Who says this? Where? Whoever they are, they've obviously never used single-user mode on FreeBSD.
When you boot FreeBSD single-user, the last thing it does before giving you a shell prompt is prompt you to tell it what shell to use. If you just press enter, you get/bin/sh.
YDGI. The point isn't that bash shouldn't implement anything new. The point is that bash should have a mode where all the new stuff is turned off.
Look at gcc for an example of this. Gcc has extensions, and they are useful and used. No one has a problem with this. But sometimes people want to use gcc to develop truly portable programs. When they do, they use "-ansi -pedantic" (I think; IANAP) to turn off all of the gcc extensions.
Linux would be a better citizen in the community of unix variants if its Bourne shell implementation offered a similar no-extensions option.
I had a similar problem. A friend of mine wrote a shell script (#!/bin/sh) for Mac OS X. I brought it over to my NeXT, and it didn't work, because it used zsh constructs that weren't supported in the Bourne shell. It was easy to fix, but it's a good illustration of the type of problem you're talking about.
Who says don't change root's shell? Not the FreeBSD Project... in five years of using FreeBSD, I haven't found a single thing that breaks when root's shell changes.
It's always going to be the case that most of the work gets done by relatively few people, because learning enough about a particular project to be able to contribute meaningfully is difficult.
IMHO, developers can ask their users to provide polite, relevant bug reports, and expecting any more than that is wishful thinking.
Apple seems to be backing the other horse, Open Packages, though I see from a later post that they have helped the fink group.
In the long run I think that OP is a more promising project, though one should never be too quick to dismiss the advantages of running code and an installed base.
I don't know that anyone was being an asshole. I think that Chris P.'s work earns him a little better treatment than calling him an asshole as soon as he does something you don't like. I will say that after reading that email exchange, it seems like maybe he was/is suffering from a touch of project burnout. I don't think the OpenOSX guy was as unreasonable as Chris implies.
Re:Already discussed stupid hd buses w/ ATA133 sto
on
Firewire and Linux?
·
· Score: 2
You don't explain why you think Firewire is bad for storage. I don't understand your comment that it has bandwidth galore for DV but not for storage. Bandwidth is bandwidth. Fireware, SCSI, ATA and USB 2 all provide more bandwidth than a single drive than use anyway, if I'm not mistaken.
The assembler tends to show up in parts of the source that have to be machine-dependent anyway, like boot code, device drivers, and the md part of memory management.
I entered the field when the market for systems administrators was hot. All the job descriptions I looked at asked for things I didn't have: experience and/or a bachelor's degree. I told myself that because the market was hot, I might have a chance at these jobs anyway -- and I was right.
I also spent some time doing jobs that didn't really challenge me intellectually, but gave me something to put on my resume. They also helped me get used to an office environment.
Well, now the market's not so overheated, and companies are in a position to be choosier. I suggest that you should not let that stop you. Even though you have no formal qualifications, even though you are older than most entry-level applicants.
Why?
Because my sense, from experience and from gossip, is that many hiring managers are looking for knowledge and intelligence more than they're looking for youth and paperwork. Stock-market bubble or no stock-market bubble, youth and paperwork don't make machines work. There are fewer entry-level jobs than there were, but I think that in any market, you'd be a solid entry-level applicant.
Don't give up. My stepfather started law school at the age of 50, and now has a good job working for New York City.
One of the things I hear about is that IBM was investigated for antitrust, and that this put a damper on their anticompetitive behavior, and *that's* how the market was righted.
Your post reminds me of a conversation I had with an Apple employee. He shared your opinion of the Unix tools. I challenged him to come up with a replacement syntax for the shell that wouldn't have any problems with spaces.
After I shot down his first half a dozen proposals, he started to gain an appreciation for the difficulty of the problem.
So how would *you* rewrite the shell to get rid of problems like this? Be specific. Remember, in 30 years of unix, no one has found a solution to this problem that doesn't break more things than it fixes. So if you do so, you'll be famous.
I know plenty of people who program "for the thrill of writing code" and *still* can't code their way out of a paper bag.
It takes more than a love of computing to make a good programmer. In my humble opinion, it takes a fair amount of education. A brilliant but naive programmer can screw things up pretty impressively. I'd prefer to use code written by someone who isn't such hot shit but takes the time to learn APIs, read documentation, and familiarize himself with the idiom of the language and/or operating system in question.
I'm hardly a die-hard free-marketeer, but if it's really that necessary (and I think it might be), then people will pay for it if a free alternative doesn't exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Who says this? Where? Whoever they are, they've obviously never used single-user mode on FreeBSD.
/bin/sh.
When you boot FreeBSD single-user, the last thing it does before giving you a shell prompt is prompt you to tell it what shell to use. If you just press enter, you get
YDGI. The point isn't that bash shouldn't implement anything new. The point is that bash should have a mode where all the new stuff is turned off.
Look at gcc for an example of this. Gcc has extensions, and they are useful and used. No one has a problem with this. But sometimes people want to use gcc to develop truly portable programs. When they do, they use "-ansi -pedantic" (I think; IANAP) to turn off all of the gcc extensions.
Linux would be a better citizen in the community of unix variants if its Bourne shell implementation offered a similar no-extensions option.
I had a similar problem. A friend of mine wrote a shell script (#!/bin/sh) for Mac OS X. I brought it over to my NeXT, and it didn't work, because it used zsh constructs that weren't supported in the Bourne shell. It was easy to fix, but it's a good illustration of the type of problem you're talking about.
Who says don't change root's shell? Not the FreeBSD Project ... in five years of using FreeBSD, I haven't found a single thing that breaks when root's shell changes.
ITYM tanstaafl.
It's always going to be the case that most of the work gets done by relatively few people, because learning enough about a particular project to be able to contribute meaningfully is difficult.
IMHO, developers can ask their users to provide polite, relevant bug reports, and expecting any more than that is wishful thinking.
Apple seems to be backing the other horse, Open Packages, though I see from a later post that they have helped the fink group.
In the long run I think that OP is a more promising project, though one should never be too quick to dismiss the advantages of running code and an installed base.
I don't know that anyone was being an asshole. I think that Chris P.'s work earns him a little better treatment than calling him an asshole as soon as he does something you don't like. I will say that after reading that email exchange, it seems like maybe he was/is suffering from a touch of project burnout. I don't think the OpenOSX guy was as unreasonable as Chris implies.
You don't explain why you think Firewire is bad for storage. I don't understand your comment that it has bandwidth galore for DV but not for storage. Bandwidth is bandwidth. Fireware, SCSI, ATA and USB 2 all provide more bandwidth than a single drive than use anyway, if I'm not mistaken.
The assembler tends to show up in parts of the source that have to be machine-dependent anyway, like boot code, device drivers, and the md part of memory management.
That's easier said than done. As soon as you want to do something that's not supported in the language spec, you have to pick a compiler.
Wouldn't it be interesting if SourceForge could negotiate license terms for use on its compile farms?
I entered the field when the market for systems administrators was hot. All the job descriptions I looked at asked for things I didn't have: experience and/or a bachelor's degree. I told myself that because the market was hot, I might have a chance at these jobs anyway -- and I was right.
I also spent some time doing jobs that didn't really challenge me intellectually, but gave me something to put on my resume. They also helped me get used to an office environment.
Well, now the market's not so overheated, and companies are in a position to be choosier. I suggest that you should not let that stop you. Even though you have no formal qualifications, even though you are older than most entry-level applicants.
Why?
Because my sense, from experience and from gossip, is that many hiring managers are looking for knowledge and intelligence more than they're looking for youth and paperwork. Stock-market bubble or no stock-market bubble, youth and paperwork don't make machines work. There are fewer entry-level jobs than there were, but I think that in any market, you'd be a solid entry-level applicant.
Don't give up. My stepfather started law school at the age of 50, and now has a good job working for New York City.
I hear about it all the time.
One of the things I hear about is that IBM was investigated for antitrust, and that this put a damper on their anticompetitive behavior, and *that's* how the market was righted.
Silly libertarians, always rewriting history.
"Unix is passe" is passe.
Path parsing is not done by the filesystem.
It's above that layer.
Your post reminds me of a conversation I had with an Apple employee. He shared your opinion of the Unix tools. I challenged him to come up with a replacement syntax for the shell that wouldn't have any problems with spaces.
After I shot down his first half a dozen proposals, he started to gain an appreciation for the difficulty of the problem.
So how would *you* rewrite the shell to get rid of problems like this? Be specific. Remember, in 30 years of unix, no one has found a solution to this problem that doesn't break more things than it fixes. So if you do so, you'll be famous.
I wait with bated breath.
I know plenty of people who program "for the thrill of writing code" and *still* can't code their way out of a paper bag.
It takes more than a love of computing to make a good programmer. In my humble opinion, it takes a fair amount of education. A brilliant but naive programmer can screw things up pretty impressively. I'd prefer to use code written by someone who isn't such hot shit but takes the time to learn APIs, read documentation, and familiarize himself with the idiom of the language and/or operating system in question.
Hahaha.
Sure, just try it with Mac OS X. Let me know how far you get.
Like everything else in computing, modularity comes at a price.
It's hard to make a VM all that modular, of necessity it's closely integrated with the rest of the system.
NetBSD runs on a digital camera, though I can't find a reference for this at the moment.
Because Opera makes my teeth itch and I haven't gotten Mozilla to compile yet.
When I'm at home, I use OmniWeb.
4.76 crashes several times a day on my NetBSD 1.5 machine.
Not to mention, the PTO can't collect renewal fees on patents they don't grant.
I'm hardly a die-hard free-marketeer, but if it's really that necessary (and I think it might be), then people will pay for it if a free alternative doesn't exist.