On 4/12/10, Uriel <lost.gob...@gmail.com> wrote: > What is your question?
he just pointed out that 'sed 11q' incorrectly listed as an alternative to 'head' on cat-v (the correct alternative would be 'sed 10q') but it's a minor detail..
On 4/12/10, Uriel <lost.gob...@gmail.com> wrote: > What is your question?
he just pointed out that 'sed 11q' incorrectly listed as an alternative to 'head' on cat-v (the correct alternative would be 'sed 10q') but it's a minor detail..