[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2239 bytes --] MacOS finally pushed me to zsh. So I went all the way and installed oh-my-zsh. It makes me feel very dirty, and I have a two-line prompt (!!), but I can't deny it's convenient. tickets/DM-32983 ✗ adam@m1-wired:~/git/jenkins-dm-jobs$ (and in my terminal, the X glyph next to my git branch showing the status is dirty is red while the branch name is green) and if something doesn't exit with rc=0... adam@m1-wired:~/git/jenkins-dm-jobs$ fart zsh: command not found: fart tickets/DM-32983 ✗127 ⚠️ adam@m1-wired:~/git/jenkins-dm-jobs$ Then I also get the little warning glyph and the rc of the last command in my prompt. But then I'm also now using Fira Code with ligatures in my terminal, so I've pretty much gone full Red Lightsaber. Adam On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 7:41 AM Norman Wilson <norman@oclsc.org> wrote: > Thomas Paulsen: > > bash is clearly more advanced. ksh is retro computing. > > ==== > > Shell wars are, in the end, no more interesting than editor wars. > > I use bash on Linux systems because it's the least-poorly > supported of the Bourne-family shells, besides which bash > is there by default. Ksh isn't. > > I use ksh on OpenBSD systems because it's the least-poorly > supported of the Bourne-family shells, besides which kh > is there by default. Bash isn't. > > I don't actually care for most of the extra crap in either > of those shells. I don't want my shell to do line editing > or auto-completion, and I find the csh-derived history > mechanisms more annoying than useful so I turn them off > too. To my mind, the Research 10/e sh had it about right, > including the simple way functions were exported and the > whatis built-in that told you whether something was a > variable or a shell function or an external executable, > and printed the first two in forms easily edited on the > screen and re-used. > > Terminal programs that don't let you easily edit input > or output from the screen and re-send it, and programs > that abet them by spouting gratuitous ANSI control > sequences: now THAT's what I call retro-computing. > > Probably further discussion of any of this belongs in > COFF. > > Norman Wilson > Toronto ON > [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2919 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 141 bytes --] _______________________________________________ COFF mailing list COFF@minnie.tuhs.org https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2150 bytes --] -tuhs +coff On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 1:30 AM <jason-tuhs@shalott.net> wrote: > As a vendor or distributor, you would care. Anyone doing an OS or other > software distribution (think the BSDs, of course; There is no legal reason why the BSDs can't distribute GPLed software; indeed, they did so for many years. Their objection is purely ideological. > but also think Apple or > Microsoft) needs to care. Apple and Microsoft can buy up, outspend, out-lawyer, or just outwait anyone suing them for infringement. Their only reasons for not doing so are reputational. > Anyone selling a hardware device with embedded > software (think switches/routers; think IOT devices; think consumer > devices like DVRs; etc) needs to care. Only if they are determined to infringe. Obeying the GPL's rules (most often for BusyBox) is straightforward, and the vast majority of infringers (per the FSF's legal team) are not aware that they have done anything wrong and are willing to comply once notified, which cures the defect (much less of a penalty than for most infringements). The ex-infringers do not seem to consider this a serious competitive disadvantage. GPL licensors are generous sharers, but you have to be willing to share yourself. I saw this dynamic in action while working for Reuters; we were licensing our health-related news to websites, and I would occasionally google for fragments of our articles. When I found one on a site I didn't recognize, I'd pass the website to Sales, who would sweetly point out that infringement could cost them up to $15,000 per article, and for a very reasonable price.... They were happy to sign up once they were made aware that just because something is available on the Internet doesn't mean you can republish it on your site. GPL (or similar "virally" > licensed) software carries legal implications for anyone selling or > distributing products that contain such software; and this can be a > motivation to use software with less-restrictive license terms. Only to the victims of FUD. Reusing source code is one thing: repackaging programs is another. I'll say no more about this here. [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4254 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 141 bytes --] _______________________________________________ COFF mailing list COFF@minnie.tuhs.org https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2272 bytes --] On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 9:14 AM John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> wrote: > -tuhs +coff > > On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 1:30 AM <jason-tuhs@shalott.net> wrote: > > >> As a vendor or distributor, you would care. Anyone doing an OS or other >> software distribution (think the BSDs, of course; > > > There is no legal reason why the BSDs can't distribute GPLed software; > indeed, they did so for many years. Their objection is purely ideological. > However, not all of our downstreams could, however. So it's also a practical consideration. Also, some left over anger from the early days when BSD software would sometimes have the copyrights removed and be GPL'd. Thankfully, all the old cases of that were resolved years ago. Anyone selling a hardware device with embedded >> software (think switches/routers; think IOT devices; think consumer >> devices like DVRs; etc) needs to care. > > > Only if they are determined to infringe. Obeying the GPL's rules (most > often for BusyBox) is straightforward, and the vast majority of infringers > (per the FSF's legal team) are not aware that they have done anything wrong > and are willing to comply once notified, which cures the defect (much less > of a penalty than for most infringements). The ex-infringers do not seem > to consider this a serious competitive disadvantage. GPL licensors are > generous sharers, but you have to be willing to share yourself. > Except it's easier to just use software where there's not a compliance issue. Regardless of the altruism of the GPL licensors, easier is a competitive advantage. It's taken about 15 years from the initial busy-box suits for supply chains to catch up with the proper provenance so that downstreams know they are getting the proper sources. GPL (or similar "virally" >> licensed) software carries legal implications for anyone selling or >> distributing products that contain such software; and this can be a >> motivation to use software with less-restrictive license terms. > > > Only to the victims of FUD. Reusing source code is one thing: repackaging > programs is another. > Having been on the other side of this (a GPL shakedown that was improper), I'd say it's more than just FUD. The GPL is cool and all, but it isn't all roses and sunshine. Warner [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4135 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 141 bytes --] _______________________________________________ COFF mailing list COFF@minnie.tuhs.org https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 10:33:29AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > The GPL is cool and all, but it isn't all roses and sunshine. +100%. The FSF has a nasty habit of just taking over GPLed software and acting like they produced. Groff is an example, there are lots of others. The GPL is fine, the FSF is pretty corrupt in my opinion. _______________________________________________ COFF mailing list COFF@minnie.tuhs.org https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 409 bytes --] On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 12:44 PM Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote: +100%. The FSF has a nasty habit of just taking over GPLed software and > acting like they produced. Groff is an example, there are lots of others. How's that? James Clark donated the groff copyright to the FSF in 1991, and they released it under the GPL 1.0 or later (since upgraded). It's as much theirs as any software is anybody's. [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 980 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 141 bytes --] _______________________________________________ COFF mailing list COFF@minnie.tuhs.org https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 131 bytes --] Still using ksh on HP-UX 11.31 on an rx2660 Itanium based server :-) -- The more I learn the better I understand I know nothing. [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 282 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: 20211224 using ksh.jpg --] [-- Type: image/jpeg, Size: 157307 bytes --] [-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 141 bytes --] _______________________________________________ COFF mailing list COFF@minnie.tuhs.org https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff