On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Dmitry Maluka wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 08:16:37PM +0200, finkler wrote:
>> While I agree with usability over standard fetishism, it isn't really
>> the case that many Linux desktops are POSIX compliant.
>
> A little off-topic, but I wish to remind that, gen
On 4/18/10, pmarin wrote:
> Static linking + Linux + BSD userland == Mastodon Linux?
>
> http://www.mastodon.biz/
>
> It is a lot outdated.
Is there any reason to use Linux 2.0 over 2.4 or 2.6?
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 08:16:37PM +0200, finkler wrote:
> While I agree with usability over standard fetishism, it isn't really
> the case that many Linux desktops are POSIX compliant.
A little off-topic, but I wish to remind that, generally, standards
compatibility pursuing is not necessarily fe
Static linking + Linux + BSD userland == Mastodon Linux?
http://www.mastodon.biz/
It is a lot outdated.
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 8:16 PM, finkler wrote:
> On 04/15/10 08:39, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> > android isn't POSIX compliant and is probably more wide spread now
> > then Linux desktops... ;
On 04/15/10 08:39, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> android isn't POSIX compliant and is probably more wide spread now
> then Linux desktops... ;)
>
While I agree with usability over standard fetishism, it isn't really
the case that many Linux desktops are POSIX compliant.
Thomas
On 15 April 2010 07:04, finkler wrote:
> On 04/14/10 12:23, Claudio M. Alessi wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 09:29:10PM +0200, pancake wrote:
>>> I wrote tac in 9base a week ago... I would really prefer 9base before other
>>> alternatives if we can choose. Most of them are valid replacements
>
On 04/14/10 12:23, Claudio M. Alessi wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 09:29:10PM +0200, pancake wrote:
>> I wrote tac in 9base a week ago... I would really prefer 9base before other
>> alternatives if we can choose. Most of them are valid replacements
> +1
>
> I would prefer plan 9 userland again
I'm running OpenBSD 4.6 and:
which arch
/usr/bin/arch
strings /usr/bin/arch
...
$OpenBSD: arch.c,v 1.11 2004/05/09 03:20:45 deraadt Exp $
which head
/usr/bin/head
strings /usr/bin/head
...
$OpenBSD: head.c,v 1.14 2007/10/31 16:29:50 jmc Exp $
... etc
So I think you may be missing something.
R
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 06:26:12PM +0200, finkler wrote:
> This is my collection of redundancy so far:
> arch uname -m
> dir ls -C
> groupsid -nG
> head sed 11q
> mkfifomknod FILE q
> nlgrep -n
> rmdir rm -r
> tac
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 06:26:12PM +0200, finkler wrote:
> What is missing in OBSD:
> base64
It's not quite the same, but OpenBSD does have b64encode/b64decode.
Part of uuencode I believe.
--Anthony J. Bentley
On 04/10/10 17:32, markus schnalke wrote:
> [2010-04-10 17:12] finkler
>> On 04/10/10 16:14, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 7:13 AM, finkler wrote:
And this is what is missing in OBSD:
chown
>>>
>>> having a hard time believing this
>>
>> I was kind of surprised myself,
[2010-04-10 17:12] finkler
> On 04/10/10 16:14, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 7:13 AM, finkler wrote:
> >> And this is what is missing in OBSD:
> >> chown
> >
> > having a hard time believing this
>
> I was kind of surprised myself, but I simply can't find it in their CVS
> tr
On 04/10/10 16:14, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 7:13 AM, finkler wrote:
>> And this is what is missing in OBSD:
>> chown
>
> having a hard time believing this
>
>
I was kind of surprised myself, but I simply can't find it in their CVS
tree [1]. Maybe I have overlooked something
On 04/10/10 14:08, Jacob Todd wrote:
> Head can be replaced with a script that calls `sed nq`, where n is positive
> integer.
>
Should I even provide a head script for the sake of compatibility, or
should it simply be removed? How does stali intend to handle this?
regards,
Thomas
14 matches
Mail list logo
