I tested on bash 4.3 and 3.0
testing]$ bash --version
bash --version
GNU bash, version 4.3.0(1)-release (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
In a directory I have:
testing]$ ls -l
total 16
-rw-r--r-- 1 hpierce hpierce 77 Mar 26 20:09 dog1
-rw-r--r-- 1 hpierce hpierce 77 Mar 26 20:09 dog2
-rw-r--r-- 1 hpie
On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 8:30:12 PM UTC-4, billy...@gmail.com wrote:
> I tested on bash 4.3 and 3.0
>
>
>
> testing]$ bash --version
>
> bash --version
>
> GNU bash, version 4.3.0(1)-release (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
>
>
>
> In a directory I have:
>
>
>
> testing]$ ls -l
>
> total
On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 8:30:12 PM UTC-4, billy...@gmail.com wrote:
> I tested on bash 4.3 and 3.0
>
>
>
> testing]$ bash --version
>
> bash --version
>
> GNU bash, version 4.3.0(1)-release (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
>
>
>
> In a directory I have:
>
>
>
> testing]$ ls -l
>
> total
On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 8:30:12 PM UTC-4, billy...@gmail.com wrote:
> I tested on bash 4.3 and 3.0
>
>
>
> testing]$ bash --version
>
> bash --version
>
> GNU bash, version 4.3.0(1)-release (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
>
>
>
> In a directory I have:
>
>
>
> testing]$ ls -l
>
> total
On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 8:30:12 PM UTC-4, billy...@gmail.com wrote:
> I tested on bash 4.3 and 3.0
>
>
>
> testing]$ bash --version
>
> bash --version
>
> GNU bash, version 4.3.0(1)-release (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
>
>
>
> In a directory I have:
>
>
>
> testing]$ ls -l
>
> total
On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 8:30:12 PM UTC-4, billy...@gmail.com wrote:
> I tested on bash 4.3 and 3.0
>
>
>
> testing]$ bash --version
>
> bash --version
>
> GNU bash, version 4.3.0(1)-release (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
>
>
>
> In a directory I have:
>
>
>
> testing]$ ls -l
>
> total
On Thursday, March 27, 2014 2:15:22 PM UTC-4, Eduardo A. Bustamante López wrote:
> > Your response is "I recommend you to use 'set -x'"? Nice. Unfortunately
> > it also means you're a troll, so further discussion with you is pointless.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Well, care to explain why I'm labeled a