Search results

You can have your .bash_login set the window title. Mine is set up with the form <b>[username]@[hostname] :: [path]</b> <tt>TITLEBAR='\[\033]0;\u@\h :: \w\007\]' export PS1="${TITLEBAR}\n[\w]\$ "</tt>

The <tt>fix_ssh.sh</tt> script at www.macosx.org is the same thing, just rolled together into one script.

The "allow remote login" thing only allows SSH, not telnet. You should not be using telnet anyway. Turn on the "allow remote login" shiny button and try <tt>ssh -l [username] [host]</tt>. It should work even with the default SSH that comes with 10.0.4. You can replace the stock ssh...

No problem, dev.lqd... i didn't mean to imply that you didn't understand :o Just saying that the behaviour you pointed out is not specific to MacOS X.

*.dev.lqd said: That's -two- instances finishing SIMULTANEOUSLY in 1.6 minutes. Both processes hovered around 95% CPU utilization, but then again they were two seperate processes vying for clock cycles The benchmark has one thread. You ran 2 instances of the bench mark simultaneously on a...

Optimizing is critical for good performance on <i>any</i> system. Even though a riced up thunderbird finished the bench mark a lot faster than the iBook, the PPC processor performed the same task using fewer clock cycles. Some of it's caused by the varying degrees of optimization that are...

More results! BeOS, 600 MHz P3, gcc 2.9-beos-000224 % time ./qb0 real 4m16.921s user 4m8.320s sys 0m8.086s % time ./qb2 real 2m43.868s user 2m38.561s sys 0m5.012s % time ./qb3 real 2m17.417s user 2m12.906s sys 0m4.248s BeOS 1200...

I'm nowhere near a Mac currently, but here's my results with Cygwin in Win98 on a 700MHz P3: <pre> % gcc -o qb0.exe quickbench.c % gcc -O2 -o gb2.exe quickbench.c % gcc -O3 -o qb3.exe quickbench.c % ll qb* -rwxr-xr-x 1 kart 544 21082 Aug 10 13:23 qb0.exe -rwxr-xr-x 1 kart 544...

<i>i know a good amount of C, i know alot of Objective C, but i dont know any of C++</i> Oh, really? Learn some C++ to see the difference.

You'll probably need around 1 GB just to get the OS installed. I ran into problems last week reinstalling Mac OS X by itself onto a UFS partition. It refused to start the Classic environment using OS 9 from a separate partition and it failed to detect my AirPort. So, I reformatted and tried...

You're absolutely right about gcc. It's rough around the edges and lacking some features found in several nicer compilers. :cool: It's "good enough" for a lot of things, though, and I'm glad the GNU tools are available, if only because it makes it easy to use random Linux and *BSD stuff in...

Because it is more Bourne compatible than ash? It wouldn't be all that big of a project to put together a Bourne compatible shell in-house. But rather than re-inventing the wheel, why not license the Korn shell? It's compatible and quite inexpensive. Most commercial unices use ksh88 as...

Well, it turns out that Apple has decided to use the Z shell for /bin/sh. Zsh is bourne compatible and so it doesn't break anything[1], yet it seems rather baroque to use a full featured[2] shell intended for interactive use as the standard system /bin/sh. In an email on 27 June 2001, <a...

Wow, they really DO use zsh. :eek: I'm wondering if replacing /bin/sh with a plain old nice, light and fast Bourne shell would help scripts run faster. Are there any Apple system scripts that DEPEND on zsh? There has got to be a reason why they chose it.

Thanks for the info, iconara. I didn't realize tcsh did it that way. On a somewhat-related topic, someone told me that /bin/sh in Mac OS X is actually zsh (!) instead of a plain old bourne shell. Do you know if that's true? Using zsh for /bin/sh wouldn't break anything (AFAIK) since zsh...

Ok, sorry. I'll try to go step by step and explain what stuff is and why they're they way they are. How can we modify the path? In tcsh and csh, do <tt>setenv PATH [whatever you want it to be]</tt> Normally this would be in your .profile or .cshrc. The dot (.) is shorthand for the...

so that I don't have to cd all the time to execute commands Eeep, nooooo! You are only able to do that because . is already included in your PATH. It makes things easier for DOS people but it's not the correct way to do things, and it's ESPECIALLY dangerous to include . in root's PATH...

Yeah, I've noticed that too. What a weird bug. I like rharder's explanation of it. That's not a bug, it's a *feature*

1-how can i change the disks icon? Login as root. Get Info on the thing whose icon you want to change. Paste a new icon. 2-my g3 350 was too slow to support this os? That's not a question.

Are you deliberately lying, or are you just unaware? It's possible to upgrade from the first NT 4 up to NT 4-sp6 without paying one penny. You can upgrade from the original Win2k to Win2k-sp2 for free as well. Going from 10.0.x to 10.1.x is a point release just like NT service packs. Both...