>> Very true. Another Unix philosophy is "There's always more than one >> right way". I guess you can't blame someone for seeing, what he feels to >> be, a better way and implementing it. Besides, even though some don't >> agree with how and why the script came to be there's probably some value >> in the exercise. > > oh, for sure. I was not trying to imply that what Horst did was foolish, > surely he must have read some documentation somewhere along the way ... > unless he just has innate python ability ;) plus, he did fully > describe what he was doing!
I have to agree with Jake's reply ^^^. However, I felt I had to correct the original poster when he complained (albeit quite politely) that there wasn't a real solution with shell. I wanted to point out that, in fact, what he said can't be done, can easily be done with a simple, albeit lengthy shell script. I write shell scripts all day long every day, so I leave it to someone else to actually write out an easy-to-understand example. Additionally, while writing a Python script is a fascinating lesson, it's really just reinventing the wheel amd it's probably better to learn a more "native" way of doing things, ala /bin/sh. Every UNIX system has sh, and what you learn of shell programming exponentially helps you with solving other problems. I'll have to dig up the bash implementation of httpd that I wrote (yes, it does run out of either inetd or via netcat). It's quite a thorough implementation and even had the beginnings of cgi functionality (although I really didn't get that working before I got bored). Hopefully that didn't get toasted in the hd crash that took my 300 Reason sequences and songs with it. Others have written similarly sickening things with bash and sh. I'm absolutely convinced there's very little you can't do with the unix shell. _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
