Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

releases.ubuntu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 303 posts

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#281

Post by ionelm »

stephenr wrote: post #61
nailer wrote: post #19

For anyone packaging software on Linux, this now means every major distro - Debian, RHEL/CentOS, Arch and now Ubuntu - supports .service files. No need for bash scripts, custom watchdog and daemonise tools, etc.

> No need for bash scripts Friends don't let friends write shell scripts targeting bash. For context: Bash is not available|installed everywhere, and has some inter-version weirdness. Write clean, posix-compliant shell scripts (i.e. target /bin/sh commonly referred to as bourne shell) and you're in a much better position. On Debian your script will be run by Dash, on OS X it will be run by Bash, on Ubuntu or RedHat i…

> For context: Bash is not available|installed everywhere, and has some inter-version weirdness.

Can you cite some sources here? No one knows what you're talking about.

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#282

Post by stubish »

hansjorg wrote: post #194
dz0ny wrote: post #50

Mozilla will release Firefox directly via snaps https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2016/04/21/firefox-d...

What is the significance of this? Doesn't Canonical already update the package (lagging a day or two behind the official release) for the lifetime of the Ubuntu version?

It will be Firefox, in a sandbox, out of the box.

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#283

Post by nailer »

ionelm wrote: post #281
stephenr wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No need for bash scripts Friends don't let friends write shell scripts targeting bash. For context: Bash is not available|installed everywhere, and has some inter-version weirdness. Write clean, posix-compliant shell scripts (i.e. target /bin/sh commonly referred to as bourne shell) and you're in a much better position. On Debian your script will be run by Dash, on OS X it will be run by Bash, on Ubuntu or RedHat i…

> For context: Bash is not available|installed everywhere, and has some inter-version weirdness. Can you cite some sources here? No one knows what you're talking about.

Non-OSX BSDs don't include bash, some things like the ... operator don't work on older versions of bash.

Many people, especially Solaris and BSD folk, don't like bash scripts, and want you to write shell scripts in Bourne shell instead.

Many other people, who code on OS X and deploy on Linux, enjoy the extras bash adds, and only deploy on platforms that include bash.

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#284

Post by nailer »

stephenr wrote: post #216
bryanlarsen wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why I always put "#!/usr/bin/env bash" at the top of my scripts. Most were written to be portable, but unless it's been well tested, it's best to consider it not portable. Fail early and predictably rather than in strange ways.

That.. Isn't the solution. The point is that bash is not a good target for shell scripts, not that you should use env to detect the location of bash.

If you only use *nix platforms the default to bash, why not write bash scripts?

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#285

Post by stephenr »

ionelm wrote: post #281
stephenr wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No need for bash scripts Friends don't let friends write shell scripts targeting bash. For context: Bash is not available|installed everywhere, and has some inter-version weirdness. Write clean, posix-compliant shell scripts (i.e. target /bin/sh commonly referred to as bourne shell) and you're in a much better position. On Debian your script will be run by Dash, on OS X it will be run by Bash, on Ubuntu or RedHat i…

> For context: Bash is not available|installed everywhere, and has some inter-version weirdness. Can you cite some sources here? No one knows what you're talking about.

The bash COMPAT page? http://tiswww.case.edu/php/chet/bash/COMPAT

Also, just because you may not know what I'm talking about, don't assume no-one else does.

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#286

Post by ionelm »

stephenr wrote: post #285
ionelm wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For context: Bash is not available|installed everywhere, and has some inter-version weirdness. Can you cite some sources here? No one knows what you're talking about.

The bash COMPAT page? http://tiswww.case.edu/php/chet/bash/COMPAT Also, just because you may not know what I'm talking about, don't assume no-one else does.

Sorry, I meant "no one who replied to you knows what you're talking about". Still, that list don't tell much about potential breakages. Are you actually complaining about bash having too many features or are there actual breakages? Please illustrate with examples, not links to tedious changelogs and ad-hominems.

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#287

Post by sfilipov »

nailer wrote: post #283
ionelm wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For context: Bash is not available|installed everywhere, and has some inter-version weirdness. Can you cite some sources here? No one knows what you're talking about.

Non-OSX BSDs don't include bash, some things like the ... operator don't work on older versions of bash. Many people, especially Solaris and BSD folk, don't like bash scripts, and want you to write shell scripts in Bourne shell instead. Many other people, who code on OS X and deploy on Linux, enjoy the extras bash adds, and only deploy on platforms that include bash.

I think your last point is important. I don't think shell script writers should be concerned about Solaris/BSD if they are confident that they will use their scripts only in environments where bash is available.

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#288

Post by smhg »

tehwalrus wrote: post #182
smhg wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Sputnik version. That indeed reminds me I swapped the wifi card for an Intel one. Because they are better supported and it was cheap. The original one was definitely working though.

Ooh, can you do that? Broadcom driver drives me up the wall every time I tweak something... (Apart from that and the HiDPI, the latter of which is the DE devs' fault, the laptop is awesome.)

This fantastic iFixit (Step 10) has all the details you need:

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Dell+XPS+13+Teardown/36157#s...

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#289

Post by mceachen »

hatsunearu wrote: post #258
avar wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. What you're describing is just a subset of preimage attacks. Not having knowledge of x is just one type of preimage attack, a "preimage resistance". You can also know x, then it's a "second-preimage resistance".[1] Which is not the same as a collision attack. Where you're trying to find x and y such that h(x) = h(y) without anyone specifying x or y in advance. By definition a collision attack is an attack where y…

yeah, you're right. my bad.

(how many sites on the internet have a discussion where people are both patient and civil with each other, and the discussion results in mutual understanding?)

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#290

Post by JdeBP »

lomnakkus wrote: post #222
e12e wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which of course still leaves OS X, *bsd, Solaris AFAIK. But it should cut down on the internal Linux incompatibilities a bit. I'm not a fan of systemd, but having one broken standard is much better than having four broken standards :-)

> Which of course still leaves OS X, bsd, Solaris AFAIK. AFAIUI OS X has launchd, and Solaris has OMF[1]? ... so basically the BSDs are the ones left behind? [1] I think that is the acronym for Solaris' XML-based standardized system service files? (I don't care that they're XML. It care that they're standardized .)

Thinking that the BSDs have been left behind is to erroneously presume that the BSDs ran System 5 rc in the first place. They did not. Most of them use Mewburn rc (or their own reinvented version thereof), which was invented almost a decade after van Smoorenburg rc, which itself was invented about half a decade after System 5 rc.

Here's a "portable" script for van Smoorenburg rc that ports to 4 Linux families, complete with the sort of case statements that I described in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10357589 :

* http://conman.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/etc/conman.init.in

Here's a Mewburn rc script:

* http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/~checkout~/src/etc/rc.d/...

Post reply on HN