On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 02:05:39PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar typed:
rsync isn't bloated and it's well written IMO. It still does only one job,
and
it does it well. As you say, most common tasks can still be done with only
short options. This would change if some developer decided to add other,
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 11:08:23PM -0500, Kirk Strauser typed:
Chris Rees wrote:
Traditional:
% tar xzvf bluurgh.tgz
GNU recommended:
$ tar --extract --verbose --gunzip --file bluurgh.tgz
Seriously, why are long options encouraged?
Scripting. I almost always use long options
what some single-letter option meant. I pretty much never use them on
the command line, though.
Agreed, the long options *as an alternative* can be descriptive in scripts,
tutorials, howto's etc.
The other reason often mentioned, there being not enough letters in the
alphabet to cover all
On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 11:49:51AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar typed:
what some single-letter option meant. I pretty much never use them on
the command line, though.
Agreed, the long options *as an alternative* can be descriptive in scripts,
tutorials, howto's etc.
The other reason often
rsync isn't bloated and it's well written IMO. It still does only one job, and
it does it well. As you say, most common tasks can still be done with only
short options. This would change if some developer decided to add other,
unrelated functionality. But that's harder if you want to maintain
2009/6/6 Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl:
what some single-letter option meant. I pretty much never use them on
the command line, though.
Agreed, the long options *as an alternative* can be descriptive in
scripts,
tutorials, howto's etc.
The other reason often mentioned,
On 6/6/09, Chris Rees utis...@googlemail.com wrote:
2009/6/6 Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl:
what some single-letter option meant. I pretty much never use them on
the command line, though.
Agreed, the long options *as an alternative* can be descriptive in
scripts,
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 11:16:05PM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 17:00:06 -0400, Jerry McAllister jerr...@msu.edu wrote:
Yes, I know. That is why some other additional for is also useful.
I don't really propose changing man, but do often wish for some other
form.
Many
On Thursday 04 June 2009 04:17:56 pm Chris Rees wrote:
Info is horrible to use as a quick reference, because as Polytropon
said earlier, you can't just dive in to get something specific. The
info is split into (arbitrary) sections, through which you have to
tread, and jump around
2009/6/5 Kirk Strauser k...@strauser.com:
On Thursday 04 June 2009 04:17:56 pm Chris Rees wrote:
Info is horrible to use as a quick reference, because as Polytropon
said earlier, you can't just dive in to get something specific. The
info is split into (arbitrary) sections, through which
On Friday 05 June 2009 11:50:58 am Chris Rees wrote:
Is there a 'quick' way to use emacs instead of info? Like info-emacs topic?
Not that I know of. :-/
I've remembered why I hate the info browser so much; it reminds me of
the 'help' included with MS-DOS 6.22. Anyone remember that?
Ouch.
2009/6/5 Kirk Strauser k...@strauser.com:
On Friday 05 June 2009 11:50:58 am Chris Rees wrote:
Is there a 'quick' way to use emacs instead of info? Like info-emacs topic?
Not that I know of. :-/
I've remembered why I hate the info browser so much; it reminds me of
the 'help' included with
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 13:23, Chris Rees utis...@googlemail.com wrote:
2009/6/5 Kirk Strauser k...@strauser.com:
On Friday 05 June 2009 11:50:58 am Chris Rees wrote:
Is there a 'quick' way to use emacs instead of info? Like info-emacs topic?
Not that I know of. :-/
I've remembered why I
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 09:23:06PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
Seriously, why are long options encouraged?
Some programs simply have a lot of options, and after a dozen or
so, a single letter loses its mnemonic value.
X applications have been using long options for 20 years - long enough
to get
GNU recommended:
$ tar --extract --verbose --gunzip --file bluurgh.tgz
Seriously, why are long options encouraged?
there are people that like to write a lot? ;)
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 10:49:19PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
GNU recommended:
$ tar --extract --verbose --gunzip --file bluurgh.tgz
Seriously, why are long options encouraged?
there are people that like to write a lot? ;)
no..., otherwise the people generating this thread would cite
2009/6/5 Thomas Dickey dic...@radix.net:
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 10:49:19PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
GNU recommended:
$ tar --extract --verbose --gunzip --file bluurgh.tgz
Seriously, why are long options encouraged?
there are people that like to write a lot? ;)
no..., otherwise
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 10:11:00PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
The point I was trying to make (badly), was that long options are a
PITA to type. I don't believe it's any easier to learn the long names
for options than the short ones. Since you're typing huge amounts of
text quickly, you're more
Chris Rees wrote:
Traditional:
% tar xzvf bluurgh.tgz
GNU recommended:
$ tar --extract --verbose --gunzip --file bluurgh.tgz
Seriously, why are long options encouraged?
Scripting. I almost always use long options when writing scripts I
might use again later so that 6 months later I
Ignore him please.
because?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
2009/6/4 Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl:
Ignore him please.
because?
The FreeBSD project still uses man pages as the principle form of
documentation. Texinfo is for GNU projects. Try 'info tar' on a BSD
system, you'll get the man page.
Chris
--
A: Because it messes up the
because?
The FreeBSD project still uses man pages as the principle form of
documentation. Texinfo is for GNU projects. Try 'info tar' on a BSD
system, you'll get the man page.
indeed. But i was talking about how linux looks. Forgot to read all - as
usual?
2009/6/4 Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl:
because?
The FreeBSD project still uses man pages as the principle form of
documentation. Texinfo is for GNU projects. Try 'info tar' on a BSD
system, you'll get the man page.
indeed. But i was talking about how linux looks. Forgot
On Thursday 04 June 2009 08:28:08 am Chris Rees wrote:
Perhaps your emails would be easier to read if they weren't so rushed.
I think that's the problem. After re-reading his email, I think I can see how
he meant it to refer to the state of Linux's documentation and not FreeBSD's,
but I
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:23:34 +0100, Chris Rees utis...@googlemail.com wrote:
The FreeBSD project still uses man pages as the principle form of
documentation.
Sorry I brought up this topic... I don't think manpages are bad,
I cosider them THE BEST SOLUTION for local documentation, so I
don't
It should be The FreeBSD project uses man pages [...] - not still,
which reads like The FreeBSD project still uses those old
fashioned man pages, but will abandon them soon in favour of
a GUI-driven help system that is used via Internet. :-)
are you sure it won't? at least i wish so, as most
2009/6/4 Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl:
Polytropon wrote:
It should be The FreeBSD project uses man pages [...] - not still,
which reads like The FreeBSD project still uses those old
fashioned man pages, but will abandon them soon in favour of
a GUI-driven help system that is
On Thursday 04 June 2009 11:20:24 am Chris Rees wrote:
PS Does _anyone_ prefer info manuals, apart from Stallman?
I like them *in their place*. Can you imagine how long the man page for GCC
would be? IMHO, though, info pages are only tolerable within Emacs.
--
Kirk Strauser
PS Does _anyone_ prefer info manuals, apart from Stallman?
I don't, it's much easier to just type man something than browsing through
big document
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 05:20:24PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
Er, yeah, i think man pages are the best solution too, and I apologise
for appearing to look down on them. I can't *stand* info manuals,
they're clunky and bloated.
Chris
PS Does _anyone_ prefer info manuals, apart from
PS Does _anyone_ prefer info manuals, apart from Stallman?
Well, man pages are good at formally documenting the how of use, but
they often are not so helpful on the why and wherefor of use.
for me it's exactly for this - to know how and why to use.
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 19:21:01 +0200 (CEST), Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
PS Does _anyone_ prefer info manuals, apart from Stallman?
I don't, it's much easier to just type man something than browsing through
big document
As far as I know, info doesn't let you search
Wojciech Puchar writes:
Well, man pages are good at formally documenting the how
of use, but they often are not so helpful on the why and
wherefor of use.
for me it's exactly for this - to know how and why to use.
It is important to understand man is a _reference_, not a
2009/6/4 Jerry McAllister jerr...@msu.edu:
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 04:17:43PM -0400, Robert Huff wrote:
Wojciech Puchar writes:
Well, man pages are good at formally documenting the how
of use, but they often are not so helpful on the why and
wherefor of use.
for me it's
It is important to understand man is a _reference_, not a
_tutorial_. It's great if you need to refresh your memory of the
Handbook is a tutorial. And looking at files in /bin, /sbin/ etc.. and
doing man was my way of learning unix years ago.
to the _fillintheblank() library call.
I am not sure a 'tutorial' is it either because they tend to take a
person through a couple of particular tasks using the item in
question, but still not discuss much of the why and wherefor.
What's wrong in FreeBSD handbook and many different paper books available
about unix? Actually not
What's wrong in FreeBSD handbook and many different paper books available
about unix? Actually not that many, but still there are available about
design of unix.
FreeBSD is really much more than the base OS.
Even though it is divided in to base and ports, it is really all
of them together.
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 04:17:43PM -0400, Robert Huff wrote:
Wojciech Puchar writes:
Well, man pages are good at formally documenting the how
of use, but they often are not so helpful on the why and
wherefor of use.
for me it's exactly for this - to know how and why to
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 17:00:06 -0400, Jerry McAllister jerr...@msu.edu wrote:
Yes, I know. That is why some other additional for is also useful.
I don't really propose changing man, but do often wish for some other
form.
Many programs contain an EXAMPLES section in the man page.
Further
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 11:16:05PM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 17:00:06 -0400, Jerry McAllister jerr...@msu.edu wrote:
Yes, I know. That is why some other additional for is also useful.
I don't really propose changing man, but do often wish for some other
form.
Many
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 12:06:55AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
I am not sure a 'tutorial' is it either because they tend to take a
person through a couple of particular tasks using the item in
question, but still not discuss much of the why and wherefor.
What's wrong in FreeBSD handbook
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 00:04:19 +0200 (CEST), Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
text-only is important.
Xorg is not part of FreeBSD, not always work, may be not wanted in many
cases and finally .. there are no need for any graphics to read text
maybe it's worth emphasizing
cases and finally .. there are no need for any graphics to read text
maybe it's worth emphasizing that manpages in the text only
form are the best solution for users with disabilities.
I actually know a blind man. But he has to use windoze+putty to be able to
use FreeBSD - because textreader
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 01:08:28 +0200 (CEST), Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
I actually know a blind man. But he has to use windoze+putty to be able to
use FreeBSD - because textreader software works only that way.
There are no braile style text terminals IMHO.
I've seen
The Braille output was 1x80 or 2x80. For outputs with less
colums, 1x40 or 2x40, an additional horizontal slider was
added.
RS-232 connected braile terminal would be THAT SIMPLE. Really nobody
wanted to make moneyincredible.
___
Polytropon writes:
Many programs contain an EXAMPLES section in the man page.
s/Many/Some/
Robert Huff
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
I'm looking to an existing way to output a date in the format
YY/DDD, where YY is the year (last two digits) and DDD is the
of the year, starting from 1, preceeded by zeroes if needed,
and /DDD, where is the year with four digits, such
as 2009-01-01 would be 09/001, 2009-02-01 would be
On Wednesday 03 June 2009 04:03:14 pm Polytropon wrote:
I'm looking to an existing way to output a date in the format
YY/DDD, where YY is the year (last two digits) and DDD is the
of the year, starting from 1, preceeded by zeroes if needed,
and /DDD, where is the year with four
as 2009-01-01 would be 09/001, 2009-02-01 would be 2009/032.
I've read man date and man strftime, and it didn't look
like this is already built in.
What am I missing?
If it's not invented yet, I'll do this on my own, but maybe
I don't need to re-invent the wheel. :-)
#include stdio.h
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:07:11 -0500, Kirk Strauser k...@strauser.com wrote:
Like this?
$ date +'%y/%j'
09/154
$ date +'%Y/%j'
2009/154
Exactly. After re-reading man strftime, I really found it
mentioned there:
%jis replaced by the day of the year as a decimal number (001-366).
On Wednesday 03 June 2009 04:52:19 pm Polytropon wrote:
Exactly. After re-reading man strftime, I really found it
mentioned there:
%jis replaced by the day of the year as a decimal number
(001-366).
Would be nice to have this in man date, too. :-)
Well, I see the point of
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 17:00:45 -0500, Kirk Strauser k...@strauser.com wrote:
Well, I see the point of documenting it in one canonical location, and
pointing everything else at that location (instead of having to maintain
every
related man page every time it's updated).
I really shoud have
PS. I love FreeBSD for its excellent documentation. Can't tell
something similar about Linux, sadly.
---
This manual is no longer maintained. It may contain wrong informations.
Use textinfo or even better out webpage
---
___
Ignore him please.
Sent from my iPod
--
Kirk
On Jun 3, 2009, at 6:14 PM, Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl
wrote:
PS. I love FreeBSD for its excellent documentation. Can't tell
something similar about Linux, sadly.
---
This manual is no longer maintained. It may
54 matches
Mail list logo
