On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 19:08:34 +0100, Igor Sobrado wrote:
> The BSD operating
> systems do not have the overfeaturism we can find in other OSes these
> days
Seems that it's about only me here who wants this simplification ... .
I fully agree with your arguments on
-possible change of tags
-option
Hi Uwe.
I see the advantages of your proposal but, as suggested in this thread
and as you did, sed(1) can be very helpful in this matter. Just my
opinion, but one of the best features in the BSD family of operating
systems is that these operating systems are simple. The BSD operating
systems do
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 07:04:22PM +0800, Uwe Dippel wrote:
>
> Thanks Darren, but I'd written this myself faster than it took me to write
> the message. I am still sure, that most users, including writers (and
> updaters) of the FAQ would profit from this addition. The FAQ is full of
> this `arch`
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 02:46:34 -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
> uname -sr | tr '[:lower:] .' '[:upper:]_'
>
> Somehow I think changing scripts is a better solution in this case. Or
> copy the above into a new script named uname-cvs. ;)
Thanks Darren, but I'd written this myself faster than it took
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 05:23:19PM +0800, Uwe Dippel wrote:
> I happen to have more and more systems that identify as
> $ uname
> OpenBSD
> which is good. One way or another.
>
> One item that tends to go wrong here is cvs, where I have some scripts
> doing cvs regularly, and I lose track of the v
Are you afraid of unleasing the powers of sed(1)?
I happen to have more and more systems that identify as
$ uname
OpenBSD
which is good. One way or another.
One item that tends to go wrong here is cvs, where I have some scripts
doing cvs regularly, and I lose track of the version while
upgrading by re-using the scripts.
In cvs it is OPENBSD_4_0 a
7 matches
Mail list logo
