On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:36:20 -, markus schnalke
wrote:
That's actually a bug in Unix, discovered too late.
Yeah, and SQL injection attacks are PEBKAC problems. Tokenization by
insertion of whitespace into arbitrary strings is plain harmful. The bug
in Unix is caused by separating string
Bjartur Thorlacius writes:
> On 10/27/11, Jimmy Tang wrote:
>>
>> On 26 Oct 2011, at 17:12, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Jimmy Tang wrote:
just showed this to a friend of mine and he cooked this up
ls ${PATH//:/ }
>>>
>>> shit only works in bash
>>
[2011-10-27 09:05] Bjartur Thorlacius
>
> Directory names are a sequence of arbitrary nonzero bytes. Parsing a
> concatenation of arbitrary strings sucks. Directories can only be
> separated by zero bytes.
That's actually a bug in Unix, discovered too late.
meillo
On 10/27/11, Jimmy Tang wrote:
>
> On 26 Oct 2011, at 17:12, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Jimmy Tang wrote:
>>> just showed this to a friend of mine and he cooked this up
>>>
>>> ls ${PATH//:/ }
>>
>> shit only works in bash
>>
>
> oddly it worked in mksh which is th
On 26 Oct 2011, at 17:12, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Jimmy Tang wrote:
>> just showed this to a friend of mine and he cooked this up
>>
>> ls ${PATH//:/ }
>
> shit only works in bash
>
oddly it worked in mksh which is the main shell that i tend to use. but yea, i
On 26/10/2011 18:12, Kurt H Maier wrote:
shit only works in bash
+99
Death to bashisms.
--
Džen
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Jimmy Tang wrote:
> just showed this to a friend of mine and he cooked this up
>
> ls ${PATH//:/ }
shit only works in bash
--
# Kurt H Maier
Jimmy Tang writes:
> On 25 Oct 2011, at 16:48, Džen wrote:
>
>> On 25/10/2011 03:56, Evan Gates wrote:
>>> Really wish I had an undo send feature...
>>> (IFS=:; ls $PATH)
>>
>> couldn't do better.
>>
>
> just showed this to a friend of mine and he cooked this up
>
> ls ${PATH//:/ }
That will f
On 25 Oct 2011, at 16:48, Džen wrote:
> On 25/10/2011 03:56, Evan Gates wrote:
>> Really wish I had an undo send feature...
>> (IFS=:; ls $PATH)
>
> couldn't do better.
>
just showed this to a friend of mine and he cooked this up
ls ${PATH//:/ }
Regards,
Jimmy Tang
--
Trinity Centre for Hi
On 25/10/2011 03:56, Evan Gates wrote:
Really wish I had an undo send feature...
(IFS=:; ls $PATH)
couldn't do better.
--
Džen
- Original Message -
> From: Bastien Dejean
>
> mikshaw a écrit :
>
>> What about
>> ls /usr/{,local}/bin
>
> ls /usr{,/local}/bin
>
Thanks for the correction
- Original Message -
> From: Kurt H Maier
>
> can be extended:
>
> ls /{,usr/{,local/}}{,s}bin
>
I was trying to work that one out yesterday, but nested brackets often make my
head spin.
Thanks.
On 10/25/11, Bastien Dejean wrote:
> ls /usr{,/local}/bin
>
Or ls /usr/*/bin. Listing directories surely must be preferred over
listing just directories in /usr.
mikshaw a écrit :
> What about
> ls /usr/{,local}/bin
ls /usr{,/local}/bin
>> Something like
>>
>> ls `IFS=:; echo $PATH`
>
> no no, just
>
> IFS=:; ls $PATH
>
> -Evan
>
Really wish I had an undo send feature...
(IFS=:; ls $PATH)
-Evan
> Something like
>
> ls `IFS=:; echo $PATH`
no no, just
IFS=:; ls $PATH
-Evan
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Džen
> OK, regarding information density in a one-liner you win.
can be extended:
ls /{,usr/{,local/}}{,s}bin
(at least it works in ksh)
well, I'm glad we at least got something useful out of this thread.
--
# Kurt H Maier
On 24/10/2011 23:13, mikshaw wrote:
What about
ls /usr/{,local}/bin
OK, regarding information density in a one-liner you win.
--
Džen
;)
On 24/10/2011 22:59, Kurt H Maier wrote:
why bother listing /usr/local/bin if /usr/bin isn't around?
Why not?
(actually I started with a much more complicated (and complete)
version and edited it down to that. no optimization passes were
performed.)
Something like
ls `IFS=:; e
- Original Message -
> From: Džen
>
> On 23/10/2011 23:43, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> [...]
>> ls /usr/bin/ && ls /usr/local/bin
>
> Your one-liner sucks. Talking about CLI tools, most of all we should be
> precise at how to use them correctly; otherwise how would we be able to
> decide wh
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Džen wrote:
> ls /usr/bin /usr/local/bin
why bother listing /usr/local/bin if /usr/bin isn't around?
(actually I started with a much more complicated (and complete)
version and edited it down to that. no optimization passes were
performed.)
--
# Kurt H
On 23/10/2011 23:43, Kurt H Maier wrote:
[...]
ls /usr/bin/ && ls /usr/local/bin
Your one-liner sucks. Talking about CLI tools, most of all we should be
precise at how to use them correctly; otherwise how would we be able to
decide whether they are useful or not? How about
ls /usr/bin
On 24 October 2011 00:05, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
> By the way, how's sta.li progressing?
Still paused.
Cheers,
Anselm
On 10/23/11, hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Actually this guy does not only list CLI tools, neither is everything
> he has on there top-notch software.
> Yes, it's faster to write your own tools rather than reading that
> list, but ls /usr/local/bin is not anything I would want on any
> main
Actually this guy does not only list CLI tools, neither is everything
he has on there top-notch software.
Yes, it's faster to write your own tools rather than reading that
list, but ls /usr/local/bin is not anything I would want on any
mainstream lunixes either.
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ricardo Catalinas Jiménez
wrote:
> I found this nice list of tools for the CLI:
this appears to be a list of tools for *replicating a gui environment*
mostly in curses. a real list of tools for the cli can be had by
running the following command:
ls /usr/bin/ &
I found this nice list of tools for the CLI:
http://www.jonaustin.org/tools.html
--
Ricardo (http://r.untroubled.be/)
27 matches
Mail list logo
