Don Cragun dixit: >No. […]
Erm, yes. For some reason, I assumed the OP wrote &> instead of >& which have the same meaning in GNU bash (but &> is the parse-trouble one even if the bash manpage actively recommends it). I guess their “~>&” confused me. My point of _please_ using “>file 2>&1” instead is still valid, ofc. @L A Walsh: http://www.mirbsd.org/wtf.htm is an acronym database and a work I’m kinda proud of, for your future reference. Enjoy, //mirabilos -- 22:20⎜<asarch> The crazy that persists in his craziness becomes a master 22:21⎜<asarch> And the distance between the craziness and geniality is only measured by the success 18:35⎜<asarch> "Psychotics are consistently inconsistent. The essence of sanity is to be inconsistently inconsistent
