On 6/13/05, GOMBAS Gabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Are there already any plans to solve these issues? > > Yes. The commands you mention were designed for _human_ consumption. Do > not use them in scripts without good reasons. There are a lot of
The maintainer of netstat didn't want to change the layout (by default) because scripts might get broken. What's the solution here? > commands to get well-formatted output without truncation. For example, > ls has a "-n" option for exactly this reason; stat(1) can be used > instead of "ls -l" to avoid clipping; ps has a _lot_ of formatting > options itself and all the data can be found under /proc in an easily > parseable format etc. You just have to select the right tool for the job > (that also includes using more powerful scripting languages if the task > is complicated). > > I was thinking, using structured output (and maybe input) in an XML-like > > way would solve these and allow neat post-processing. > > XML is just _terrible_ for human input/output. It's not meant for human IO, it's meant for IO to the next chain. The final chain would then process it to normal text output.
