lvc@cbnews.att.com (Lawrence V. Cipriani) (09/29/90)
ksh 11/16/88e is now available in the AT&T Toolchest; there
is a $150 upgrade for previous purchasers.
Regarding HP-UX 7, this ksh compiles and passes regression
tests under that OS.
You can reach the Toolchest at 201-522-6900 @ 1200 baud; new
users can login as guest.
Okay, okay, this is a blatant advertisment! What of it!?
--
Larry Cipriani, att!cbdkc1!larry or larry@cbdkc1.att.com
"Save a logger, eat an owl"jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) (09/29/90)
lvc@cbnews.att.com (Lawrence V. Cipriani) wrote: > ksh 11/16/88e is now available in the AT&T Toolchest; there is a $150 > upgrade for previous purchasers. Regarding HP-UX 7, this ksh compiles > and passes regression tests under that OS. What's the story with SunOS 4.1? We are upgrading to that from 4.0.? and our version of ksh doesn't work under that. Does this one? -- -- Jack Campin Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland 041 339 8855 x6044 work 041 556 1878 home JANET: jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk BANG!net: via mcsun and ukc FAX: 041 330 4913 INTERNET: via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk BITNET: via UKACRL UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (10/01/90)
In article <6432@vanuata.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes: | What's the story with SunOS 4.1? We are upgrading to that from 4.0.? and | our version of ksh doesn't work under that. Does this one? I got 88d working nicely under SunOS 4.1 on Sun4s. I'm not sure what I did, nothing fancy I'm sure. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
lvc@cbnews.att.com (Lawrence V. Cipriani) (10/02/90)
In article <6432@vanuata.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>, jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes: > > What's the story with SunOS 4.1? We are upgrading to that from 4.0.? and > our version of ksh doesn't work under that. Does this one? Don't know, but ksh88 has been compiled and beta tested on the following systems. An asterisk signifies that ksh has been installed as /bin/sh on this machine. * System V Release 2, 3, & 4 on AT&T 3B's. * System V Release 2 on UNIX-PC. * System V Release 3.[12] on AT&T 6386. System V Release 2 on Vaxen. System V Release 2 on Amdahl UTS. * System V Release 3 on Counterpoint CP-19. * BSD 4.3 on Vax 8650 * BSD 4.3 on CCI. Version 9 on Vax 785. * Sun 3.5 on Sun 3's. * Sun 4.0 on Sun 3's and Sun 4's. Sun 4.0 on Sun 386-i. Unicos on Cray-2. UNIX on Masscomp 5400 in ucb universe. HP/UX 2.0 on HP-9000. Ultrix 2.0 on Microvax. Domain/IX on Apollo 3000. Custonmuix 4.1 on Alliant. UIMPS 3.1 on a MIPS 120-5 5.0 on a Pyramid in ucb universe. -- Larry Cipriani, att!cbdkc1!larry or larry@cbdkc1.att.com "Save a logger, eat an owl"
towfiq@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Towfiq) (10/02/90)
In article <1990Sep28.205053.16456@cbnews.att.com> lvc@cbnews.att.com (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: ksh 11/16/88e is now available in the AT&T Toolchest; there is a $150 upgrade for previous purchasers. [rest of yucky advertising deleted] Okay, okay, this is a blatant advertisment! What of it!? There are several things wrong with this blatant advertisement: 1) It has always been frowned upon to post ads to regular groups, and some people are actively hostile to it. Most netters try to be more objective about mentioning products, so that even if they talk about their own product, they mention pros and cons WRT other products. 2) The ksh is a miserable piece of junk, when compared to the GNU superset shell, BASH (which supports ksh-like vi-type editing, and built-in help, among other things). GNU is free, with modifiable source; ksh costs money. 3) People don't want junk postings any more than they want junk mail. There is a newsgroup for this stuff, you know. I'll let you read news.announce.NEWUSERS to find out what it is. Please refrain from this in the future. -- Mark Towfigh, Racal InterLan, Inc. towfiq@interlan.Interlan.COM W: (508) 263-9929 H: (617) 488-2818 uunet!interlan!towfiq "The Earth is but One Country, and Mankind its Citizens" -- Baha'u'llah
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (10/02/90)
In article <TOWFIQ.90Oct2112703@lcxserver.InterLan.COM> towfiq@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Towfiq) writes: > 2) The ksh is a miserable piece of junk, when compared to the > GNU superset shell, BASH (which supports ksh-like vi-type > editing, and built-in help, among other things). GNU is free, > with modifiable source; ksh costs $150. OK...so it's not OK to blatantly advertise commercial products, but it's OK to blatantly advertise the soi-disant Free Software Foundation's products. I get it now. GNU stuff is *not* free. It costs something other than money, though: it costs your freedom to do as you like with your code if you include even a line of their code. $150 sure sounds cheap by comparison. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "It's a hardware bug!" "It's a +--------------------------------------- software bug!" "It's two...two...two bugs in one!" - _Engineer's Rap_
gt0178a@prism.gatech.EDU (Jim Burns) (10/03/90)
in article <TOWFIQ.90Oct2112703@lcxserver.InterLan.COM>, towfiq@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Towfiq) says: > There are several things wrong with this blatant advertisement: > 2) The ksh is a miserable piece of junk, when compared to the Speak for yourself. Since the poster provided information on *where* to obtain this product, and how much it would put me back, I found it very valuable, and would not want to see it restricted from the c.u.* hierarchy. There have been many times when the ATT Toolchest has been mentioned as a source. This has been very helpful for those not in the know of what they offer. -- BURNS,JIM Georgia Institute of Technology, Box 30178, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt0178a Internet: gt0178a@prism.gatech.edu
paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO) (10/03/90)
towfiq@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Towfiq) writes: > 3) People don't want junk postings any more than they want > junk mail. There is a newsgroup for this stuff, you know. > I'll let you read news.announce.NEWUSERS to find out what it > is. > >Please refrain from this in the future. Please speak for yourself. I found this a valuable posting as we have been waiting some time for ksh88e to be released. /pbp -- Paul Pomes UUCP: {att,iuvax,uunet}!uiucuxc!paul Internet, BITNET: paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu US Mail: UofIllinois, CSO, 1304 W Springfield Ave, Urbana, IL 61801-2910
de5@de5.ctd.ornl.gov (Dave Sill) (10/03/90)
In article <4140@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: > >OK...so it's not OK to blatantly advertise commercial products, but it's OK to >blatantly advertise the soi-disant Free Software Foundation's products. I get >it now. That's right. In the former case, a comercial entity gains advantage at the expense of the USENET community. In the latter, everyone benefits and no profits are made at the expense of others. >GNU stuff is *not* free. It costs something other than money, though: it costs >your freedom to do as you like with your code if you include even a line of >their code. $150 sure sounds cheap by comparison. Yes, their are restrictions on what you can do with *their* code--you're free to do whatever you want with your own code--but isn't that only fair? And there is absolutely no reason why one would need to include a modified bash in their product, so the fear of it causing you to give your precious code away is baseless. -- Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) Martin Marietta Energy Systems Workstation Support
kaul@icarus.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rich Kaul) (10/03/90)
In article <4140@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
GNU stuff is *not* free. It costs something other than money, though: it costs
your freedom to do as you like with your code if you include even a line of
their code. $150 sure sounds cheap by comparison.
Wait a minute. Engage brain before fingers. Just how much do you
think it will cost you if you include any AT&T code in your product?
Especially if you don't ask them about it first. Lawyers ain't
exactly cheap.
I believe that the statement is: the GNU stuff doesn't cost you
anything to install. The AT&T stuff costs bucks and "doesn't work as
well" (no comment on that last since I run the GNU stuff and haven't
tried the AT&T stuff in ages).
--
Rich Kaul | It wouldn't be research if we
kaul@icarus.eng.ohio-state.edu | knew what we were doing.jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (10/03/90)
In article <1990Oct2.180301.10897@cs.utk.edu> Dave Sill <de5@ornl.gov> writes: >In article <4140@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: >>OK...so it's not OK to blatantly advertise commercial products, but it's OK to >>blatantly advertise the soi-disant Free Software Foundation's products. I get >>it now. >That's right. In the former case, a comercial entity gains advantage >at the expense of the USENET community. In the latter, everyone >benefits and no profits are made at the expense of others. *Everyone* benefits? I doubt it. Only those that have bought into the GNU utopia benefit. The rest of us who do not wish to join Stallman's crusade pay to shuffle around more bits. No monetary profits may be made, but that's not all there is to it. There have been messages already posted about how people have benefited by the ksh88e announcement. There is no difference in substance between the two cases. The audience for the FSF announcement is NOT everyone, nor is it even all of the Usenet community. >>GNU stuff is *not* free. It costs something other than money, though: it costs >>your freedom to do as you like with your code if you include even a line of >>their code. $150 sure sounds cheap by comparison. >Yes, their are restrictions on what you can do with *their* >code--you're free to do whatever you want with your own code--but >isn't that only fair? And there is absolutely no reason why one would >need to include a modified bash in their product, so the fear of it >causing you to give your precious code away is baseless. Your statement is only true if you also hold to the belief that placing their code in your code automatically turns your code into their code. There's only one word that correctly describes that scenario: theft. The FSF has stolen your code, and turned it into their code, all by a couple of innocuous-sounding lines in the GNU Public Virus...er...License. Don't believe that? Then you must believe instead that the GPV tells you what you can do with *your* code. The results are analogous. I will have no GPV-licensed code on my computer, so as to remove any and all doubt about whether or not my code contains any GPV-licensed code. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "It's a hardware bug!" "It's a +--------------------------------------- software bug!" "It's two...two...two bugs in one!" - _Engineer's Rap_
shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (10/03/90)
lvc@cbnews.att.com (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: >ksh 11/16/88e is now available in the AT&T Toolchest; there >is a $150 upgrade for previous purchasers. Not quite, though I wish it were so. Checking the Toolchest board I find that those licensed to the older 1986 version of ksh-i or the even earlier ksh can update for $1,650 plus transmission costs. Those licensed to the earlier ksh-88 can update for $150 plus transmission costs. [Of course, if Lawrence considered only these latter to be "previous purchasers", consider this a clarification.]
mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) (10/03/90)
In article <4140@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
GNU stuff is *not* free. It costs something other than money, though: it costs
your freedom to do as you like with your code if you include even a line of
their code. $150 sure sounds cheap by comparison.
Just out of curiosity, when did AT&T start allowing people to freely
redistribute their code if it's part of a derived work? At least,
you're implying that I'm free to do what I want with my code if it
includes AT&T's code, which generally includes redistribution.
<mike
--
How many times do you have to fall Mike Meyer
While people stand there gawking? mwm@relay.pa.dec.com
How many times do you have to fall decwrl!mwm
Before you end up walking?goer@quads.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) (10/03/90)
Jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: > >GNU stuff is *not* free. It costs something other than money, though: it costs >your freedom to do as you like with your code if you include even a line of >their code. $150 sure sounds cheap by comparison. Whether or not you agree with the GNU philosophy, it just doesn't make sense to sneer at the countless man-hours they have put into their fine products - and this basically either for altruistic reasons, devotion to a non self-serving cause, or else for the pure love of their work. If you think that this is worse than commercialism, and ought to be banned from the net, then it looks - at least to me - as though your value-system is upside down. -Richard
gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) (10/03/90)
Followups to gnu.misc.discuss, since this has little to do with unix
shells.
Jay Maynard writes:
#Your statement is only true if you also hold to the belief that placing their
#code in your code automatically turns your code into their code. There's only
#one word that correctly describes that scenario: theft. The FSF has
#stolen your
#code, and turned it into their code, all by a couple of innocuous-sounding
#lines in the GNU Public Virus...er...License.
Are you spreading misinformation through ingorance or malice? While I
don't speak for the FSF, the FSF does not consider that using FSF code
makes your code become theirs. If you use their code in your programs,
the copyright belongs to you both. If you wish to distribute this
code, you have to do so in a mutually agreeable form. The FSF tells
you up front what their terms are.
What the FSF is doing is by no stretch of the imagination theft.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7wlvc@cbnews.att.com (Lawrence V. Cipriani) (10/03/90)
Let me get this right, it's okay for Larry Wall to post announcements
about the availability of perl in comp.lang.perl but it's not okay
to announce the availability of ksh in comp.lang.shell? Right, you
guys are just too much. Wall benefits financially, albeit indirectly,
from his work on perl; likewise for Korn. What's the difference?
None, except Korn is employed privately whereas Wall is employed by
the US federal gov't. If anyone thinks there is a difference between
AT&T and the US federal gov't benefitting from their employees work
I'm gonna puke.
Also, I have seen far too many posts asking "What is the latest ksh
and where can I get it?" I am tired of seeing them[!], my post will
help put an end to it. I will continue to post announcements of ksh
availability here.
Till next time ...
--
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox!lvc or lvc@cbvox.att.com
"Save a logger, eat an owl"aps@tut.fi (Suntioinen Ari) (10/03/90)
In article <TOWFIQ.90Oct2112740@lcxserver.InterLan.COM> towfiq@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Towfiq) writes:
=> 2) The ksh is a miserable piece of junk, when compared to the
=> GNU superset shell, BASH (which supports ksh-like vi-type
=> editing, and built-in help, among other things). GNU is free,
=> with modifiable source; ksh costs money.
BASH is great, it dumps core and has clear documentation.
--
..............................................................................
: Ari Suntioinen -- aps@tut.fi "He disagreed with something that ate him." :
:............................................................................:rkh@mtune.ATT.COM (Robert Halloran) (10/03/90)
In article <1990Oct2.180301.10897@cs.utk.edu> Dave Sill <de5@ornl.gov> writes: >In article <4140@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: >>GNU stuff is *not* free. It costs something other than money, though: it costs >>your freedom to do as you like with your code if you include even a line of >>their code. $150 sure sounds cheap by comparison. > >Yes, their are restrictions on what you can do with *their* >code--you're free to do whatever you want with your own code--but >isn't that only fair? And there is absolutely no reason why one would >need to include a modified bash in their product, so the fear of it >causing you to give your precious code away is baseless. Of course, I thought the premise of FSF's forcing source distribution was to *encourage* enhancements to their products. Silly me..... And yes, I think they ARE products; the General Public Virus (I like that term) is as much a licensing agreement as anything shrinkwrapped on the back of the latest Lotus release. The terms may differ, but the idea of 'it's OUR code and you have to play by OUR rules' is the same. "I can't afford free software" is being heard quite a bit these days. FSF's attitude may have something to do with it. Bob Halloran ========================================================================= Internet: rkh@mtune.dptg.att.com UUCP: att!mtune!rkh Disclaimer: If you think AT&T would have ME as a spokesman, you're crazed. Quote: "How do you know when a politician is lying? His lips move." - M-m-max Headroom "Read my lips - no new taxes..." - G. Bush, 1988 =========================================================================
jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) (10/03/90)
towfiq@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Towfiq) wrote: > lvc@cbnews.att.com (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: >> ksh 11/16/88e is now available in the AT&T Toolchest; there >> is a $150 upgrade for previous purchasers. > There are several things wrong with this blatant advertisement: > 1) It has always been frowned upon to post ads to regular groups [...] Not unconditionally. This ad didn't indulge in superfluous puffery. It was useful to me. > 2) The ksh is a miserable piece of junk, when compared to the GNU superset > shell, BASH (which supports ksh-like vi-type editing [...] Last time I heard about it, bash didn't have "select", which makes it a LONG way from being a superset. (If the only edit mode it has is vi, forget it). I appreciate Larry telling us about the new version, and hope that new versions of other shells are also announced here. -- -- Jack Campin Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland 041 339 8855 x6044 work 041 556 1878 home JANET: jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk BANG!net: via mcsun and ukc FAX: 041 330 4913 INTERNET: via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk BITNET: via UKACRL UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp
kaul@icarus.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rich Kaul) (10/03/90)
In article <APS.90Oct3040434@kaarne.tut.fi> aps@tut.fi (Suntioinen Ari) writes:
BASH is great, it dumps core and has clear documentation.
BASH *is* rather nice. Yes, as distributed it will dump core on
machines trap a dereferenced NULL, but anyone who has any programming
ability can track that down can fix it (there have been N+1 messages
about this problem on the mailing list) or just reading the mailing
list will also tell you how to fix it. Let's see you try and fix any
bug you find in a binary-only distribution. As for clear
documentation, there's Chet's man page and the POSIX spec. That's at
least as well as most vendors document the shells they ship.
--
Rich Kaul | It wouldn't be research if we
kaul@icarus.eng.ohio-state.edu | knew what we were doing.chet@cwns1.CWRU.EDU (Chet Ramey) (10/03/90)
In article <APS.90Oct3040434@kaarne.tut.fi> aps@tut.fi (Suntioinen Ari) writes: >=> 2) The ksh is a miserable piece of junk, when compared to the >=> GNU superset shell, BASH (which supports ksh-like vi-type >=> editing, and built-in help, among other things). GNU is free, >=> with modifiable source; ksh costs money. > >BASH is great, it dumps core and has clear documentation. Well, I guess you're entitled to a full refund. Korn first released ksh in 1982. Bash has had a year. Give us time to catch up. As to documentation, FTP to cwns1.ins.cwru.edu (129.22.8.43) for a very detailed bash manual page. It's in pub/bash/bash.1. There's also a Postscript version there in bash.PS. The next release of bash will have an `FSF-style' texinfo manual. I've proofed it; I know it exists. The next release of bash should also be much more stable. Brian is in the process of merging two slightly divergent versions -- his and mine. I run mine here as sh on several machines (all 4.3 BSD, but then that's what we've got...), and haven't had a version that wasn't in the middle of some development cycle dump core in months. I would expect the merged version to be just as reliable. (By the way, I don't mind Larry posting ksh announcements here. In fact, I'd like him to post a list of changes between 88d and 88e, if he would. I'm always looking for reasonable ksh features to incorporate into bash.) Chet -- Chet Ramey ``Levi Stubbs' tears run down Network Services Group his face...'' Case Western Reserve University chet@ins.CWRU.Edu
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (10/03/90)
In article <MWM.90Oct2145651@raven.pa.dec.com> mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes: >Just out of curiosity, when did AT&T start allowing people to freely >redistribute their code if it's part of a derived work? At least, >you're implying that I'm free to do what I want with my code if it >includes AT&T's code, which generally includes redistribution. They didn't, as far as I know. The difference is that AT&T isn't claiming that their method is the best way to make code useful to humanity (a claim made at the end of the GPV). AT&T isn't calling themselves the Free anything. You don't expect to be able to reuse AT&T code. In short, I'm implying nothing of the sort. AT&T is entirely up front about it. The FSF is saying, "Reuse code! Pass it around! Improve on it! ..Oh, by the way, we can control what you do with it if you do." Sneaky, despicable, and underhanded. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "It's a hardware bug!" "It's a +--------------------------------------- software bug!" "It's two...two...two bugs in one!" - _Engineer's Rap_
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (10/03/90)
In article <1990Oct2.222058.1752@midway.uchicago.edu> goer@quads.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) writes: >Whether or not you agree with the GNU philosophy, it just doesn't >make sense to sneer at the countless man-hours they have put >into their fine products - and this basically either for altruistic >reasons, devotion to a non self-serving cause, or else for the pure >love of their work. My admiration is reserved for those who make their programs truly free, without the political claptrap associated with Stallman's utopia, and without unobvious gotchas. Examples abound on the net: Larry Wall's rn, patch, and perl; Henry Spencer and Geoff Collyer's Cnews; and Phil Karn's KA9Q TCP/IP package spring immediately to mind. The FSF is an aberration on the net, and it galls me to no end to see them constantly held up as altruistic saints. The emperor has no clothes, folks! The FSF has a specific political agenda, and their software and licensing terms serve that agenda. Anything else is whitewash. >If you think that this is worse than commercialism, and ought to >be banned from the net, then it looks - at least to me - as though >your value-system is upside down. It is worse than commercialism - for it is commercialism, and a political agenda, hiding behind a false label. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "It's a hardware bug!" "It's a +--------------------------------------- software bug!" "It's two...two...two bugs in one!" - _Engineer's Rap_
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (10/03/90)
In article <1990Oct2.224810.1547@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: >Followups to gnu.misc.discuss, since this has little to do with unix >shells. We don't get gnu.misc.discuss here. Normally, I would have ignored this posting, since Mr. Hennessy and I have had this discussion before, but I must respond to a personal attack, and I will do so in the group where the attack was posted. >Jay Maynard writes: >#Your statement is only true if you also hold to the belief that placing their >#code in your code automatically turns your code into their code. There's only >#one word that correctly describes that scenario: theft. The FSF has >#stolen your >#code, and turned it into their code, all by a couple of innocuous-sounding >#lines in the GNU Public Virus...er...License. >Are you spreading misinformation through ingorance or malice? While I >don't speak for the FSF, the FSF does not consider that using FSF code >makes your code become theirs. If you use their code in your programs, >the copyright belongs to you both. If you wish to distribute this >code, you have to do so in a mutually agreeable form. The FSF tells >you up front what their terms are. Greg, go back and reread the first sentence. Parse it out carefully. It's a conditional. The whole paragraph applies directly only if the conditional is true. I am not spreading misinformation, either ignorantly or maliciously. I am doing my best to point out to anyone who might get sucked in by the FSF's propaganda machine the ramifications of using GNU code, and showing that the FSF isn't. Just because you are charged $0 for the software doesn't make it free. If the FSF was subject to truth in advertising laws, they'd have to change their name and publicity. >What the FSF is doing is by no stretch of the imagination theft. Then what is it? They're telling me what I can do with my property. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "It's a hardware bug!" "It's a +--------------------------------------- software bug!" "It's two...two...two bugs in one!" - _Engineer's Rap_
gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) (10/04/90)
Jay Maynard writes:
#We don't get gnu.misc.discuss here.
Followup to alt.religion.computers, then. Lets this out of an
inappropiate group.
#Normally, I would have ignored this
#posting, since Mr. Hennessy and I have had this discussion before, but I must
#respond to a personal attack, and I will do so in the group where the attack
#was posted.
Since I have not made a personal attack, this is faulty reasoning.
#Greg, go back and reread the first sentence. Parse it out carefully. It's a
#conditional. The whole paragraph applies directly only if the conditional is
#true.
Oh, I see. You set up a strawman, then demolish it. If you intended
people to realize that your scenerio has no relationship to reality,
then you did not spread misinformation. You were speculating what may
happen, and then called the FSF theives because of their hypothetical
actions in your sccenerio.
Cute.
# I am not spreading misinformation, either ignorantly or maliciously. I
#am doing my best to point out to anyone who might get sucked in by the FSF's
#propaganda machine the ramifications of using GNU code, and showing that the
#FSF isn't.
#If the
#FSF was subject to truth in advertising laws, they'd have to change their name
#and publicity.
Since their code is free by one definition they are fine. It is not
their fault that the word "free" has several meanings. I have
sugguested that they change their name to the Redistributable Software
Foundation, but that is a different matter.
#Then what is it? They're telling me what I can do with my property.
No, they are telling you their position on property owned by both of
you. If you and I write a program together, we have to both agree on
the distribution. If you and the FSF both write a program (which is
what happends when you use FSF code) both of you have to agree on the
distribution.
You are the one trying to get the benefit of using free code, and then
not passing that benefit on to others.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7wgsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) (10/04/90)
Jay Maynard writes:
#My admiration is reserved for those who make their programs truly
#free, without
#the political claptrap associated with Stallman's utopia, and without
#unobvious
#gotchas. Examples abound on the net: Larry Wall's rn, patch, and
#perl;
I guess that you are unaware that Larry Wall is now distributing perl
under the terms of the GPL. And could you please keep your line length
to below 80 characters?
#The FSF has a specific political agenda, and their software and
#licensing terms serve that agenda. Anything else is whitewash.
Jay Maynard has a specific political agenda, and his software and
licensing terms serve that agenda. Anything else is whitewash.
Does that make you an abberation on the net?
#Never ascribe to malice that which can
#equately be explained by stupidity.
It is amazing how appropriate that signature is for you.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7wmwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) (10/04/90)
In article <4145@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: In article <MWM.90Oct2145651@raven.pa.dec.com> mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes: >Just out of curiosity, when did AT&T start allowing people to freely >redistribute their code if it's part of a derived work? At least, >you're implying that I'm free to do what I want with my code if it >includes AT&T's code, which generally includes redistribution. In short, I'm implying nothing of the sort. By complaining about the FSF licensing "stealing" code, while recommending AT&T code, you imply that the AT&T code doesn't have those problems. Since AT&T hasn't changed their licensing, the truth of the matter is that they steal your code to an even larger degree than the FSF. A derived work I create that includes AT&T code can only be redistributed - no matter what the conditions - to people who hold a license for that source. A derived work I create using FSF code can be redistributed to anyone I wish, under the conditions that should be well-known to wise developers. You don't expect to be able to reuse AT&T code. I expect to be able to reuse any well-written piece of software. So in general, you're right. The FSF is saying, "Reuse code! Pass it around! Improve on it! ..Oh, by the way, we can control what you do with it if you do." Well, if you're foolish enough to use software without reading the license, then it looks like that. Me, I carefully read the license for _any_ software before I install/use it. That avoids problems like AT&T calling me with to many lawyers because I accidently distributed part of dd. <mike -- It's been a hard day's night, Mike Meyer And I been working like a dog. mwm@relay.pa.dec.com It's been a hard day's night, decwrl!mwm I should be sleeping like a log.
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (10/04/90)
In article <TOWFIQ.90Oct2112740@lcxserver.InterLan.COM> towfiq@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Towfiq) writes: | There are several things wrong with this blatant advertisement: | | 1) It has always been frowned upon to post ads to regular | groups, and some people are actively hostile to it. So then why post your FSF ad? You should post informational postings, like the one about ksh88e. | 2) The ksh is a miserable piece of junk, when compared to the | GNU superset shell, BASH (which supports ksh-like vi-type | editing, and built-in help, among other things). GNU is free, | with modifiable source; ksh costs money. bash is nice if you want to modify the source. ksh comes with source which works, and I've compiled 88d on about 15 machines and o/s variations without having to port a special compiler or set of header files to compile it. Not everyone run gcc. | 3) People don't want junk postings any more than they want | junk mail. So don't post junk mail. | There is a newsgroup for this stuff, you know. | I'll let you read news.announce.NEWUSERS to find out what it | is. Hell, I'll tell you for free: alt.flame. Please take your posting and philosophy with you. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (10/04/90)
In article <MWM.90Oct2145651@raven.pa.dec.com> mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes: | Just out of curiosity, when did AT&T start allowing people to freely | redistribute their code if it's part of a derived work? V6, I believe. You can compile stuff with their compiler, link it with their linker, and link in their library, and sell the resulting executable without giving away source. Don't use bison or the (still in beta) FSF library if you want to keep your code to yourself. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (10/04/90)
mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes: >Just out of curiosity, when did AT&T start allowing people to freely >redistribute their code if it's part of a derived work? At least, >you're implying that I'm free to do what I want with my code if it >includes AT&T's code, which generally includes redistribution. As is the case with other Toolchest products, one may choose to take out a binary distribution license that will permit one to distribute product based on the licensed source. Of course, this costs money, but one is always free to find something else that meets his needs. One additional advantage of ksh against bash and other PD stuff is that it will be a supported component under System V Rel 4. Those spoiled children contrasting the products of the profit-oriented against the selfless copyleft'ers should remember that much of the sustenance of the latter comes from the former.
goer@quads.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) (10/04/90)
Jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: > >Then what is it? They're telling me what I can do with my property. Oh I see now. It's like this: I develop a new drug that will perhaps help many people. But I want to sell it in such a way that I can hide the actual chemical structure of the compound. After all, it is "my property." -Richard
goer@quads.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) (10/04/90)
Jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: >The FSF is saying, "Reuse code! Pass it around! Improve on it! ..Oh, >by the way, we can control what you do with it if you do." Sneaky, despicable, >and underhanded. While some might have a legitimate disagreement with the FSF's philosophy, it's hard to take an argument seriously when it descends into hyperbole. The GNU license is plastered all over their software, and in fact they make no attempt at being sneaky about things. Despicable? Underhanded? This is getting to be a bit much. I'll take a "sneaky, underhanded, despicable" outfit that gives me free and high-quality products over one that expects me to remain willingly ignorant of the ingredients inside those products any day. -Richard
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (10/04/90)
In article <1990Oct4.052956.5372@midway.uchicago.edu> goer@quads.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) writes: >Jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: >>Then what is it? They're telling me what I can do with my property. >Oh I see now. It's like this: I develop a new drug that will perhaps >help many people. But I want to sell it in such a way that I can hide >the actual chemical structure of the compound. After all, it is "my >property." Ever hear of drug patents? (Boy, are we ever far afield now!) Yes, that's exactly correct. It is your property, to do with as you please. That's the basis of our system. (Followups to email, please...Greg Hennessy is right: this has gone on long enough in this group.) -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "It's a hardware bug!" "It's a +--------------------------------------- software bug!" "It's two...two...two bugs in one!" - _Engineer's Rap_
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (10/04/90)
In article <1990Oct3.180406.16479@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: >Jay Maynard writes: >#My admiration is reserved for those who make their programs truly free... >#Examples abound on the net: Larry Wall's rn, patch, and perl... >I guess that you are unaware that Larry Wall is now distributing perl >under the terms of the GPL. I'm truly sorry to hear that...I guess that means I'll have to do without perl, as well as gcc, g++, bash, and the other pieces of undoubtedly fine, though GPV-tainted, software out there. >And could you please keep your line length to below 80 characters? I have been...(picky, picky.) Actually, I can't generate a line longer than 79 characters using the lashup I'm on without significant pain. This line is 76 characters long. >Jay Maynard has a specific political agenda, and his software and >licensing terms serve that agenda. Anything else is whitewash. >Does that make you an abberation on the net? My sole reason for existing is NOT my political agenda, unlike the FSF. The other difference between us is that people are unlikely to forget mine, at least in this area, while people apparently (from the postings I see) forget the FSF's all the time. You're right in one area, though...this has gone on in comp.unix.shell long enough. Followups by email, please. (No, I don't get alt.religion.computer here, either, and my home system will be down for another week or so.) -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "It's a hardware bug!" "It's a +--------------------------------------- software bug!" "It's two...two...two bugs in one!" - _Engineer's Rap_
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (10/05/90)
Just as a matter of interest, would you recommend alt.flame.gnu or alt.flame.fsf for a forum for this debate? (hold off folks, RMS is supposed to be relaxking the library terms) -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
lvc@cbnews.att.com (Lawrence V. Cipriani) (10/05/90)
In article <1990Oct3.140828.8051@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, chet@cwns1.CWRU.EDU (Chet Ramey) writes: > As to documentation, FTP to cwns1.ins.cwru.edu (129.22.8.43) for a very > detailed bash manual page. It's in pub/bash/bash.1. Thanks, I'll forward a copy of the bash man page to Korn; he is always looking for reasonable features to incorporate into ksh! By the way, Korn is very much in favor of the GNU project and ksh imitators. > (By the way, I don't mind Larry posting ksh announcements here. Thanks. > In fact, I'd like him to post a list of changes between 88d and 88e, if he > would. I'm always looking for reasonable ksh features to incorporate into > bash.) -- This is not precisely what you want but this may be of more general interest. [By the way, the "$150 dollar for previous purchasers." was a direct quote from email I got from Korn; I apologize for the confusion.] -- This is a list of changes [mainly bug fixes and minor enhancements] that have been made since the 11/16/88 version of ksh. 1. New features in 11/16/88[abcde] a. All characters of alias names can contain non-special characters, not just the first. A / is not a valid alias character. b. The vi % directive has been added to 11/16/88c c. A new [[...]] -C option returns true for contiguous files. This option returns false on systems that do not support contiguous files. d. Setting REPLY to the null string in a select command causes the selection list to get refreshed in 11/16/88d. e. Unary minus added for arithmetic expressions to increase compatibility with system V test command. f. Starting with 11/16/88e, The vi directive '#' has been changed so that each line of the command is turned into a comment. Also, if the first character of the command is a '#', the '#' in front of each line is deleted. g. The message for EOF with ignoreeof has changed in 11/16/88e. h. A SOCKETS option has been added for machines with the BSD socket calls so that scripts can connect to sockets via redirection. See the README file for more details. i. Starting with 11/16/88e, the behavior of 'ksh script' where script is not a shell script has been changed. If ksh detects that script is an a.out, a cannot exec error message is generated. 2. Bugs fixed in 11/16/88a for default OPTIONS a. Files containing a \ were not matched correctly with patterns. b. read without arguments no longer references location 0. c. The value of integer exported variables was not inherited correctly in some cases. d. The characters ()|&\ in IFS did cause word splitting when ksh expanded commands. e. $! expanded to 0 before any background jobs were run, rather than to the null string. The value of $! was not reset to null when running a script by name. f. On some machines, the shell would core dump if the variable LINENO was exported. g. The [[ ]] command did not handle multiple && and || without parenthesis grouping. h. On some BSD implementations, terminal setting were being incorrectly reset when using vi-mode. i. The execution of traps that write to standard output got lost when the trap occurred while executing command substitution of a built-in command. j. The noclobber option now only applies to ordinary files. k. The value of RANDOM changes when ksh creates a subshell. l. Some syntax error messages had extra backslashes in them. m. The expansion ${#name[number]} was not returning the string length of array element number. n. ksh did not work correctly in some cases when there was no search permission in the current directory. o. A pipeline would hang if the last element of the pipeline was a shell construct that created a lot of child processes. For example, cat file | while read line;do /bin/true;done p. getopts has been fixed to agree with the description in the man page. Previous ksh initialized OPTIND to 0, not 1, and did not handle the case with a leading : as described. q. If the name of the directory you are in contained a :, a cd command to a relative pathname did always work correctly. r. read -s now saves commands in the history file even when read has been redirected from a file. s. Some here documents containing command substitution with a command that read from standard input didn't work correctly. t. (exec >&-; echo $(command) >&2) no longer runs command with file descriptor 1 closed. u. The <ESC>* command of vi and emacs inserted an extra space when exactly one file matched. v. A bug in vi edit mode caused a 'p' command to fail after a 'D' command on some machines. w. Reseeding the random number generator now guarantees the same random sequence. x. The results command substitution with built-in commands that produced over 1K of output was sometimes incorrect. y. set -A, without an argument, now produces an error message. set -A name ... no longer causes the positional parameters to be reset as an unintentional side effect. z. Unterminated here-documents do not generate syntax errors unless the -n option is on. aa. Job control now works for functions as it did with ksh-i. bb. The exit status of a pipeline whose last element is a built-in command is now correct. cc. ksh no longer dumps core when the last element of a pipeline is a built-in command with an invalid parameter expansion. dd. A trap on CHLD is no longer triggered by processes in the current pipeline. ee. One systems without readdir(), filename generation left open files by mistake. ff. traps ignored in a shell script were sometimes reset to caught when functions were invoked. gg. The trace (set -x ) of [[ x < y ]] and [[ x > y]] was incorrect. hh. foobar() ; no longer core dumps. ii. A trap on continue from within a select loop no correctly when the trap occurs while reading from the terminal. jj. The r command correctly handles numerical replacements so that r 3=4 now works. kk. Long lines (>3K) no longer causes a core dump with read. ll. The command substitution $(name=value) no longer causes a core dump. mm. With the vi edit mode on some systems, extra characters were left on the screen when the kill or erase characters were preceded by a backslash. nn. After a dot script that couldn't be found, a trap command in a script could cause a core dump. oo. Redirection with read of the form, read x <&3, was causing the seek position on unit 3 to be positioned incorrectly. pp. When an invalid alias name is given, ksh now prints the correct error message. qq. On systems with job control, if you escaped to a shell that terminated abnormally, the calling process would hang. 3. Bugs fixed in 11/16/88b for default OPTIONS a. ${x-"{a}"b} now expands to {a}b when x is not set. b. ksh no longer core dumps with print -s when HISTFILE changed. c. Tab stripping of numbered here-documents now works. d. The deprecated, sh -t, now works the same as System V shell. e. Attempting to list autoloaded functions no longer core dumps. 4. Bugs fixed in 11/16/88c for default OPTIONS a. The process id for background jobs killed from scripts was incorrect. b. The wait built-in did not always return the correct value when there was more than one background job. c. ksh dumped core while in read with stderr redirected and in emacs mode when it received an signal that had a trap set. 5. Bugs fixed in 11/16/88d for default OPTIONS a. With the monitor option on with systems without job control, login shells no longer print an extraneous 'running jobs' message with a|b, where b is not found. b. On systems where the behavior of the echo builtin depends on the location of echo in the PATH variable, ksh no longer core dumps if the PATH does not have a directory containing an echo command. c. return with an argument greater than 256 no longer causes a core dump. d. Tests on files whose names are null return false on all systems. e. In some instances $0 was being incorrectly set after the dot command was invoked with arguments inside a script. f. The line number enclosed in [] when ksh reports a syntax error has been corrected to be the first line of the command that it is reading. g. A trap on EXIT after a syntax error sometimes inserted an extra character before the trap command text. h. for i in ...; do echo ${i[@]};done no longer causes a subscript error. i. If the read built-in was interrupted, the terminal was not always restored to the state it was in before read. j. Output from background status changes with the monitor mode are now written to standard error. k. Executing a function interactively no longer causes SIGTERM to be caught. l. Using _ as an array variable no longer causes a core dump. m. Unsetting a function more than once no longer causes core dumps or other undesired side effects. n. The code to process the substring operator ## was changed so that the time was no longer quadratic in the length of the string. o. A bug that caused a job to disappear from the jobs table after sending it a CONT signal has been fixed. p. On systems where a null pathname is not the same as ., the command 'cd .' would fail if the environment was cleared before executing ksh. q. In vi-mode, the screen did not always get refreshed correctly when an insert followed a delete in front of a control character. r. A bug in getopts that could cause a core dump when getopts was called with fewer arguments on subsequent calls was fixed. s. In vi-mode, ^V^M now enters ^M, not ^J on most systems. t. On systems with job control, the kill command now sends out SIGCONT signal after the signal has been sent, not before. u. If the shell was interrupted while processing the .profile file, the $ENV file was sometimes echoed to the terminal. 6. Bugs fixed in 11/16/88e for default OPTIONS a. The code for item n from the d point release was omitted but included in this release. b. A script that uses edit modes now restores the terminal modes with it receive a termination signal. Also, the initial process group is restored for job control shells. c. The standard input for background jobs was not set to /dev/null in some cases where it should have been. d. The value of $? now gets set correctly to indicate an error after eval fails because of a syntax error. e. The line discipline ^O bit is now cleared by ksh on some systems that use sys/termios.h. Earlier versions only cleared the ^O bit for BSD systems. f. The suid_exec program has been modified to fix security problems that could arise on systems that have symbolic links but do not have the seteuid() system call. g. The precedence for compound arithmetic assignment operators such as *= was incorrectly set at the precedence of the operator rather than the precedence for assignment. h. The suspend character is now disabled when the last process of a pipeline is not stoppable to prevent deadlock. i. An extra secondary prompt was printed whenever a here-document line contained a partial delimiter. j. The EXIT trap will be executed for each function in the calling chain when exit is called and when the maximum recursion level (currently 128) is reached. Also return now behaves the same as exit outside a function or a dot script and inside a subshell. k. The value of $? no longer changes with a compound [[...]] command. l. The jobs command now correctly reports 'no such job' when you specify a pid that is not part of any running job. m. The legal names for restricted shells have been reduced to rsh, krsh, and rksh. n. The vi, r, f, and @ directives now process ^V correctly. Also, the r directive updates the screen correctly after you back up to a control character and replace it with a non control char. o. The command, $x > file, where x is not set, no longer core dumps. p. When the read is redirected from a file it no longer issues the secondary prompt when the line is continued with a \. q. Variables that have attributes, but whose values are unset, are now displayed with typeset, export, and readonly. s. Set, without arguments, now displays the name-value pairs even when preceded with a variable assignment list. t. set -a now causes assignments of the form ${x=value} to get the export attribute. u. Arithmetic expansion, $((...)), inside here-documents no longer causes subsequent parameter expansions to have extra \ inserted. v. A bug that could cause the shell to go into an infinite loop while creating the history has been fixed. w. true and false are now built-in commands rather than aliases so that correct results are produced when invoked with extraneous arguments. x. A tab character near the end of a long prompt no longer causes the shell to hang. y. An expansion of the form $((...)) is processed as an arithmetic expansion only when the inner parenthesis match. Otherwise, it will be processed as a nested command substitution. z. Unsetting a function no longer causes the whence builtin to give incorrect results for that name. aa. Errors detected while expanding the PS1 prompt no longer leave the shell in an undefined state. bb. A bug that caused the shell to hang in read when a coprocess (cmd |&) terminated has been fixed. cc. A bug in getopts that caused a core dump when standard error was redirected has been fixed. dd. Testing for file access with null file names now returns false now on all systems. ee. A bug with [[...]] that caused quoting of patterns following the = and != operators to give incorrect results has been fixed. ff. A bug with nested $() of builtins, where inner $() was enclosed in double quotes has been fixed. gg. A bug that caused incorrect results when the -x trace option was enabled and command substitution of a builtin command produced no output was fixed. hh. A bug that prevented set -e from exiting with pipelines has been fixed. ii. Interactive shells that trap TERM, and then reset the trap, no longer exit when they receive a TERM signal. jj. When inserting text in vi mode, the kill character deletes only the insertion, not the whole line. kk. A bug with eval that occurred when a word ended in a \ has been fixed. ll. typeset -f fname now returns false after function fname has been unset. mm. A bug in trap that caused a command to be interpreted as a trap number if the first character was a digit has been fixed. nn. A bug that caused a trap action of return to not work correctly when an interrupt occured during read has been fixed. oo. A bug that could cause the exported value of an integer variable that has been imported and modified to be incorrect has been fixed. pp. A bug that caused set -n to incorrectly report subscript errors has been fixed. qq. The select list variable is now set to null when none of the given choices is not selected. Previously it was unset. rr. The pattern */foo, now also matches symbolic links to non-existent files. ss. The whence command no longer terminates when it doesn't find one of the names. 7. Bug fixes for specific non-default option combinations. a. VERSIONS: MULTIBYTE no longer automatically enabled. b. ACCT: The accdefs.h include removed. c. BRACEPAT: No longer references location 0 and dumps core. d. EMACSPLUS: Now enables additional EMACS features. e. FLOAT: arith.c now compiles. f. VI off: e_runvi is no longer unsatisfied external. g. SUID_EXEC: execute only works when file descriptor 10 is open. 8. Other changes to 11/16/88[abcde] a. sh.1 corrections. b. sh.memo corrections. c. ksh.mk modified to build in a cross development environment. d. jobs.c modified to compile on machines that define the new line discipline, NTTYDISC, but not the old, OTTYDISC. e. RELEASE file corrections. f. Some fixes to the stand-alone edit libraries. g. VERSIONS option renamed FS_3D h. POSIX option added to try out some IEEE POSIX 1003.2 proposals. i. VFORK bugs fixed. I still don't recommend this option. j. OLDTERMIO option added to 11/16/88c. This option allows older termio ioctls, like TCGETA to be called after newer termios ioctls' fail. Only effective for machines that have both termio.h and termios.h. k. universe builtin added to 11/16/88d for systems with /bin/universe. l. code changes to 11/16/88e to remove sbrk() dependence and to use the standard library version of malloc(). m. A tests directory that contains some ksh regression test has been added. See the README file for more details. n. The way builtin commands are coded has been changed to make it easier to add builtins. 9. Incompatibilities with 11/16/88 version. None intentional. -- Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox!lvc or lvc@cbvox.att.com "Save a logger, eat an owl"
@tree.uucp (Chris Gonnerman) (10/06/90)
In a very well stated article <2020@sixhub.UUCP>, davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) writes: > Don't use bison or the (still in beta) FSF library if you want to keep > your code to yourself. > -- > bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) Exactly. This is pure foolishness on the part of FSF... I might use their stuff if it didn't bind quite so tight. IMHO, a compiler-designer cuts his or her own throat when the compiled code is considered covered by copyright. What does that buy you? I won't use a compiler that requires me to insert an extra copyright statement next to mine, or restricts how I use, sell, or give away the resulting program. Of course, I don't use GNU stuff if I don't have to anyway... it fails to compile on my plain-vanilla Motorola Unix SysV too often. The porting effort to get the "standard" GNU sources to compile on my system is usually much harder than porting MS-DOS programs! -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Chris Gonnerman (Mad Programmer At Large) csusac.ecs.csus.edu!tree!jcg | | @ the Tree BBS, Sacramento, CA ucbvax!ucdavis!csusac!tree!jcg | +---------- DISCLAIMER: These opinions are mine... MINE, I say! -----------+
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (10/06/90)
In article <5X66S+B@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: | (hold off folks, RMS is supposed to be relaxking the library terms) I certainly hope so. I talked to him last year about relaxing the license enough to allow giving away a program in binary without source, after it went through bison and used the skeleton. He declined. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
linwood@cbnewsk.att.com (linwood.d.johnson) (10/07/90)
I think you guys have gone off the deep end!!! Lawrence's intention was not to get everybody to change to ksh88e. His intention was to let the people who cared know that a new version is available; and for those who don't care to press the 'n' key. So we should not be wasting bandwidth by screaming about source code reuse and so on. Although I am an AT&T employee, my intention is to set things straight and let this newsgroup move on with its business of discussing shells (all shells)!!! $ flames > /dev/null& +===================================================================+ | Linwood D. Johnson | linwood@ihlpf.att.com | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are mine and mine only. | | Besides, who else would want them? | +===================================================================+
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (10/08/90)
In article <1990Oct6.013540.8293@tree.uucp> @tree.uucp (Chris Gonnerman) writes: | In a very well stated article <2020@sixhub.UUCP>, davidsen@sixhub.UUCP | (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) writes: | > Don't use bison or the (still in beta) FSF library if you want to keep | > your code to yourself. | > -- | > bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) | | Exactly. This is pure foolishness on the part of FSF... I might use their | stuff if it didn't bind quite so tight. IMHO, a compiler-designer cuts his or | her own throat when the compiled code is considered covered by copyright. WHoops! I think you read more into that than I said, or at least meant to say. Code compiled with the gcc or gc++ compilers is *not* compyright, and I hope I didn't mislead you into thinking it is, because you get hate mail from the defenders of the true faith. Jihad is alive in the USA! If you (a) compiler with BISON using *FSF* skeleton, then parts of it are in the output C source, and you are covered by the GPV. If you link a program with the FSF library (not available to the public yet, as far as I know), your program is contam... uh, covered by the GPV. Otherwise not. It is *bad*, but it's not *horible*, although someone told me that the GPL is being rewritten. It may get worse, but for now what I said was *all* I meant. You can compile with gcc or edit with emacs with impunity and 8MB of free user memory. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
mtr@apple-gunkies.cc.purdue.edu (Michael Rowan) (10/09/90)
If you have a copy of the GNU Bulletin from June 1990, there is an article titled "Possible New Terms for GNU Libraries." In a nutshell, we are considering a new scheme: require the distributor of the proprietary executable to make the source to OUR library available along with the OBJECT files for the rest of the application. This way users can still benefit from updates, fixes and improvements to the GNU library without being dependent on the distributor. "Spend YOUR time finding and fixing our bugs and then relinquish ALL control of your fixes to US." So you want to spend x hours fixing bugs and then make 100 other people do the same thing? What a completely selfish attitude. Do you think we are GETTING RICH doing this? We want to help the maximum number of people get high quality software for free.
jim@jagmac2.gsfc.nasa.gov (Jim Jagielski) (10/09/90)
In article <4145@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: > The FSF is saying, "Reuse code! Pass it around! Improve on it! ..Oh, >by the way, we can control what you do with it if you do." Sneaky, despicable, >and underhanded. They are also saying "Spend YOUR time finding and fixing our bugs and then relinquish ALL control of your fixes to US" FSF simply ain't the gods that people make 'em out to be... -- ======================================================================= #include <std/disclaimer.h> =:^) Jim Jagielski NASA/GSFC, Code 711.1 jim@jagmac2.gsfc.nasa.gov Greenbelt, MD 20771 "Kilimanjaro is a pretty tricky climb. Most of it's up, until you reach the very, very top, and then it tends to slope away rather sharply."
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (10/10/90)
In article <MTR.90Oct9141932@apple-gunkies.cc.purdue.edu> mtr@apple-gunkies.cc.purdue.edu (Michael Rowan) writes: >If you have a copy of the GNU Bulletin from June 1990, there is an >article titled "Possible New Terms for GNU Libraries." > >In a nutshell, we are considering a new scheme: require the >distributor of the proprietary executable to make the source to OUR >library available along with the OBJECT files for the rest of the >application. This way users can still benefit from updates, fixes and >improvements to the GNU library without being dependent on the >distributor. Is this intended to apply only to compiler libraries, or will it include such things as the bison skeleton and whole subroutine packages, such as the GNU getopt and regexp packages? If the latter, that will answer my objections to the current GPV. I proposed such a change about a year ago, and was shouted down then. I'm glad to see that the FSF is relaxing their insistence that others adhere to their utopian ideas. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "It's a hardware bug!" "It's a +--------------------------------------- software bug!" "It's two...two...two bugs in one!" - _Engineer's Rap_
gt0178a@prism.gatech.EDU (BURNS) (10/10/90)
in article <MTR.90Oct9141932@apple-gunkies.cc.purdue.edu>, mtr@apple-gunkies.cc.purdue.edu (Michael Rowan) says: } In a nutshell, we are considering a new scheme: require the } distributor of the proprietary executable to make the source to OUR } library available along with the OBJECT files for the rest of the } application. This way users can still benefit from updates, fixes and } improvements to the GNU library without being dependent on the } distributor. Sounds good to me - if that is *all* there is to it. -- BURNS,JIM Georgia Institute of Technology, Box 30178, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt0178a Internet: gt0178a@prism.gatech.edu
feustel@netcom.UUCP (David Feustel) (10/13/90)
As far as I can tell from examining the BASH documentation, BASH is a mutated C shell. I will always prefer KSH to any version of the C shell. -- David Feustel, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, (219) 482-9631
asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) (10/13/90)
Look, I just junked at least 50 articles on the subject of 'ksh' now available, GNU stuff being better, whether or not it's appropriate to to advertise on the net, etc. OK, LAST WORD (no, it probably isn't, but I can hope) It's *not* considered good taste to advertise commercial products on the net. Otherwise, this media will start becoming like television, and I know we don't want that. However, it's also poor judgement to waste bandwidth bantering back and forth on whether or not it's good taste. The guy did it, he shouldn't have did it, but it's done, and nobody got killed. Let's get on with life! -- =============Opinions are Mine, typos belong to /bin/ucb/vi============= "We're sorry, but the reality you have dialed is no | Alvin longer in service. Please check the value of pi, | "the Chipmunk" or pray to your local diety for assistance." | Sylvain = = = = = =I haven't the smoggiest notion what my address is!= = = = = =
caleman@itsgw.rpi.edu (Christian A Ratliff) (10/14/90)
feustel@netcom.UUCP (David Feustel) writes: >As far as I can tell from examining the BASH documentation, BASH is a >mutated C shell. I will always prefer KSH to any version of the C >shell. >-- >David Feustel, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, (219) 482-9631 It could be that you read some very strange docs, as i would say that BASH is a far cry from being a "mutated C shell". Its command syntax if the same as the Bourne shell. If anything at all is is a super-Bourne shell. ----------- Christian Ratliff InTeRnEt caleman@rpi.edu BiTnEt caleman@rpitsmts "It's all just ones and zeros" -Mr. Button
goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) (10/16/90)
In article <14617@netcom.UUCP>, feustel@netcom.UUCP (David Feustel) writes: > As far as I can tell from examining the BASH documentation, BASH is a > mutated C shell. I will always prefer KSH to any version of the C > shell. Read the manpage more carefully. Bash is basically a reimplementation of ksh (with some other stuff thrown in as well). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation 62 Alexander Drive goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau USA
feustel@netcom.UUCP (David Feustel) (10/16/90)
What I read was the bash documentation. The features that I saw described made me think more of the C shell than the Bourne Shell. I admit to having been puzzled by the apparent contradiction between the name and the features. Having been originally eager to port BASH to my machine, I lost interest after my initial examination of the documentation mentioned above. -- David Feustel, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, (219) 482-9631
chet@cwns1.INS.CWRU.Edu (Chet Ramey) (10/16/90)
In article <14617@netcom.UUCP> feustel@netcom.UUCP (David Feustel) writes: >As far as I can tell from examining the BASH documentation, BASH is a >mutated C shell. False. Why else would it have been called the `Bourne-Again' shell? Chet -- Chet Ramey ``As I recall, Doug was keen on boxing. But Network Services Group when he learned to walk, he took up puttin' Case Western Reserve University the boot in the groin.'' chet@ins.CWRU.Edu
barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) (10/21/90)
> OK, LAST WORD (no, it probably isn't, but I can hope)
I find your posting 100 times more offensive than the posting that
announced the new product. I can press 'n' and skip over a single
article. I cannot avoid reading all of the new threads and flames your
posting will incite.
--
Bruce G. Barnett barnett@crd.ge.com uunet!crdgw1!barnettrwelch@diana.cair.du.edu (RANDY S WELCH) (10/22/90)
What I read was the bash documentation. The features that I saw described made me think more of the C shell than the Bourne Shell. I admit to having been puzzled by the apparent contradiction between the name and the features. Having been originally eager to port BASH to my machine, I lost interest after my initial examination of the documentation mentioned above. -- David Feustel, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, (219) 482-9631 From a purely user stand point bash does somewhat look like csh ( ksh looking is much closer to the truth... ) Programming wise, sh/ksh. I should know, all our scripts at our site are csh... -randy -- Randy Welch Mail to : ...!ncar!scicom!bldr!randy or rwelch@du.edu Boulder, CO VOICE : 303-442-6717 "Unfortunately, life contains an unavoidable element of unpredictability" -David Lynch "The Angriest Dog in the World"