It has in part something to do with the backspace key working out of the box without typing "stty erase ^H" every time. (Have they fixed that on Solaris, yet?)
Recent versions of MacOSX have bash by default. By recent I mean 10.4 had bash, and probably 10.3 but I'm not sure.
All Linux distribs have had bash installed by default for ever. And by all I mean 99.999% of the installed base, I'm sure you can find a silly exception.
Recent versions of Tru64... do not exist.
As for the BSDs, Netcraft confirms it,.. err. I don't know, what's their default shell?
And as for Solaris, its default shell -- a Soviet-era knock off of the original Unics v1.0 -- is so fucktarded that nobody in their right mind keeps it as their default shell, and I've always seen bash or zsh instead.
There is also a system hygiene practice common on the BSD's of keeping the base system minimal and only adding on what is needed, a practice that helps in keeping systems secure and stable because they are easier to fully understand.
Yeah, you're right, installing such an experimental, little used and unmaintained software package as bash is irresponsible./facepalm
Why bother with portable shell scripts, seriously? Everybody has bash installed, and/or zsh that is mostly compatible, and even then you have bash anyway. I understand retro-nostalgia and all that, but necrophilia is overrated.
Lebanese friends of mine got bombed by Israel in 2006. They were'nt member of Hezbollah. There never was any Hezbollah anywhere near where they lived.
As far as I'm concerned, Israel is a rogue nation and no better than a terrorist organisation. In fact, I have more respect for suicide bombers who kill themselves for their cause, no matter how foolish, than for cowardly mass murderers dropping 1 ton bombs on innocent civilians from a F16.
Last, a relative of mine was officially a terrorist and a member of a terrorist organisation.
The year was 1943. That's how the Kommandantur qualified him on his arrest warrant.
Yes, I'm making a parallel between Israel and the Nazis. I'm not the only one. People who have experienced it first hand do it too. Look up Sir Kaufman or Andre Nouschi.
Well, at least four out of your six complaints are also attributable to the other side of the conflict. Why are you reserving your criticism for Israel?
The "other side" is supposed to be a "terrorist organisation," not a nice democratic country. If you want me to say that it's almost as bas as Israel, yeah, sure, let's do it: Hamas is almost as bad as Israel. Happy?
Hilariously disgusting. The Sandinistas were democratically elected. The contras are generally acknowledged as "death squads," and not just by "liberals" in MS.
Furthermore the US has been sentenced to pay $1 billion by the International Court of Justice in restitution, which it refuses to pay.
Stick that right wing murderous propaganda up yours.
Not respecting international law - check. Killing civilians - check. Stealing land - check. Killing UN observers - check. Bombing UN buildings - check. Using people as human shields - check.
You can't be speaking of Iran, because Iran hasn't made any threats to "wipe neighbors off the map". Its president, however, has expressed the wish that the "régime occupying Jerusalem vanish from the pages of time." That's the direct translation agreed on by non-partisan sources.
For all the bad things we hear about Iranians (most of which are very likely to be true), there is one fact that should stand out: Iran has never started a war in centuries, if not millennias.
Sure, killing gays is bad, stiffling freedom of speech is bad, beating women for not wearing the right clothes is bad, and I'm forgetting a lot of very bad things.
Still, on the evil-o-meter, for all the great buzzwords the United States and its affiliates such as Israel claim ("Democracy!" "Freedom!" "Capitalism!"), one thing stands.
War is the ultimate evil.
Murder is evil, rape is evil, theft is evil, deportation is evil, destruction is evil. But war's got it all, as judge Jackson pointed out during the Nuremberg trials.
Past performance is no guarantee that they won't, this time, start a war. But if I were to bet all my money on a pointless bet, I'd wage that the end of the world is to start when noted war criminal and all around right wing nutbag Netanyahou, as the most likely next PM of Israel, is going to start it all by attacking Iran. Not the scaaary iranian boogeymen.
There are good reasons to give meaningful names to servers. If you give them numerical "names," getting 1 character wrong results in pointing to the wrong machine. If you give them distinct names with redundant information, this is much less likely. Furthermore, it's absolutely essential to give every machine a name that's distinct from its task. Trust me, one day, that "mailserver" or that "webserver01" might not be doing mail or web serving at all, and you will find that changing the name is more of a problem than you thought. So recently I had to work on a 200 new server setup; I took the list of star names on Wikipedia, sanitized it a little to remove names too long or or that were too much like another one.
If the password protection is only blocking the drive's firmware, but the data is not encrypted on disk, it's a very weak protection. Someone stealing your disk only has to find a disk of the same model, and exchange the platters.
That's basically how it works in every other areas. Mergers, for instance, have been denied by the EU for less than that. Microsoft has a market share > 90% in many areas, so it's pretty open and shut; to claim otherwise is ludicrous.
Why is the EU so hooked up on what browser is being used?
Not everybody uses a "productivity tool." Or a media center / player. Not even a word processor.
But everybody uses a browser. Using the internet means using a browser at some point.
Plus, Microsoft has clearly been a hindrance to web development and standards by letting IE6 rot for 5 years. Even IE7 and IE8 are behind the times. They suck rock. Yet they still have huge market share due to the monopoly power.
This is one of the clear areas where the EU has a mandate to enforce cooperation, competition in the marketplace and interoperability.
Say you have 100% market share. You let a "competitor" exist which would sell just a few boxes of a competing product for a very high price... in fact you could just buy them yourself. Magic! No monopoly!
Thankfully regulators are not that stupid.
For most intents and purposes, a monopoly in Europe starts at 50% market share. France Telecom for instance is for instance hovering at 49.9% in many markets (mobile phone, ADSL...) in its native market. It's not a coincidence. They would be immediately and more drastically regulated if they did. The ARCEP (~ FCC) would have the authority to set its prices.
The purpose of those monopoly rules is to ensure there is fair competition. It's quite unfortunate that, so far, Microsoft has been given a free ride. Glad to see it's changing, even if only so slightly.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you're using FAT, the problem is almost entirely unlikely to happen, especially under such light write loads.
I know paleounices suck. Does it matter to 99% of shell writers, is the question.
Linux is obliterating commercial Unices.
It has in part something to do with the backspace key working out of the box without typing "stty erase ^H" every time. (Have they fixed that on Solaris, yet?)
Recent versions of MacOSX have bash by default. By recent I mean 10.4 had bash, and probably 10.3 but I'm not sure.
All Linux distribs have had bash installed by default for ever. And by all I mean 99.999% of the installed base, I'm sure you can find a silly exception.
Recent versions of Tru64 ... do not exist.
As for the BSDs, Netcraft confirms it, .. err. I don't know, what's their default shell?
And as for Solaris, its default shell -- a Soviet-era knock off of the original Unics v1.0 -- is so fucktarded that nobody in their right mind keeps it as their default shell, and I've always seen bash or zsh instead.
There is also a system hygiene practice common on the BSD's of keeping the base system minimal and only adding on what is needed, a practice that helps in keeping systems secure and stable because they are easier to fully understand.
Yeah, you're right, installing such an experimental, little used and unmaintained software package as bash is irresponsible. /facepalm
Saying "I love C but there are things that are better in shell" is completely anachronistic.
Seriously. The question's been settled for over 20 years.
And there are other languages, you know. The question is more whether to use Python (for example) instead of shell in some cases, and when.
I've heard that said for 15 years, that might have been true 15 years ago, but now ... ?
Why bother with portable shell scripts, seriously? Everybody has bash installed, and/or zsh that is mostly compatible, and even then you have bash anyway.
I understand retro-nostalgia and all that, but necrophilia is overrated.
By definition, if it transfers power peacefully per the elections results, it's not a dictatorship.
Doggamit.
Lebanese friends of mine got bombed by Israel in 2006. They were'nt member of Hezbollah. There never was any Hezbollah anywhere near where they lived.
As far as I'm concerned, Israel is a rogue nation and no better than a terrorist organisation. In fact, I have more respect for suicide bombers who kill themselves for their cause, no matter how foolish, than for cowardly mass murderers dropping 1 ton bombs on innocent civilians from a F16.
Last, a relative of mine was officially a terrorist and a member of a terrorist organisation.
The year was 1943. That's how the Kommandantur qualified him on his arrest warrant.
Yes, I'm making a parallel between Israel and the Nazis. I'm not the only one. People who have experienced it first hand do it too. Look up Sir Kaufman or Andre Nouschi.
Well, at least four out of your six complaints are also attributable to the other side of the conflict. Why are you reserving your criticism for Israel?
The "other side" is supposed to be a "terrorist organisation," not a nice democratic country. If you want me to say that it's almost as bas as Israel, yeah, sure, let's do it: Hamas is almost as bad as Israel. Happy?
Hilariously disgusting. The Sandinistas were democratically elected. The contras are generally acknowledged as "death squads," and not just by "liberals" in MS.
Furthermore the US has been sentenced to pay $1 billion by the International Court of Justice in restitution, which it refuses to pay.
Stick that right wing murderous propaganda up yours.
Not respecting international law - check.
Killing civilians - check.
Stealing land - check.
Killing UN observers - check.
Bombing UN buildings - check.
Using people as human shields - check.
You can't be speaking of Iran, because Iran hasn't made any threats to "wipe neighbors off the map". Its president, however, has expressed the wish that the "régime occupying Jerusalem vanish from the pages of time." That's the direct translation agreed on by non-partisan sources.
Wiping neighbours off the map? BS propaganda.
For all the bad things we hear about Iranians (most of which are very likely to be true), there is one fact that should stand out: Iran has never started a war in centuries, if not millennias.
Sure, killing gays is bad, stiffling freedom of speech is bad, beating women for not wearing the right clothes is bad, and I'm forgetting a lot of very bad things.
Still, on the evil-o-meter, for all the great buzzwords the United States and its affiliates such as Israel claim ("Democracy!" "Freedom!" "Capitalism!"), one thing stands.
War is the ultimate evil.
Murder is evil, rape is evil, theft is evil, deportation is evil, destruction is evil. But war's got it all, as judge Jackson pointed out during the Nuremberg trials.
Past performance is no guarantee that they won't, this time, start a war. But if I were to bet all my money on a pointless bet, I'd wage that the end of the world is to start when noted war criminal and all around right wing nutbag Netanyahou, as the most likely next PM of Israel, is going to start it all by attacking Iran. Not the scaaary iranian boogeymen.
There are good reasons to give meaningful names to servers. If you give them numerical "names," getting 1 character wrong results in pointing to the wrong machine. If you give them distinct names with redundant information, this is much less likely.
Furthermore, it's absolutely essential to give every machine a name that's distinct from its task. Trust me, one day, that "mailserver" or that "webserver01" might not be doing mail or web serving at all, and you will find that changing the name is more of a problem than you thought.
So recently I had to work on a 200 new server setup; I took the list of star names on Wikipedia, sanitized it a little to remove names too long or or that were too much like another one.
would probably buy you an entry-level modern PC.
If the password protection is only blocking the drive's firmware, but the data is not encrypted on disk, it's a very weak protection. Someone stealing your disk only has to find a disk of the same model, and exchange the platters.
Don't buy car insurance, either.
After all, you've never had an accident! Who are those doomsayers who say you HAVE to?
Beyond file associations, I doubt it uses any. Everything is stored in its preference system, which is stored in prefs.js
AOL/Time Warner was forced by the FTC (iirc) to keep ICQ and AIM separate, so there's nothing new here.
A calculator doesn't read any files, while a media player or a web browser depend heavily, and set the standards in formats.
That's basically how it works in every other areas. Mergers, for instance, have been denied by the EU for less than that.
Microsoft has a market share > 90% in many areas, so it's pretty open and shut; to claim otherwise is ludicrous.
Not everybody uses a "productivity tool." Or a media center / player. Not even a word processor.
But everybody uses a browser. Using the internet means using a browser at some point.
Plus, Microsoft has clearly been a hindrance to web development and standards by letting IE6 rot for 5 years. Even IE7 and IE8 are behind the times. They suck rock. Yet they still have huge market share due to the monopoly power.
This is one of the clear areas where the EU has a mandate to enforce cooperation, competition in the marketplace and interoperability.
Say you have 100% market share. You let a "competitor" exist which would sell just a few boxes of a competing product for a very high price ... in fact you could just buy them yourself. Magic! No monopoly!
Thankfully regulators are not that stupid.
For most intents and purposes, a monopoly in Europe starts at 50% market share. France Telecom for instance is for instance hovering at 49.9% in many markets (mobile phone, ADSL ...) in its native market. It's not a coincidence. They would be immediately and more drastically regulated if they did. The ARCEP (~ FCC) would have the authority to set its prices.
The purpose of those monopoly rules is to ensure there is fair competition. It's quite unfortunate that, so far, Microsoft has been given a free ride. Glad to see it's changing, even if only so slightly.
I skipped randomly into the video, I might have watched 25 seconds total.
Brrrrwwwwrrr.
Something's happened to me. I feel unclean. The nightmares, will they EVER STOP?
I've never cringed that hard.
Ohmydog. This is awful.