| 07:12.50 | *** join/#gllug Armand (~martin@87-194-165-154.bethere.co.uk) |
| 07:56.16 | *** join/#gllug ess_tee_u (~NULL@host81-158-53-137.range81-158.btcentralplus.com) |
| 08:39.47 | *** join/#gllug chrisp (~wibble@host86-178-201-145.range86-178.btcentralplus.com) |
| 08:46.38 | *** join/#gllug FishermansEnemy (~kvirc@host81-149-249-217.in-addr.btopenworld.com) |
| 08:46.38 | *** join/#gllug FishermansEnemy (~kvirc@unaffiliated/fishermansenemy) |
| 10:15.26 | *** join/#gllug w1bble (~Jamie@unaffiliated/w1bble) |
| 10:47.05 | gregj | Leeds: FOO=`command` or FOO=$(command) ? |
| 10:47.13 | gregj | which one's better |
| 10:47.17 | Leeds | I normally use the latter |
| 10:47.29 | Leeds | seems more explicit to me |
| 10:47.57 | gregj | I don't like it , visually it looks messy - but if its any better I'll use it |
| 10:48.08 | gregj | I'm reviewing csome code, and guy is using the latter |
| 10:48.15 | gregj | but dunno if I should or shouldn't comment on it |
| 10:48.24 | gregj | I just remember someone said that one is better the the other for some reason |
| 10:48.27 | gregj | just can't remember the reasons |
| 10:51.48 | Leeds | quoting is messed up enough in bash as it is |
| 10:54.03 | gregj | true |
| 11:57.56 | *** join/#gllug dick_turpin (~peter@host217-34-163-30.in-addr.btopenworld.com) |
| 12:05.05 | AndyMillar | I always use $() |
| 12:08.45 | dick_turpin | morsing: Please tell me you've never rummaged through a bin? |
| 12:11.09 | *** join/#gllug devilhorns (~devilhorn@82.43.26.66) |
| 12:11.20 | *** join/#gllug devilhorns (~devilhorn@enlightenment/developer/devilhorns) |
| 12:19.50 | morsing | dick_turpin: Correct, I haven't |
| 12:22.48 | chrisp | gregj, backticks are more portable, the $(command) syntax is a bashism |
| 12:23.09 | chrisp | it doesn't work on solaris' sh for example |
| 12:23.40 | chrisp | but I think $() is more efficient if you are using bash |
| 12:24.31 | dick_turpin | morsing: So you do have at least one redeeming feature then? |
| 12:28.25 | gregj | we're bashing, on linux |
| 12:28.37 | gregj | who in their right minds deploys anything new on solaris anyway.. |
| 12:28.49 | gregj | if I needed something more reliable then linux, I'd pick freebsd |
| 12:29.40 | Leeds | isn't Solaris pretty much legacy-only now? |
| 12:30.35 | chrisp | there are lots of places that still deploy new solaris boxes |
| 12:31.24 | chrisp | but most (all?) of them will be because they already have solaris |
| 12:31.39 | chrisp | not many green field installs I'm sure |
| 12:32.06 | Leeds | right, that's what I mean by legacy |
| 12:32.39 | dick_turpin | chrisp: Is a Bloody Silly Distro fanboy. Although he has to hide that disgusting past now that he's working at Red Hat towers. |
| 12:34.00 | chrisp | true, I have used openBSD and NetBSD in the past |
| 12:34.11 | chrisp | never free bsd tho for some reason |
| 12:35.35 | chrisp | but these days I'd struggle to come up with a good reason not to use some Linux or other |
| 12:44.05 | gregj | linux is overbloated for some things, and the licence... |
| 12:44.16 | gregj | if I want to create something that will be a blackbox, I'll pick up freebsd |
| 12:44.21 | gregj | rather then linux |
| 12:44.25 | gregj | purely for licencing reasons |
| 12:48.22 | chrisp | that's only a concern if you're hacking the kernel to run on your blackbox |
| 12:48.56 | chrisp | if its all userland blackboxiness then BSD doesn't make a lot of difference |
| 13:00.21 | *** join/#gllug chrisp_ (~wibble@host86-179-224-125.range86-179.btcentralplus.com) |
| 13:43.18 | *** join/#gllug chrisp_ (~wibble@host86-168-128-202.range86-168.btcentralplus.com) |
| 16:05.48 | *** part/#gllug dick_turpin (~peter@host217-34-163-30.in-addr.btopenworld.com) |