Hej there.
I am eagerly anticipating advances in stali, and since updates are
scarce I started to investigate in different matters of this kind and
started to play with my humble attempt to create such a distro myself,
just for fun.
I read that the userland of stali is OpenBSD derived, I took the
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
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
t
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 h
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
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
SD libc to begin with.
Remove all the macro crap and just support c99 and POSIX, which is one
of the few cases where it might actually be worth the hassle to follow
such a standard.
Then again it seems backward to put so much effort in an outdated
standard. I don't really know, any thoughts on this?
regards,
finkler
On 10/28/10 01:16, Jacob Todd wrote:
> If someone was going to create a "suckless" libc, they shouldn't support
> posix. start with the plan 9 libraries instead of the obsd while you're at
> it.
>
I understand that the idea is to compile other shit, not suckless
software, or else we could just use
On 10/28/10 01:39, Jacob Todd wrote:
> Go uses the plan 9 libs.
>
While I really like Go, it is still a niche project, and a 2MB+ basename
executable is not really suckless.
On 10/28/10 15:38, Jacob Todd wrote:
> How? It's statically linked iirc against the systems libs.
http://groups.google.com/group/golang-nuts/browse_thread/thread/690760527da60e57/882a60388fab96a1
On 10/29/10 15:06, Jacob Todd wrote:
> I've read it but don't see how it pertains to what we're talking about.
> On Oct 29, 2010 7:50 AM, "finkler" wrote:
>> On 10/28/10 15:38, Jacob Todd wrote:
>>> How? It's statically linked iirc against the s
On 02/12/11 19:48, pmarin wrote:
> Have anyone tried it?
> http://www.etalabs.net/musl/
>
>
Looks promising!
12 matches
Mail list logo
