But I think you're missing the point. Since days of yore, people have generally used 'df' with the assumption that it had sane output by default. ;)
Now whether that assumption was valid is another discussion. I would simply like to point out that you can infer that this was a COMMONLY held assumption by the MAJORITY of UNIX admins across all of UNIX-land simply by looking at any script ever written that uses 'df'. I would be willing to wager that 99% of those scripts use 'df' in the way that I and others that have responded to this thread so far use it: $ df | awk ... -- Puryear Information Technology, LLC Baton Rouge, LA * 225-706-8414 http://www.puryear-it.com Author, "Best Practices for Managing Linux and UNIX Servers" http://www.puryear-it.com/pubs/linux-unix-best-practices Identity Management, LDAP, and Linux Integration Derek J. Balling wrote: > > On Feb 4, 2008, at 10:15 AM, Dustin Puryear wrote: >> Yes, we can use -P to fix this, but how many scripts are out there >> that assume that.. oh, call me crazy.. that just a simple 'df' prints >> out output that can be properly awked? >> >> Anyone been bitten by this? > > Yes, and that's why "-P" exists. Because people were bitten and while > the MAJORITY of "df" usage is "live humans", occasionally there's a need > to be machine-readable, so "-P" is at your beck and call for all > scripted applications. :-) > > Cheers, > D > _______________________________________________ General mailing list [email protected] http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
