Some links from things I jotted down from last week:

ls -d

http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/ls.html says:
"If no operands are specified, ls shall write the contents of the
current directory."
and then:
"-d  [...] Do not treat directories differently than other types of
files. [...]"

So it makes sense that 'ls -d .' would output '.', from the
description of -d above.

It also makes sense that 'ls' can be implemented as being equivalent
to 'ls .' from the 'no operands' description above.

Does this mean that 'ls -d' _must_ output '.', or is it free to be
equivalent to 'ls -d *'?

Event Notify Test Runner

Probably  mentioned before.

entr (http://entrproject.org/) reads filenames from standard input,
then watches those files for changes and runs a specified command each
time a change is seen.

ls *.pdf | entr pkill -HUP mupdf

...to tell mupdf to reload the PDF file it is displaying, each time
one of the PDFs in the current directory is regenerated.


polkit (https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/polkit/) allows
unprivileged processes to ask for privileged processes to carry out
specific actions, and uses PAM to decide whether to allow this. It's
what allows the 'Unlock' button seen in many config applications (e.g.
GNOME Settings) to work.

Star Wars in ASCII art

telnet towel.blinkenlights.nl


The 'sl' command: https://github.com/mtoyoda/sl

although I see a helpful suggestion instead thanks to

$ sl
bash: sl: command not found...
Similar command is: 'ls'


Next meeting:  Bournemouth, Tuesday, 2018-04-03 20:00
Meets, Mailing list, IRC, LinkedIn, ...  http://dorset.lug.org.uk/
New thread:  mailto:dorset@mailman.lug.org.uk / CHECK IF YOU'RE REPLYING
Reporting bugs well:  http://goo.gl/4Xue     / TO THE LIST OR THE AUTHOR

Reply via email to