Re: new ls(1) behavior?

Thanks to all who answered this: I was myopic and misdirected by my own short-sightedness. And I had just been teaching that you could "stack" flags with a single dash! Oh, well. Thanks to: Cameron Simpson John Darrah Bruce A. Mallett for pointing me correctly. -- Stan Isa

Re: new ls(1) behavior?

re information; thanks for the suggestion. -- Stan Isaacs > On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Stan Isaacs wrote: > > > I teach a class in (very) beginning UNIX, using Redhat Linux, version 6.?. > > In one exercise, the book (I use Sobells' "Practical Guide to Linux") asks > > stu

new ls(1) behavior?

ecial to "ls"? Are we going to be able to combine commands at random in the future? What about "ls -wc", a usage many students seem to try on quizes! Thanks, -- Stan Isaacs ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

RE: Bash questions

> On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Stan Isaacs wrote: > > >A beginner simply takes the "|" to work like a ";", and their limited > > testing seems to show that to be correct. They are likely never to get > > processes that take enough time to show the mis

RE: Bash questions

> > 1. Bash re-starts history each time it goes into a subshell. > > I think it would be much more reasonable to keep a uniform history > > for a given login session, even if, for instance, you started the > > "script" command to keep track of what you are doing. Or at least a flag > > that

Re: Bash questions

L.G.: Thanks for the reply - I'll look up the documents. I'm certain the class does NOT want to see these gritty details, and what I'm trying to do is to avoid having to mention them. But I do like to mention human readable forms of output - which means mention of tabs (unless there is a bet

Bash questions

se bogus pipes when the shell should be telling them directly! I don't know if these are just oversights in design, if there are good reasons behind them, or something else. -- Stan Isaacs ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: chown

> > On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Stan Isaacs wrote: > > > After looking at both the redhat archives, and freebsd, I guess I'm > > convinced that chown won't work, by default, for non-root users. Is there > > any way to change that default on Redhat Linux 6

chown

commands? If it won't work for regular users, it shouldn't be accessible to them (and the man page should say so!) -- Stan Isaacs -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.

checking mail delivery; suid

on my system. Where does it come from? I suppose in the worst case, I should be able to write a "C" wrapper program, which (I hope) could be suid'd; is there one already available? Thanks, -- Stan Isaacs -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.

script(1), history, subshells

to work nicely. Any help with this will be much appreciated! Thanks, -- Stan Isaacs -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.

redhat-list archives - How?

#x27;m trying to find information on the chown command, suid for scripts, how "history -n" works in a function, and how the "script" command works - if there are better man pages then come with redhat 6.1, or source code available, I might be able to answer my own questions.