search for: schili

Hey folks, I'm reading up on gtar for tape archiving and it sounds kind of nasty and not something I really want to rely on. It looks like star from the schily tools is preferred. I'm using Centos (and RHEL) 5.7 which seems to have star but not sdd. Which leads me to believe that the Schily tools are maybe a bit "rogue" My basic requirement with what I'm doing is to use

Hi all, What is the current preferred method for backing up ZFS data pools, preferably using free ($0.00) software, and assuming that access to individual files (a la ufsbackup/ufsrestore) is required? TIA, -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member CEO, My Online Home Inventory URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.linkedin.com/in/richteer

<m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: > Ah. I don't remember if I was using csh, or ksh, and didn't realize about > bash. I *think* I vaguely remember that sh seemed to be more capable than > I remembered. If you like to check what the Bourne Shell did support in the late 1980s, I recommend you to fetch recent Schily tools from:

Copying a CD with k3b is no problem, except I want to include on my copy the cbbd data (from freedb.org). I've configured k3b's cddb section according to instructions at <http://www.freedb.org/en/faq.3.html#15> and read every article google could find about "k3b cddb freedb.org config", but still k3b can't manage it. Grip handles getting the cddb data just fine.

Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: > On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:38 AM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > This is the SVr4 Bourne Shell, so you need to take into account what has been > > added with Svr4: > > Is there any difference between your osh and the Heirloom Bourne Shell? > >

Why does ZFS report such small directory sizes? For example, take a maildir directory with ten entries: total 2385 drwx------ 8 17121 vmail 10 Jun 8 23:50 . drwx--x--x 14 root root 14 May 12 2006 .. drwx------ 5 17121 vmail 5 May 25 18:16 .Trash drwx------ 5 17121 staff 6 Jun 9 00:01 .testing -rw------- 1 17121 staff 0 Jun

When I use copy/paste text into a window running vi, if there is a single line starting with '#', in the pasted content, it adds a # to all subsequent lines and indents each an additional level. Is there some way to eliminate this bizarre behavior, preferably globally and permanently so I don't have to repeat some change for every machine/user where I might log in? -- Les

Here''s some exciting news! Chris Emura, the Filesystem Development Manager within Apple''s CoreOS organization is interested in porting ZFS to OS X. For more information, please e-mail him directly at cemura at apple.com. Speaking for the zfs team (at Sun), this is great news and we fully support the effort. my powerbook hungers for ZFS, eric This message posted from

Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: > > The schily tools act as a container to publish the current code state. There is > > no such maintained web page. > > I was referring to the summary on the SourceForge page, where you just list the contents of the package without explaining why one would want to download it. I thought I don't need to make advertizing for

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Richard Elling <Richard.Elling at sun.com> wrote: > Philip Brown wrote: >> I''ve recently started down the road of production use for zfs, and am hitting my head on some paradigm shifts. I''d like to clarify whether my understanding is correct, and/or whether there are better ways of doing things. >> I have one question for

It wouldn''t be proper to start my first post here without congratulations and thanks to the ZFS team for such an impressive piece of work. Anyway, on to my query. I''ve been trying out ZFS, with a particular focus in reducing latency in a specific application. This application has a fair amount of random writing going on in the background (which, of course, ZFS will make

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:38:25AM -0400, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > Fascinating. As I'd been in Sun OS, and started doing admin work when it > became Solaris, I'd missed that bit. A question: did the license agreement > include payment, or was it just restrictive on distribution? In 1990, when I started using ksh88, it was totally commercial. Binaries were $$$ and source was

Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer at gmail.com> wrote: > On 04/27/2015 12:28 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Up to now, nobody could explain me how a mixture of GPL and BSD can be legal as > > this would require (when following the GPL) to relicense the BSD code under GPL > > in order to make the whole be under GPL. > > The GPL doesn't require that you relicense

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:32:45AM -0400, Scott Robbins wrote: > Wasn't Solaris, which for awhile at least, was probably the most popular > Unix, using ksh by default? Solaris /bin/sh was a real real dumb version of the bourne shell. Solaris included /bin/ksh as part of the core distribution (ksh88 was a part of the SVr4 specification) and so many scripts were written with #!/bin/ksh at

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Joerg Schilling > <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > >>> > >> Yes, if you mean what is described here as 'the original 4-clause' > >> license, or BSD-old: > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses > > > > Do you like to

Hi, I am having problems with cdrecord. Here is my information from scanbus: [root at Eurisko3 ~]# cdrecord -scanbus Cdrecord-Clone 2.01-dvd (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Copyright (C) 1995-2004 J?rg Schilli ng Note: This version is an unofficial (modified) version with DVD support Note: and therefore may have bugs that are not present in the original. Note: Please send bug reports or support requests

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Joerg Schilling > <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > > >> > "as a whole" means generally BUT allowing for exceptions. > >> > >> OK, great. That clears it up then. > > > > Maybe this helps: > > >

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Always Learning <centos at u64.u22.net> wrote: > > > >> Yes, in english, 'work as a whole' does mean complete. And the normal > >> interpretation is that it covers everything linked into the same > >> process at runtime unless there is an alternate

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Joerg Schilling > <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > > I would be interested to understand why Heirloom seems to so well known and my > > portability attempts seem to be widely unknown. > > > > Not sure why it matters with a standalone

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Joerg Schilling > <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > > >> > Do you like to discuss things or do you like to throw smoke grenades? > >> > >> The only thing I'd like to discuss is your reason for not adding a > >> dual