Date:Sun, 25 Oct 2020 16:22:33 -0400
From:Thor Lancelot Simon
Message-ID: <20201025202233.ga15...@panix.com>
| Was the Australian machine kre mentioned one of those bizarre dual-68000
| designs that ran two CPUs in lockstep to handle non-restartable
| instructio
Date:Tue, 27 Oct 2020 02:54:48 +
From:David Holland
Message-ID: <20201027025448.ga27...@netbsd.org>
| So the example should be changed to
|
| lam file1 -S $'\n' file2 file3 file4
|
| ?
If you s/should/could/ then yes. What ought be used right now
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 06:10:10AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> | (after all, sed has something similar)
>
> Yes, but its needs are different, as it can read all of that
> from a file, not just from the arg list.
True.
> | I made it specifically recognize only \n and \t (and not \\ or
>
Date:Mon, 26 Oct 2020 15:52:45 +
From:David Holland
Message-ID: <20201026155245.ga29...@netbsd.org>
| I was thinking in lam itself, like this:
Oh, in that case I misunderstood.
| (after all, sed has something similar)
Yes, but its needs are different, as it
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 05:39:30PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> | Also if inserting newlines is an intended use case, I kinda think it
> | ought to accept \n in there, which it currently doesn't.
>
> That would be "C string quoting" which is $'\n' which isn't yet in POSIX
> but should be co
Date:Mon, 26 Oct 2020 03:49:16 +
From:David Holland
Message-ID: <20201026034916.ga29...@netbsd.org>
| Also if inserting newlines is an intended use case, I kinda think it
| ought to accept \n in there, which it currently doesn't.
That would be "C string quoti
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 01:33:22AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> | (what are the odds that anyone
> | on a slow machine will ever look at lam(1)?)
>
> I must admit that I'd never looked at lam(1) - on any speed of machine.
>
> But when I did just now, just for the thrill of it, I see ...
On Oct 25, 16:22, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
} On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 03:45:56PM -0400, Mouse wrote:
} >
} > I once had an hp300 with all of 5M of RAM. Years ago, when I had it
} > running, thorpej told me it was quite possibly an instance of the
} > slowest machine then supported by NetBSD. (A
Date:Sun, 25 Oct 2020 15:45:56 -0400 (EDT)
From:Mouse
Message-ID: <202010251945.paa14...@stone.rodents-montreal.org>
| Wasn't the /725 slower, or am I misremembering?
Never saw one, so can't compare, but it is hard to imagine that
DEC would go build something even
Den 2020-10-25 kl. 17:29, skrev Joerg Sonnenberger:
On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 11:41:16AM -0400, Mouse wrote:
Of course groff's even slower, but mandoc is faster -- than groff,
at least, dunno about heritage nroff. Is there a noticeable delay
with mandoc even on our slowest supported hardware? It m
On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 03:45:56PM -0400, Mouse wrote:
>
> I once had an hp300 with all of 5M of RAM. Years ago, when I had it
> running, thorpej told me it was quite possibly an instance of the
> slowest machine then supported by NetBSD. (Amusingly, at the same time
> I had an alpha that he sai
> [...] To merge the lines from four
> different files use
>lam file1 -s "\
>" file2 file3 file4
> which cannot be right, [...]. More likely a string containing just
> a newline is what is wanted, in which case the '\' MUST be omitted.
That depends on the shel
>> Physical VAX, but don't know the details.
> Do we support the 11/730 - if there's any unix running 32 bit (or
> wider) system that's well known, and slower, I've never heard of it.
Wasn't the /725 slower, or am I misremembering?
I do recall that, back when I was at McGill, we had a /780, two /
Date:Sun, 25 Oct 2020 17:29:02 +0100
From:Joerg Sonnenberger
Message-ID: <20201025162902.ga112...@bec.de>
| Physical VAX, but don't know the details.
Do we support the 11/730 - if there's any unix running
32 bit (or wider) system that's well known, and slower,
I've
Date:Sun, 25 Oct 2020 01:38:16 +
From:David Holland
Message-ID: <20201025013816.ga28...@netbsd.org>
| (what are the odds that anyone
| on a slow machine will ever look at lam(1)?)
I must admit that I'd never looked at lam(1) - on any speed of machine.
But wh
On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 11:41:16AM -0400, Mouse wrote:
> >> Of course groff's even slower, but mandoc is faster -- than groff,
> >> at least, dunno about heritage nroff. Is there a noticeable delay
> >> with mandoc even on our slowest supported hardware? It might very
> >> well be fine.
> > Last
>> Of course groff's even slower, but mandoc is faster -- than groff,
>> at least, dunno about heritage nroff. Is there a noticeable delay
>> with mandoc even on our slowest supported hardware? It might very
>> well be fine.
> Last time I tried measuring it, it took less than 2s to render gcc.1,
On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 08:35:47PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> Of course groff's even slower, but mandoc is faster -- than groff, at
> least, dunno about heritage nroff. Is there a noticeable delay with
> mandoc even on our slowest supported hardware? It might very well be
> fine.
Last t
dholland-t...@netbsd.org (David Holland) writes:
>Also, if we do have a platform where it's too slow and anyone actually
>cares,
We spend more for HTML pages without a viewer in base.
--
--
Michael van Elst
Internet: mlel...@serpens.de
t...@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) writes:
>Of course groff's even slower, but mandoc is faster -- than groff, at
>least, dunno about heritage nroff. Is there a noticeable delay with
>mandoc even on our slowest supported hardware? It might very well be
>fine.
mandoc fails on small hardware (l
On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 02:03:43AM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> I bet that cat(1) is always faster, but I consider myself as the only
> regular (at all?) user of these pages at least since since 6.x and
> nobody caring.
Also, if we do have a platform where it's too slow and anyone actually
On 25.10.2020 02:35, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 02:13:47AM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>
>> I recall catpages to used in 80286 UNIX (Coherent) and the catpages are
>> probably just applicable for such constrained environments that cannot
>> host any text formatters.
>
On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 02:13:47AM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>
> I recall catpages to used in 80286 UNIX (Coherent) and the catpages are
> probably just applicable for such constrained environments that cannot
> host any text formatters.
The issue was the speed of the text formatters. I viv
23 matches
Mail list logo
