[CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
Always Learning
centos at u64.u22.netMon Apr 27 18:46:43 UTC 2015
- Previous message: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
- Next message: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 12:32 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Joerg Schilling > <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > Now you just need to understand what "as a whole" means.... > Yes, in english, 'work as a whole' does mean complete. And the normal > interpretation is that it covers everything linked into the same > process at runtime unless there is an alternate interface-compatible > component with the same feature set. That may be the USA interpretation but on the other, European, side of the Atlantic I believe "as a whole" means generally BUT allowing for exceptions. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Je suis Charlie.
- Previous message: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
- Next message: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CentOS mailing list