On 13Nov27:2356+1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 27/11/13 23:37, David L. Craig wrote:
> > On 13Nov27:1423+1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> >
> >> On 27/11/13 13:49, David L. Craig wrote:
> >
> >>> On 13Nov26:1545-0500, David L. Craig wrote:
> >
On 13Nov26:1545-0500, David L. Craig wrote:
> On 13Nov26:1437-0500, Mark Haase wrote:
>
> > Therefore, a Linux distribution has 2 choices: (1) wait for upstream
> > patches for bugs/vulnerabilities as they are found, or (2) recompile all
> > packages with optimizations
On 13Nov26:1437-0500, Mark Haase wrote:
> Therefore, a Linux distribution has 2 choices: (1) wait for upstream
> patches for bugs/vulnerabilities as they are found, or (2) recompile all
> packages with optimizations disabled. I don't think proposal #2 would get
> very far...
Well, there's always
ozymandias G desiderata [really?] wrote:
> Of course, this would be a different story if the web of trust were in
> more common usage, but it's not, outside of debian-maintainers and
> some small klatches of die-hard cypherpunks, some of whom are too
> paranoid to admit who they know anyway.
Besi
Davy Gigan wrote:
> Try to execute a csh script without this command present in your path,
> it won't work very well ;-)
> Maybye it should be a symbolic link to /usr/bin/test ?
>
> #!/bin/csh
> [ -d /bin ] && echo cool ;
Actually, this is classic Bourne shell syntax--the [ hard
link to test goe
Davy Gigan wrote:
> Try to execute a csh script without this command present in your path,
> it won't work very well ;-)
> Maybye it should be a symbolic link to /usr/bin/test ?
>
> #!/bin/csh
> [ -d /bin ] && echo cool ;
Actually, this is classic Bourne shell syntax--the [ hard
link to test go
6 matches
Mail list logo
