Re: Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Warren Young <wyml@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Yes, I realize that osh is closer to the original Bourne shell.  My point is that you can?t expect people to just know, without having been told, why they want bsh, or osh, bosh, or smake, or?
>
> Most of these tools compete with tools that are already in CentOS.  If you want people to use these instead, you?re not going to persuade many people with a tarball.

Could you explain me why people did write gmake even though smake did exist 5 
years eralier already?

> > 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

This is of course completely wrong.

I recommend you to read the GPL book from the Lawyers from Harald Welte.
They explain why a filesystem is not a derived work of the Linux kernel.

This of course in special true for ZFS as ZFS was not written for Linux and 
works without Linux already.

http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling	ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos