Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
- From: Darren New <dnew@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:32:00 GMT
Robert Uhl wrote:
Nah. I knew about it. I don't know what all the privs it supports are,
off the top of my head. But I'll note a couple things: that subsystem
is relatively new, and lots of software doesn't support it.
All software supports it--it's part of the OS.
So, if I tar up a directory tree A on machine X that has these sorts of permissions, then untar it on another machine Y, then retar it and bring it back to X and untar it as B, all the permissions on A will match all the permissions on B? I'm kind of surprised at that, given the tar format was around much, much longer than chattr was. But I see "tar" now has "-p", which says "*all* permissions", so I guess the format was extended to support these new bits. One of the problems with standardizing file formats instead of APIs.
I'm impressed. That's better than OSX managed. On the other hand, given how many times I've seen fstat used to try to guess whether a file is readable, I imagine there's still *some* stuff out there that doesn't work quite right.
Linux comes with many more window managers, for many fewer dollars...
Yes? So? You said Windows only had one. I'm correcting you. I'm not trying to say Windows is necessarily better in any or all ways than Linux is. I'm simply trying to cut down the amount of disinformation out there.
GnuCash does dobl-enetry bookkeeping;
This must be relatively new. I'll check it out.
This is a point where proprietary software wins; I am not certain that
it's an argument in favour of slavery software: wouldn't the ideal be
one in which the tax laws changed very rarely indeed?
Sure. But calling it "slavery software" just makes you sound like a lunatic. :-)
It's funny how when people say "Linux can do X and Windows can't", and someone points out "Windows can do X", it's taken as an attack on Linux.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
This octopus isn't tasty. Too many
tentacles, not enough chops.
.
- References:
- Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
- From: Alok
- Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
- From: antoanjamison
- Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
- From: David Steuber
- Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
- From: Ken Tilton
- Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
- From: Ties Stuij
- Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
- From: Ken Tilton
- Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
- From: goose
- Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
- From: Darren New
- Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
- From: goose
- Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
- From: Jack Unrue
- Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
- From: goose
- Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
- From: Darren New
- Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
- From: goose
- Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
- From: Darren New
- Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
- From: Robert Uhl
- Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
- Prev by Date: Re: CADR lisp machina font for Linux-Unix
- Next by Date: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
- Previous by thread: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
- Next by thread: Re: Amazon used lisp & C exclusively?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|