but its not, its a file, almost no other tool errors out when you try to
modify a "directory"
On Monday 30 April 2001 00:07, Chris Byrnes wrote:
> Id expect an output of something like "Error: / is a directory" or
> something
>
>
> Chris Byrnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> JEAH Communications, LLC.
>
Juha Saarinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types:
> :: tail is doing as ordered. Directories and files are the same. So it's
> :: giving you the last ten lines of the file /
>
> Tail voss only obeyink orters???
>
> Well, it's silly to do that unthinkingly.
Well, yes, tail on a directory is a silly th
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 05:08:47PM +1200, Juha Saarinen wrote:
> Well, it's silly to do that unthinkingly. Here's what happens on a Debian
> box:
>
> juha@cyrus:~$ tail /
> tail: /: Is a directory
>
> More desirable behaviour, IMO.
FYI, and maybe surprisingly, you're about to start a flame war.
I'm sure my mail filters can handle it, but this has been the typical
practice for most programs. vi cat and a few others, ee will actually give
an error, but its one of the few. You'd have to speak to some of the
developers as to why it does this.
> Well, most people don't, do they? You go tail
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 17:08:47 +1200
"Juha Saarinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
JS> More desirable behaviour, IMO.
Not so. Being able to read a directory with normal tools is (on rare
occasions) useful - diagnosing a mess if nothing else. Being unable to do so
brings no useful functionality
Juha Saarinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types:
> :: Well, yes, tail on a directory is a silly thing to do unthinkingly.
> :: But the silly one isn't tail, it's the user who issued the command
> :: without thinking.
> So the butter-fingered luser must be punished?
Having to live with the consequences of
>Please let me know how can I switch back to 4.3 beta's
>source tree?
Don't! Go for RELENG_4_3 instead; PPPoE works with RELENG_4_3 as of middle
of last week - I know, I use it at home. And given the nature of
RELENG_4_3, I'm convinced it works with the current RELENG_4_3 as well.
--
:: The real issue is why should a command raise an error for no good
:: reason. Either a kernel panic or a message is a bit extreme just
:: because a user issued a command that someone else thinks is
:: unusual. Until you can prove that there is no use for the output of
:: tail on a directory, ad
:: Not so. Being able to read a directory with normal tools is (on rare
:: occasions) useful - diagnosing a mess if nothing else. Being
:: unable to do so
:: brings no useful functionality it just looks prettier.
So seeing a mess with tail/cat is useful to you?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
Juha Saarinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types:
> :: The real issue is why should a command raise an error for no good
> :: reason. Either a kernel panic or a message is a bit extreme just
> :: because a user issued a command that someone else thinks is
> :: unusual. Until you can prove that there is no
From: Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: tail
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:15:53 -0500
> On Unix, it's generally more important to make sure the user can shoot
> anything they want than it is to keep the user from shooting
> themselves in the foot.
How does that quote go, "Unix doesn't sto
:: UNIX is about doing what you ask for. You want to tail/cat a
:: directory, who is the system to tell you otherwise.
That's just silly.
Who hasn't mistakenly tailed/cat'ed a directory?
I thought the "User-unfriendliness Is Cool" era was long buried.
-- Juha
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [E
12 matches
Mail list logo
