begin quoting Carl Lowenstein as of Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 10:04:06AM -0700: > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Gus Wirth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Lan Barnes wrote: > > > Why why WHY do programmers send informational messages to stderr? It > > makes > > > it really difficult to script calls to the program that check for errors. > > > What is it about the "err" in stderr that they don't understand? > > > > Because there are only two normal outputs: stdout and stderr. Results of > > normal program output go to stdout, everything else goes to stderr. > > > > If you have a particular program that you want to mention, perhaps you > > can set a logging output, or maybe suppress status messages in some > > manner, either from the command line or through an environment variable. > > Many programs have a "quiet" option that suppresses everything except > > real error messages. > > It is a long-standing tradition that real computer users don't need > warm fuzzy encouraging status messages. Programs that work just do so > silently, saving their breath to complain if something went wrong.
That's what -v is for. :) Or syslog. Want status? Use tail -f... -- Anyone know of a windowmaker widget that will watch log files for me? Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
