
--
root@b0x1 [~]
└─» # for F in $(which egrep fgrep rgrep) ; do file ${F};
On 22/04/2023 14.16, Dhaval Giani wrote:
I don’t know why you think so. There is a real cost to maintaining
software. Who is going to keep track of security issues?
For security, of course deprecation can be a good idea. But this isn't
for security. This is merely FSF being petty.
Yes, I too actually use egrep almost all the time from the
command-line, and /always/ in scripts, as I want to know which
interpretation of REs I'm about to use.
--dave
On 4/22/23 23:31, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:
| From: Dave Collier-Brown via talk
| F and fgrep are historical
| From: Dave Collier-Brown via talk
| F and fgrep are historical accidents.
I take it you mean the -F flag.
| IMHO, the only reason they still
| exist is bad practice from the v6 era, when we only had a 16-bit address
| space.
Actually, fgrep is useful because you don't need to ensure that
F and fgrep are historical accidents. IMHO, the only reason they still
exist is bad practice from the v6 era, when we only had a 16-bit address
space. The interface could be preserved forever: the implementation?
Less so.
--dave
On 4/22/23 16:34, William Park via talk wrote:
I don't know
On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 11:51:17AM -0400, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:
> | From: Stewart C. Russell via talk
>
> | I hear that it ships with the latest GNU grep, which removes fgrep and
> egrep.
> | This could be considered a bad idea:
> | https://mastodon.social/@cks/110232377928840323
>
On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 08:16:01PM +0200, Dhaval Giani via talk wrote:
> I don’t know why you think so. There is a real cost to maintaining
> software. Who is going to keep track of security issues? What about changes
> to libraries you are linking to? Unless you are stepping up to maintain the
>
I don't know what's the issue. [ef]grep already is symlinked or shell
scripts (exec grep -[EF] "$@"), and warning message is to stderr not
stdout.
On 2023-04-22 11:51, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:
| From: Stewart C. Russell via talk
| I hear that it ships with the latest GNU grep,
On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 23:55 Stewart Russell via talk
wrote:
> On Fri., Apr. 21, 2023, 14:13 BCLUG via talk, wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I never, ever use fgrep or egrep and I think it's a bad idea.
>>
>
> Well, that's me told. I've used fgrep since the days when regular grep on
> a large file would
Stewart Russell via talk wrote on 2023-04-21 14:55:
I never, ever use fgrep or egrep and I think it's a bad idea.
Well, that's me told.
When I read your quote of my message, it occurred to me that I done
messed up.
What I meant to say was, "I don't use them, and I think it's a bad
| From: Stewart C. Russell via talk
| I hear that it ships with the latest GNU grep, which removes fgrep and egrep.
| This could be considered a bad idea:
| https://mastodon.social/@cks/110232377928840323
Ouch. Thanks for the heads-up.
I hope that it gets fixed. Unlikely to be fixed by GNU,
On Fri., Apr. 21, 2023, 14:13 BCLUG via talk, wrote:
>
>
> I never, ever use fgrep or egrep and I think it's a bad idea.
>
Well, that's me told. I've used fgrep since the days when regular grep on a
large file would take minutes, while fgrep would take seconds. I also
learned egrep's slightly
Stewart C. Russell via talk wrote on 2023-04-21 10:45:
I hear that it ships with the latest GNU grep, which removes fgrep
and egrep. This could be considered a bad idea:
https://mastodon.social/@cks/110232377928840323
I never, ever use fgrep or egrep and I think it's a bad idea.
However,
I hear that it ships with the latest GNU grep, which removes fgrep and
egrep. This could be considered a bad idea:
https://mastodon.social/@cks/110232377928840323
Stewart
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
I just downloaded a 2G .iso.
It seemed to take less than 30 seconds to download!
I was using a 1g Rogers Cable connection.
I guess that 20 seconds is about the fastest theoretically
possible so this is startling.
---
Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org
Unsubscribe from this mailing list
15 matches
Mail list logo
