On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Scott Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> When I learned Fortran IV in 1980 my teacher said that Fortran and Cobol were
> the languages of the future!
>
Sheesh! When I learned Fortran IV in 1974, we had the WatFour and
WatFive compilers, and were getting ready to
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 06:15:31PM -0500, Michael Peterson wrote:
> I have been learning and using COBOL since the mid 80's.
> I use COBOL at the present time for Web Programming also.
> The COBOL we use runs on UNIX and Linux.
> I use it in addition to PHP/MySQL for Web Programming.
>
> I have lo
Scott Silva wrote:
on 10-24-2008 11:19 AM Ed Westphal spake the following:
MHR wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Bill Campbell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Programming to the lowest common denominator may not feel sexy,
but it can prevent many headaches in the future. I s
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008, Scott Silva wrote:
...
>When I learned Fortran IV in 1980 my teacher said that Fortran and Cobol were
>the languages of the future!
In a presentation at the 1985 Usenix conference, Rob Pike made a comment
that he didn't know what the language for scientific program of the fut
on 10-24-2008 11:19 AM Ed Westphal spake the following:
> MHR wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Bill Campbell
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Programming to the lowest common denominator may not feel sexy,
>>> but it can prevent many headaches in the future. I spent quite a
>>> bit
Les Mikesell wrote:
Robert Nichols wrote:
These shouldn't make any difference. The limit is on the size of the
expanded shell command line.
Really?
$ M=0; N=0; for W in `find /usr -xdev 2>/dev/null`; do M=$(($M+1));
N=$(($N+${#W}+1)); done; echo $M $N
156304 7677373
vs.
$ /bin/echo `fi
On Sat, 2008-10-18 at 06:00 -0400, William L. Maltby wrote:
>
Ok. 3rd cup of coffee has made its way into various of my systems. A
minor correction (but important for us pedantic typers) is below.
> main(argc, *argv[]) /* could be **argv instead */
main(int argc, char *argv[]) /* co
On Sat, 2008-10-18 at 06:00 -0400, William L. Maltby wrote:
>
> The longest command line in this case is "find /usr -xdev', 15
> characters. Find "sees" only 10 characters.
Uh, +1 for the \0 that terminates each parameter? Need more java here.
>
--
Bill
On Fri, 2008-10-17 at 23:52 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Robert Nichols wrote:
> >
> >> These shouldn't make any difference. The limit is on the size of the
> >> expanded shell command line.
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > $ M=0; N=0; for W in `find /usr -xdev 2>/dev/null`; do M=$(($M+1));
> > N=$((
Robert Nichols wrote:
These shouldn't make any difference. The limit is on the size of the
expanded shell command line.
Really?
$ M=0; N=0; for W in `find /usr -xdev 2>/dev/null`; do M=$(($M+1));
N=$(($N+${#W}+1)); done; echo $M $N
156304 7677373
vs.
$ /bin/echo `find /usr -xdev 2>/dev/
Les Mikesell wrote:
thad wrote:
it should be:
for i in `ls /var/amavis/tmp`
do
rm $i
done
These shouldn't make any difference. The limit is on the size of the
expanded shell command line.
Really?
$ M=0; N=0; for W in `find /usr -xdev 2>/dev/null`; do M=$(($M+1));
N=$(($N+${#W}+1)); do
> > rm -rf /var/amavis/tmp
> >
> > and get only "argument list too long" as feedback.
> >
> > Is there a way to go round this problem?
> >
> > I have CentOS 5.2.
> >
> It isn't a problem with the commands, it is a problem of how
> long a command
> line can be when piped to a command.
>
> rm -rf
on 10-17-2008 2:30 AM Jussi Hirvi spake the following:
> Since when is there a limit in how long directory listings CentOS can show
> (ls), or how large directories can be removed (rm). It is really annoying to
> say, for example
>
> rm -rf /var/amavis/tmp
>
> and get only "argument list too
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 4:09 AM, Jeremy Sanders
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This limitation has been removed from more recent kernels.
>
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=b6a2fea39318e43fee84fa7b0b90d68bed92d2ba
>
> http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutil
Jeremy Sanders wrote:
piping ls to xargs should do the trick. man xargs for details.
Ok, thanks for ideas, Laurent and Lawrence.
A strange limitation in ls and rm, though. My friend said he hasn't seen
that in Fedora.
This limitation has been removed from more recent kernels.
http://git.ker
Jussi Hirvi wrote:
> Lawrence Guirre ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> kirjoitteli (17.10.2008 12:55):
>> piping ls to xargs should do the trick. man xargs for details.
>
> Ok, thanks for ideas, Laurent and Lawrence.
>
> A strange limitation in ls and rm, though. My friend said he hasn't seen
> that in Fedo
16 matches
Mail list logo
