search for: schilytools

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

...h, 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: https://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/ compile and install and test "osh". This is the SVr4 Bourne Shell, so you need to take into account what has been added with Svr4: - multibyte character support. In the 1980s, the Bourne Shell was just 8-bit clean. - job-control. If you do not call "jsh", or if you...

...d provided sh, mv, tar, ifconfig and mount as statib binaries in "/sbin". Since Solaris 10 we know better and there is no static binary anymore. BTW: the real Bourne Shell is now 100% portable and enhanced since a longer time. If you like to test the real Bourne Shell, check the latest schilytools: https://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/ The Bourne Shell is also much faster than bash. In special on platforms like Cygwin, where Microsoft enforces extremly slow process creation. > Even though Solaris started using ksh as the default user environment, > almost all of the...

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

It was the mid/late-90s, but I seem to recall Bourne being the default shell, although sh/ksh/csh were all available with a typical install. On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Scott Robbins <scottro at nyc.rr.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:02:56AM -0400, mark wrote: > > On 04/24/15 06:57, Pete Geenhuizen wrote: > > > > > >On 04/24/15 06:07, E.B. wrote:

...this - until you fully understand both licenses. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.net (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'

...f you ignore this explanation, I cannot help you. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.net (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'

...BSD code in the Linux kernel? You are kidding :-( J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.net (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'

...h GPL code, you can do with GPL and CDDL as well. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.net (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'

...y portability attempts seem to be widely unknown. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.net (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'

...dHat follow the legal audits from these companies? J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.net (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'

...sing is not helpful and it even has disadvantages. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.net (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'

I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, political, etc? Although btrfs is making progress, ZFS is far more mature, has a few more stable features (especially Raid-z3) and has worked flawlessly for me on CentOS-6 and Scientific Linux-6.

On 04/24/2015 03:57 AM, Pete Geenhuizen wrote: > if you leave it out the script will run in whatever environment it > currently is in. I'm reasonably certain that a script with no shebang will run with /bin/sh. I interpret your statement to mean that if a user is using ksh and enters the path to such a script, it would also run in ksh. That would only be true if you

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 03:15:27PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Stephen Harris <lists at spuddy.org> wrote: > > > Bash was bigger than ksh in the non-commercial Unix world because of ksh88 > > licensing problems. Back in 1998 I wanted to teach a ksh scripting > > course to my local LUG, but AT&T (David Korn himsef!) told me I couldn't > > give

...course _don't_ mix CDDLd code with GPLd code. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.net (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'

...Since 2001, ksh is under a OSI approved license. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.net (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:04 PM, <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: > > > My first RH was 5, late nineties. First time I looked at linux and > installed, it was '95, and slack. (We'll ignore the Coherent that I > installed on my beloved 286 in the late 80's). > <snip> You mean you missed all the fun with Xenix on Radio Shack Model 16's and SysV on

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: > > >>> 4. CDDL annoys a lot of people. >> >> The CDDL does not annoy people, this is just a fairy tale from some OSS enemies. > > The following irritates me, I am a ?people,? and I am not an OSS enemy: > > http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#WhatAboutTheLicensingIssue It is

...DLd separate and independend work ZFS of course. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.net (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'