In article <aiiugb.ao4.ln@news.it.uc3m.es>,
Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:

>> Star is the oldest free tar implementation, if you did not know star before, it
>> would be better if you just had a look at it....
>
>Why? Why should I care about it? What's wrong with cpio?

Cpio is dead, it does not support more than 2097151 hard links, no files > 8 GB
and has a lot more conceptional problems. Cpio cannot be enhanced to meet the
needs of today nor the future.


>> Well, now you proove that you did not read the man page for star - the answer
>
>And I am not going to read the man page. I seem to be asking you, not
>the man page. Kindly reply to questions.
>
>> to your question is in the star documentation.
>
>Oh? Which paragraph? By "documentation" do you or don't you mean the
>manpage?

No you show typical troll behavior!

You request information but don't read the information returned to you because
it would not fit to your prejudices.


>predecessor, not predator. A predator is a tyrannosaurus rex. For
>example. Well you'd better enter a bug report against gnu tar then,
>because the gnu info page says this:
>
> POSIX Compliance
> ================
>
> We make some of our recommendations throughout this book for one
> reason in addition to what we think of as "good sense". The main
> additional reason for a recommendation is to be compliant with the
> POSIX standards. If you set the shell environment variable
> `POSIXLY_CORRECT', GNU `tar' will force you to adhere to these
> standards. Therefore, if this variable is set and you violate one of
> the POSIX standards in the way you phrase a command, for example, GNU
> `tar' will not allow the command and will signal an error message.
> You would then have to reorder the options or rephrase the command to
> comply with the POSIX standards.
>
> There is a chance in the future that, if you set this environment
> variable, your archives will be forced to comply with POSIX standards,
> also. No GNU `tar' extensions will be allowed.

Unrelated prattles....

A last time: READ

ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/star/README.otherbugs
ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/star/STARvsGNUTAR
ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/star/testsc...EADME.gtarfail
ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/star/testscripts/README.paxbug
ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/star/testsc...ADME.quicktest
ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/star/testsc...ate-and-remove

Finally run the POSIX.1-1990 TAR archive compliance test described ind:

ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/star/testsc...ADME.quicktest

by using the program 'tartest' from

ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/star/alpha/star-1.5a19.tar.gz

or finally stay away from this group.


>Be specific. Stop making unsubstantiated claims that contradict written
>and common knowledge - substantiate them.

In contrary to you troll, I am specific.

>> enhancements from POSIX.1-2001.
>
>That's what its author apparently says. Why should we believe him? He
>also says that gnu tar does not support posix, and the gnu folks seem
>to think that gnu tar supports posix! So why should we believe?

People wo now what they are talking about. You are obviously not amongst them :-(


>> The most obvious problem is that GNU tar ignores the standard when it archives
>> files wih filenames > 100 chars.
>
>In what way? Please be specific.

I told you where to read the complete information but you are a troll and not
really interested in this information.

>
>(I see from the format of a gnu tar achive that only 100 chars are
>reserved for a path:
>
> struct posix_header
> { /* byte offset */
> char name[100]; /* 0 */
> ...
>
>but from the struct name I presume that this is the format mandated by posix!
>please quote posix if you disagree)


????? Sou you would pay for a car if somebody tries to sell you a kickboard that
has a label 'car' written on?

You are not interested in a real discussion, you are not even interested
ininformation, you are just a person who likes to rant around.

>>>> If you like to learn more about TAR, and if you really are interested in
>>>> understanding the differences, you may read the documentation

>I am interested in a discussion. You should leave this group as you are
>not interested in a discussion.

You are joking!

>
>> Regarding GNU tar:
>
>> - I don't trust a program that is unmaintained. GNU tar still has
>> bugs that I did report to the maintainer in 1993!
>
>It's had recent work done on it. I wouldn't say it's unmaintained.
>
> GNU tar NEWS - User visible changes.
>
> version 1.13.25 - Paul Eggert, 2001-09-26
>
> * Bug fixes.
>
>Yes, there have been longstanding bugs. But There is evidence in the
>changelog of changes up to end of 2001 (in the version I have) by fsf.
>There is evidence of changes in distros mods at least into 2002 (looking
>at the debian changelog). I presume these changes will propagate
>upstream in the normal way.

Go and test this version against my test cases!

It is still full of bugs and bugs reported in 1993 have not yet been fixed.

>Conclusion: you intimate that gnu tar is unmaintained since 1993. It
>isn't. You avoid saying so but imply it, therefore I deduce that your
>form of argument is by slur.
>
>Is gnu tar maintained or is it not?

It is not because it still has major bugs reported in 1993.


>
>> This is why README.otherbugs exists..... So people may read about
>> known bugs.
>
>?? There is no "README.otherbugs" in my tar source.

You are a Troll

rest of your troll talk snipped.....

It seems that I need to send something from Rich against me:

___________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please do |
/ O O\__ NOT |
/ \ feed the |
/ \ \ trolls |
/ _ \ \ ______________|
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ \ __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________


--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

In comp.os.linux.misc Barry Margolin <barry.margolin@level3.com> wrote:
> In article <aiiugb.ao4.ln@news.it.uc3m.es>,
> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>> People know that I am the author and it would be impolite to repeat this fact.
>>
>>Are you or are you not? I don't see an admission!

> If you can't see the implied admission in that sentence, you're just being

I don't work on implications. Either he says so or he doesn't say so.

What YOU imply from it is your business. I'm interested in what HE says.

> BTW, I've changed the subject line to properly reflect the current

Fine by me (I don't look at subject lines anyway!).

> discussion. Maybe then the OP will be able to find the messages that are
> on point to his question in all this crap.

What OP? :'). What was his question? Something about how to omit some
files for solaris tar? We already told him, no? Use find to generate
the list. Wasn't that just fine?

Peter

In article <lngugb.act.ln@news.it.uc3m.es>,
Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:

> Take your lack of morality somewhere else! What's the Spanish
> Inquisition got to do with anything? What has religion got to do with
> it?

Morality? Religion? The only religuous thing here is your adamant
defence of gnu tar.

> Stop lowering the moral tone and just shut up, OK?

You apperar to be a not so nice person.

> If you want to
> condone people coming on and issuing recomendations for their own
> product without saying that they've got an interest in what they're
> peddling, then say so, and stop issuing insults.

Are you writing about yourself here or are you just trolling?
What are you peddling? Why are you defending gnu tar with such fury?

--
Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/

In comp.os.linux.misc Goran Larsson <hoh@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> In article <lngugb.act.ln@news.it.uc3m.es>,
> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:

>> Take your lack of morality somewhere else! What's the Spanish
>> Inquisition got to do with anything? What has religion got to do with
>> it?

> Morality? Religion? The only religuous thing here is your adamant
> defence of gnu tar.

I have not said one word in defence of gnu tar! Where do you get this
from?! I have no interest in either star or gtar. I have never heard of
star before.

>> Stop lowering the moral tone and just shut up, OK?

> You apperar to be a not so nice person.

You appear to be not so nice a person at all! What are you - a lily
livered craven donkey, or a palsy pile of precious humbug? I think we
should be informed!

>> If you want to
>> condone people coming on and issuing recomendations for their own
>> product without saying that they've got an interest in what they're
>> peddling, then say so, and stop issuing insults.

> Are you writing about yourself here or are you just trolling?

?? I am pointing out to you what you are supporting.

> What are you peddling? Why are you defending gnu tar with such fury?

I have no interest in gnu tar, I am not defending it. Kindly withdraw
your unfounded allegation, and explain where you got them from. No - on
second thoughts, just shut up, as I suggested. After apologising.

Peter

In comp.os.linux.misc Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 22:20:03 GMT, Barry Margolin
> <barry.margolin@level3.com> wrote:

>>In article <aiiugb.ao4.ln@news.it.uc3m.es>,
>>Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>>>In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>>> People know that I am the author and it would be impolite to repeat this fact.
>>>
>>>Are you or are you not? I don't see an admission!
>>
>>If you can't see the implied admission in that sentence, you're just being
>>intentionally dense.

> You're giving him too much credit, I fear.

I think I'll simply report you all to abuse@wherever. I don't much go
for unfounded allegations and random insults. That'll keep you happy.

I wouldn't mind if you engaged in rational argument AND also made
unfounded allegations and engaged in random insults. So make an effort,
hey? Argue about something, in a straight line. Anything.

As for the "implied admission", it's not an admission. Admissions look
like "I did it". Let's use an example: you apparently "know" that I
have too much credit, and it would be impolite for me to repeat this
fact. Now, does that mean I have scammed the banks for a loan I didn't
have the collateral to back? Tell me! Did I just admit it?

Peter

In article <6nkugb.u9a.ln@news.it.uc3m.es>,
Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc Barry Margolin <barry.margolin@level3.com> wrote:
>> In article <aiiugb.ao4.ln@news.it.uc3m.es>,
>> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>>>In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>>> People know that I am the author and it would be impolite to repeat
>this fact.
>>>
>>>Are you or are you not? I don't see an admission!
>
>> If you can't see the implied admission in that sentence, you're just being
>
>I don't work on implications. Either he says so or he doesn't say so.

What world do you live in? Why would anyone ever say "people know that I
did X" and not deny it if they didn't actually do X? That would be
nonsense. If they wanted to deny the claim they would say something like
"many people think/suspect/assume that I did X but I didn't." That's how
real people communicate, but you seem to be expecting some kind of robotic
response.

--
Barry Margolin, barry.margolin@level3.com
Level(3), Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.

In comp.os.linux.misc Barry Margolin <barry.margolin@level3.com> wrote:
> In article <6nkugb.u9a.ln@news.it.uc3m.es>,
> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.misc Barry Margolin <barry.margolin@level3.com> wrote:
>>> In article <aiiugb.ao4.ln@news.it.uc3m.es>,
>>> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>>>>In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>>>> People know that I am the author and it would be impolite to repeat this fact.
>>>>
>>>>Are you or are you not? I don't see an admission!
>>
>>> If you can't see the implied admission in that sentence, you're just being
>>
>>I don't work on implications. Either he says so or he doesn't say so.

> What world do you live in? Why would anyone ever say "people know that I
> did X" and not deny it if they didn't actually do X? That would be

Why would anyone ever not say "I am the author of X"? It's a perfectly
simple sentence. Simpler by far than what we see above. If he doesn't
say so, I'd like to know why!

> nonsense. If they wanted to deny the claim they would say something like

His statement neither denies nor affirms it. It's simply evasive. A
straight yes or no is all that's required, and all that an honest man
would produce.

> "many people think/suspect/assume that I did X but I didn't." That's how

He doesn't want to deny the claim. He seems to want to avoid saying
anything definite. I don't know what psychological problem could
underly such evasiveness, but it looks pathological to me. I wouldn't
trust the shifty creep further than you could slide him.

> real people communicate, but you seem to be expecting some kind of robotic
> response.

I am expecting a simple yes or no, or some equally simple but more
elaborate statement on the lines of "yes I am the author of X".

Simple, no?

Peter

In article <4vnugb.3ik.ln@news.it.uc3m.es>,
Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc Barry Margolin <barry.margolin@level3.com> wrote:
>> In article <6nkugb.u9a.ln@news.it.uc3m.es>,
>> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>>>In comp.os.linux.misc Barry Margolin <barry.margolin@level3.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <aiiugb.ao4.ln@news.it.uc3m.es>,
>>>> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>>>>>In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>>>>> People know that I am the author and it would be impolite to repeat
>this fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you or are you not? I don't see an admission!
>>>
>>>> If you can't see the implied admission in that sentence, you're just being
>>>
>>>I don't work on implications. Either he says so or he doesn't say so.
>
>> What world do you live in? Why would anyone ever say "people know that I
>> did X" and not deny it if they didn't actually do X? That would be
>
>Why would anyone ever not say "I am the author of X"? It's a perfectly
>simple sentence. Simpler by far than what we see above. If he doesn't
>say so, I'd like to know why!

No, it's not simpler by far, because it succinctly expresses *more* than
that. He's not only admitting it, but saying that he believes it's so well
known that he didn't feel the need to be explicit about it in his earlier
post. Perhaps his belief about his fame was incorrect, but that doesn't
change what his sentence expressed.

--
Barry Margolin, barry.margolin@level3.com
Level(3), Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.

In comp.os.linux.misc Barry Margolin <barry.margolin@level3.com> wrote:
> In article <4vnugb.3ik.ln@news.it.uc3m.es>,
> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.misc Barry Margolin <barry.margolin@level3.com> wrote:
>>> In article <6nkugb.u9a.ln@news.it.uc3m.es>,
>>> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>>>>In comp.os.linux.misc Barry Margolin <barry.margolin@level3.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article <aiiugb.ao4.ln@news.it.uc3m.es>,
>>>>> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>>>>>>In comp.os.linux.misc Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>>>>>> People know that I am the author and it would be impolite to repeat this fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Are you or are you not? I don't see an admission!
>>>>
>>>>> If you can't see the implied admission in that sentence, you're just being
>>>>
>>>>I don't work on implications. Either he says so or he doesn't say so.
>>
>>> What world do you live in? Why would anyone ever say "people know that I
>>> did X" and not deny it if they didn't actually do X? That would be
>>
>>Why would anyone ever not say "I am the author of X"? It's a perfectly
>>simple sentence. Simpler by far than what we see above. If he doesn't
>>say so, I'd like to know why!

> No, it's not simpler by far, because it succinctly expresses *more* than

You mean to say HIS sentence expresses more than "I am the author of X".
The simpler sentence, otoh, expresses exactly that!

And I wouldn't agree that it expresses more, in that I believe it
expresses something different. But ...

> that. He's not only admitting it, but saying that he believes it's so well
> known that he didn't feel the need to be explicit about it in his earlier
> post. Perhaps his belief about his fame was incorrect, but that doesn't

His belief about his fame is completely incorrect. Nobody looking on had
the slightest idea that the utility he was so forthrightly recommending
was his own work!

> change what his sentence expressed.

Well, it makes his sentence vacuously true. I.e. it makes it into an
implication with a false hypothesis, which is a tautology, and
therefore information-free.

The real issue here is that this guy has a communication problem. He
doesn't understand other peoples perceptions, and probably therefore
treats demands for clarification as attacks. He doesn't understand that
he is NOT famous, that other people don't know he is the author of
star, or that star is a tar, or that nobody knows (or cares much) about
the niceties of posix this or posix that. That would explain why he
doesn't say he is the author - he believes that everyone knows. He
seems capable of believing at the same time that not everybody knows
about star, however! Yet he doesn't understand that the people who
at the same time don't know about star, also don't know why or how it
might or might not be better. And so on.

All in all, a messed up piece of i/o functionality in his brain. He
can't argue since he can't communicate.


Peter

Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>
> >I looked at it. That's how *I* checked that you were the author,
> >something you still seem unwilling to say in public!
>
> So you want me to ignore the nettiquette just because you are a newby?

Every time I see a discussion like this start up, its always some
retard from the Linux domain who does know much of anything - let
alone who Jörg is and all the positive work he's done for free.

> People know that I am the author and it would be impolite to repeat this fact.

I, for one, would tire of it if you kept repeating this most obvious
fact. Even the fools from the Linux newsgroups who always want to
argue with you about Gnu tar know this and anyone reading from there
should know unless they are completely new.

The only issues I would be concerned with are people promoting
commercial products and not stating their vested interest (this
also covers the planted posts).

> Star is the oldest free tar implementation, if you did not know star before, it
> would be better if you just had a look at it....

Judging from his attitude, I gather he's not likely to.

> >What standard would you like to comply to? You seem to have chosen one
> >taht doesn't exist yet (as I recall)! Personally, I prefer standards
> >not to change.
>
> Well, now you proove that you did not read the man page for star - the answer
> to your question is in the star documentation.

His reading skills are evidently on par with his logic skills.

> You also proove that you are missing basic computer knowledge - POSIX is _the_
> standard for operating systems. Its first version has been approved in 1988,
> the latest 'final' version dates from 2001; it is a 'living' standard and
> continuously enhanced to include new ideas from existing OS implementations.

Its funny that Linux trolls always get so uppity about POSIX.
Could it simply be because Linux is never likely to achieve
POSIX compliance?

> >No, yours do. I don't claim anything. In fact, I've never claimed
>
> Wrong: you did claim that star is worse than other tar implementations.

Yes, that was clear to me too.

> >And go jump in a lake too, please. I have no intention of looking at
> >"s-tar". Gnu tar works for me, mostly.
>
> You should leave this group as you are not interested in a discussion.

I liked the mostly bit tacked on the end of his comment. Obviously,
he's encountered problems.

-am © 2003