The latest version is a 488K archive.
488K compressed for a hello, world application.
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-13 23:58
http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/ Unlike the elementary version often seen, GNU Hello processes its argument list to modify its behavior, supports greetings in many languages, and so on.
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-14 0:24
the best the best the best the best the best the best the best the best the best the best the best the best the best the best the best
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-14 1:18
>>1
GNU-Hello leverages core skillsets and world-class team synergy through Hello World to provide clients worldwide with robust, scalable, modern turnkey implementations of flexible, personalized, cutting-edge Internet-enabled e-business application product suite e-solution architectures that accelerate response to customer and real-world market demands and reliably adapt to evolving technology needs, seamlessly and efficiently integrating and synchronizing with their existing legacy infrastructure, enhancing the e-readiness capabilities of their e-commerce production environments across the enterprise while giving them a critical competitive advantage and taking them to the next level.
Now compare features.
gnu diff/bsd diff: gnu diff has a few extra options that no one ever uses
gnu grep/bsd grep: bsd doesn't support a few completely useless options (-z, -u, --mmap, --include, --exclude, --exclude-from), and some aliases for options that it does support (-d for --directories, -r for -R, --colour for --color)
gnu tar/bsd tar: bsd tar is a lot faster
gnu awk/bsd awk: gnu awk is broken unless you use the --posix option, with --posix it's just a bit slower than bsd awk
gnu sort/bsd sort: bsd sort doesn't support -g and -M, gnu sort doesn't support -R
gnu ls/bsd ls: gnu ls has a few options that no one ever uses (--si, --show-control-chars, etc.)
Name:
Over 10 Thread2008-12-14 5:20
This thread has over 10 replies.
You can't reply anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-14 5:22
>>1,9
Whoa a binary that's like 100k larger than other systems. Fuck that bloated C language, we need to return to assembly right now before binary sizes really bloat up.
Sorry for even trying to talk to you, I didn't know you were an anonix developer.
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-14 11:00
If it was about an order of magnitude difference, I'd say binary size could matter, since it could mean the difference between keeping them on disk or cached in RAM. Or between a single read and reading multiple fragmented blocks.
Do the Gentoo peops have some OMG optimized way of doing the localization at compile time? They really ought to.
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-14 11:05
>>17
Well, now that you ask, we have in fact. On my system it occupies exactly 0 kb of memory.
>>23 ENVIRONMENT VARIABLES
The AWKPATH environment variable can be used to provide a list of
directories that gawk searches when looking for files named via the -f
and --file options.
If POSIXLY_CORRECT exists in the environment, then gawk behaves exactly
as if --posix had been specified on the command line. If --lint has
been specified, gawk issues a warning message to this effect.
the gnu diff man page doesn't even have an ENVIRONMENT VARIABLES section.
HEY GAIZ, LET'S IGNORE THAT THE SOLE REASON FOR THAT HELLO WORLD PROGRAM IS TO DEMONSTRATE GOOD PACKAGING PRACTICES AND THE USE OF AUTOTOOLS
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-14 15:20
>>29
use man pages like the rest of the world you flaming retards. half the time the info page is the same as the man page, including the "please download 50 megabytes of shit and view this man page in the gnu info viewer instead of man" part.
>>29 % info diff
File: libc.info, Node: Elapsed Time, Next: Processor And CPU Time, Prev: Tim\
e Basics, Up: Date and Time
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF info sux
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-14 17:58
info is what would happen if someone took all the worst things about windows help files, man pages, microsoft powerpoint, and emacs, and combined them into a single program and format.
>>46
are you claiming that bash is just a very broken implementation of the POSIX shell instead of a completely different shell?
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-15 1:47
>>9
GNU sed has actually useful features, like escape characters. Do you really want actual tabs and newlines in your sed scripts? Ok, it might be somewhat ok in scripts, but in one liners, it's just terrible. No, no one does, it looks retarded. I can't replace sed because it often breaks scripts from people who assume sed = FreeBSD's sed, but I always install gsed on my systems.
FreeBSD ls's colors are mediocre. I replace it with GNU coreutils' ls.
I don't know which BSD tar are you talking about, IIRC, FreeBSD ships GNU tar in their base distro. You're probably looking at a tar from the early 90s.
And while we're talking about grep, OS X's grep is superior to all (it's actually just GNU's grep with a few trivial patches). It's the only version that warns you when you do something retarded like grep -r pattern instead of grep -r pattern .[1] (tells you you're doing a recursive search on stdin). Saved me from staring at a prompt while wondering "Wow, this grep is taking a lot of time."
GNU sed has actually useful features, like escape characters. Do you really want actual tabs and newlines in your sed scripts? Ok, it might be somewhat ok in scripts, but in one liners, it's just terrible.
if your one-liners are that complex, use perl instead.
and it's not that bad for scripts. definitely not worth breaking compatibility with POSIX.
I can't replace sed because it often breaks scripts from people who assume sed = FreeBSD's sed, but I always install gsed on my systems.
i'm guessing they actually assume sed = POSIX sed, rather than freebsd's sed. freebsd's is a superset of POSIX sed.
FreeBSD ls's colors are mediocre. I replace it with GNU coreutils' ls.
the way freebsd ls handles colors (CLICOLOR and LSCOLORS environment variables) is a lot more convenient than the way gnu ls does (with the --color command line option). and freebsd ls has the -G option, so you can do it the way gnu ls does if you want.
I don't know which BSD tar are you talking about, IIRC, FreeBSD ships GNU tar in their base distro. You're probably looking at a tar from the early 90s.
no, i'm looking at /usr/bin/bsdtar, the target of the symlink /usr/bin/tar. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/usr.bin/tar/
And while we're talking about grep, OS X's grep is superior to all (it's actually just GNU's grep with a few trivial patches). It's the only version that warns you when you do something retarded like grep -r pattern instead of grep -r pattern .[1] (tells you you're doing a recursive search on stdin). Saved me from staring at a prompt while wondering "Wow, this grep is taking a lot of time."
how often do you really do grep -r pattern? i've been using grep for years, and i've never made that particular mistake. i have accidentally hit enter without typing the filename before, but never when using -r, so that particular feature isn't really that useful.
also, bsd grep + pcre grep provides a lot more functionality than gnu grep, in less than 2/3 the size.
>>51
i believe >>48 meant to reply to >>47, who made the assertion that bash is POSIX.
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-15 18:24
if your one-liners are that complex, use perl instead.
Yes, you could use a chainsaw to cut a one-inch branch because your butterknife isn't doing the job. Or you could invest in a reasonably-sized knife.
>>53
you've obviously never tried to cut a one-inch branch with a knife. i'd take a chainsaw over any knife for that, but a small reciprocating saw would be much better. using a chainsaw is a lot better than trying to mangle the edge of your butterknife to turn it into a saw.
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-15 20:48
>>5
Rating trolls is an automatic admission of being trolled. Have a nice day.