On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 6:32 AM, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:47:59AM +0100, Alexander Hall wrote:
>>
>>
>> Andres Perera wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Alexander Hall
>> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >> For scripting, echo is one of the commands I tend to avoid unless I
>>
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 01:47:54PM +0100, Alexander Hall wrote:
> On 12/18/12 12:54, Marc Espie wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:02:15PM +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
> >>Is this theoretical, or is there an actual Makefile where this is a problem
> >>?
> >>
> >>I'd rather NOT go through extra shell
On 12/18/12 12:54, Marc Espie wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:02:15PM +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
Is this theoretical, or is there an actual Makefile where this is a problem ?
I'd rather NOT go through extra shell forking just for the sake of it.
Also, echo -e is specific to ksh and NOT a posix
On 12/18/2012 12:42 PM, Eric Furman wrote:
> echo is Legacy.
> It is non standard and should never be used.
> Please use print or printf
And print is standard?
"bash: print: command not found..."
hmm...
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:02:15PM +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
> Is this theoretical, or is there an actual Makefile where this is a problem ?
>
> I'd rather NOT go through extra shell forking just for the sake of it.
>
> Also, echo -e is specific to ksh and NOT a posix option, so you're going
> to
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012, at 06:02 AM, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:47:59AM +0100, Alexander Hall wrote:
> >
> >
> > Andres Perera wrote:
> >
> > >On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Alexander Hall
> > >wrote:
> > >>
> > >> For scripting, echo is one of the commands I tend to avoid
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:47:59AM +0100, Alexander Hall wrote:
>
>
> Andres Perera wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Alexander Hall
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> For scripting, echo is one of the commands I tend to avoid unless I
> >know the
> >> data is "safe", because of it's horrific argu
Andres Perera wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Alexander Hall
>wrote:
>>
>> For scripting, echo is one of the commands I tend to avoid unless I
>know the
>> data is "safe", because of it's horrific argument parsing.
>>
>> I've yet to find a way to echo a single '-n' using the sh/ksh
>bui
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 08:43:45PM -0800, Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:14 PM, sven falempin
> wrote:
> > So much to just print ...
> >
> > so:
> > 1 echo is crap (not portable, not very usefull)
> > 2 print is doing echo job in ksh print [-nprsu[n] | -R [-en]] [argument
> >
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:14 PM, sven falempin wrote:
> So much to just print ...
>
> so:
> 1 echo is crap (not portable, not very usefull)
> 2 print is doing echo job in ksh print [-nprsu[n] | -R [-en]] [argument
> ...] (but this is completly different on pengouinOS)
> 3 printf is everywhere and
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012, sven falempin wrote:
So much to just print ...
so:
1 echo is crap (not portable, not very usefull)
2 print is doing echo job in ksh print [-nprsu[n] | -R [-en]] [argument
...] (but this is completly different on pengouinOS)
3 printf is everywhere and works fine
why do ech
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Alexander Hall wrote:
>
> For scripting, echo is one of the commands I tend to avoid unless I know the
> data is "safe", because of it's horrific argument parsing.
>
> I've yet to find a way to echo a single '-n' using the sh/ksh builtin. When
> printing unknown da
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Alexander Hall wrote:
> On 12/18/12 00:20, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
>> On 2012/12/17 18:26, Andres Perera wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Stuart Henderson
>>> wrote:
>>>
On 2012-12-17, sven falempin wrote:
> Hello misc readers,
On 12/18/12 00:20, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2012/12/17 18:26, Andres Perera wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2012-12-17, sven falempin wrote:
Hello misc readers,
First, openBSD threads are awesome for debugging.
The trivial topic,
echo -ne "\x00" | nc XXX
On 2012/12/17 18:26, Andres Perera wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Stuart Henderson
> wrote:
> > On 2012-12-17, sven falempin wrote:
> >> Hello misc readers,
> >>
> >> First, openBSD threads are awesome for debugging.
> >> The trivial topic,
> >> echo -ne "\x00" | nc port
> >> sen
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2012-12-17, sven falempin wrote:
>> Hello misc readers,
>>
>> First, openBSD threads are awesome for debugging.
>> The trivial topic,
>> echo -ne "\x00" | nc port
>> send a null byte with a GNU echo.
>>
>> Echo in openbsd does not
On 2012-12-17, sven falempin wrote:
> Hello misc readers,
>
> First, openBSD threads are awesome for debugging.
> The trivial topic,
> echo -ne "\x00" | nc port
> send a null byte with a GNU echo.
>
> Echo in openbsd does not have -e (and does not warn whan i try it ..)
>
> Noob question:
> H
echo expands nil from C backslash sequences just fine:
andres@pote:~/tmp $ alias vis
vis='vis -cl -F$COLUMNS'
andres@pote:~/tmp $ echo '\0a' | vis
\0a\$
andres@pote:~/tmp $ perl -e 'print "\0a\n"' | vis
\0a\$
what's most likely happening is that the protocol that you're
targeting treats '\0' as s
Hello misc readers,
First, openBSD threads are awesome for debugging.
The trivial topic,
echo -ne "\x00" | nc port
send a null byte with a GNU echo.
Echo in openbsd does not have -e (and does not warn whan i try it ..)
Noob question:
How to send a null byte over netcat ? am i forced to use
19 matches
Mail list logo
