Blog

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring

Bradley Burston

• http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.765635

For 80 years anti-Semites worldwide have celebrated a bare-faced forgery, ‘Franklin’s Prophecy,’ as proof the founding father saw Jews as ‘vampires’ and ‘a great danger for the United States.’

• http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.765668

I have “no idea”, what is better for my health:

• a dark (or black) background
• a light (or white) background

I think, the human eye enjoys white as a “general background”, … – so I somehow think, white as background is “more enjoyable”.

I just noticed, that

• my favourite editor has white as background
• and the CLI console has black as background,

and suddenly I found it tiring for my eyes to constantly change between a black and a white background.

My (current) CLI console on Windows is “ConEmu“, and apparently there are just these two colour schemes with white as background:

• “Tomorrow“
• “Solarized Light“

I switched to “Solarized Light” for now, because I enjoy its stronger contrast better than the one of “Tomorrow“.

BTW (just in case you/I want to switch back): Its default (resp. previous setting) is “ConEmu“.

• http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6781799/batch-equivalent-of-source-on-windows-how-to-run-a-python-script-from-a-virtu

With Bash command completion works the way, I expect it – or through all the years with Bash I learned what to expect: If I try to complete through a relativ or absolute directory, it lets me complete (sub)directory names and names of executable files.

With ash (under busybox-32) initially I had trouble getting certain executables recognised by command completion. It turned out, I only had trouble with shell scripts. And that was because my shell scripts did not have a shebang line:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebang_(Unix)

That’s because I “always” want to get them run through THE STANDARD system shell, and this is being achieved through not using a shebang line – so (under “normal” circumstances) why should I let them have a shebang line?

On busybox-w32 shell scripts w/o shebang line get properly executed – but they are not considered for command completion.

That’s a phenomenon resp. approach I had never come across before. And because I could not guess it by myself (and I falsely assumed the “ash” would consider the file extension), I created an “issue” here:

• https://github.com/rmyorston/busybox-w32
• https://github.com/rmyorston/busybox-w32/issues/68 : “command completion”

The reply:

In this context the file extension doesn’t matter. A text file is considered to be executable if the first characters are “#!“.

And it works exactly as described.

On Windows there is not “executable bit”, as on Unix/Linux/… filesystems. So busybox-w32 (or BusyBox in general?!?) looks at the “shebang”, and if there is one, the file is considered for command completion.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almquist_shell
• https://linux.die.net/man/1/ash – the markup is in a terrible state
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bash_(Unix_shell)

The problems with “ash” always most evident, if a shell script got written to work with Bash and needs adapting / downgrading to the “ash”.