LinuxQuestions.org
View the Most Wanted LQ Wiki articles.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 01-02-2013, 12:41 PM   #31
oskar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2006
Location: Austria
Distribution: Ubuntu 12.10
Posts: 1,138

Rep: Reputation: 49

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruario View Post
As an example, consider the command kompare. You want to compare two text files and don't need to know anything about the program.
I'm just quoting to emphasize. I think the main problem the OP has is that he/she is comparing two fundamentally different programs that are unrelated to the system they run on. If you want a humanly readable output of the difference in two text files, you use kompare!
I guess there's a truth that default choices on the linux command line are often times not what you want. I used to boil with rage when people told newbies to edit their text files with vim or emacs. This is just stupid. Unless you have a very good reason to use one of those, you use nano, or gedit if you have a window manager running. I know there's someone reading this right now who thinks people should learn to use VI to edit their menu.lst, and if that's you, you are wrong!

Last edited by oskar; 01-02-2013 at 12:42 PM.
 
Old 01-02-2013, 12:47 PM   #32
stf92
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2007
Location: Buenos Aires.
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 3,069

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 45
First, I switched to Linux because I was tired of DOS/Win hermeticity. So, I'm not a detractor of Linux. But believe me, I have many a time implemented my own tools under DOS in the form of compiled programs. For instance, one for comparison among directory trees.

The truth is that I always say: I have to get familiar with diff. But when the time comes to use it, knock my head against the wall. And it was so easy under DOS.

But after all, friendliness is the new trend in Linux. See Ubuntu. Even such a conservative distro as Slackware is making concessions to the great public. I could quote but a few.
 
Old 01-02-2013, 01:06 PM   #33
/dev/random
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Distribution: Slackware 14.1, LFS-current, NetBSD 6.1.3
Posts: 119

Rep: Reputation: 38
Slackware is sticking to it's motto "KISS" (Keep it simple stupid)
Since patching all of the DE's out there to keep to the UNIX ways Slackware is built on is out of the question, Pat simply keeps it simple.
Slackware doesn't go out of it's way to make things easier for the user, the packages are requiring the Slackware team to make the changes that make it more friendly. (its more work to patch the features they don't want out of the distro then it is to make simple changes.)
 
Old 01-02-2013, 01:31 PM   #34
ruario
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2011
Location: Oslo, Norway
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,806

Rep: Reputation: 810Reputation: 810Reputation: 810Reputation: 810Reputation: 810Reputation: 810Reputation: 810
Quote:
Originally Posted by stf92 View Post
But shouldn't ls satisfy such an elementary need?
Just to come back to this, I don't think the need is as elementary as you think it is. Why do you want to list just the directories? One reason might be because you want to switch to a subdirectory and can't recall the exact name. In Windows this would be a problem because tab completion sucks and is not application specific, tab just cycles through all options (even non directories). On Linux under bash tab completion for cd would only match directories and would echo back a list of options on a second tab press if the first one could not autocomplete. Hence there would be no need on Linux to check the directories beforehand.

This is probably why a --dirs-only option (or similar) was never added to ls. And anyway as demonstrated in my examples if you really do need to do this, (e.g. as part of a shell script) there are lots of other ways to do it.
 
Old 01-02-2013, 01:34 PM   #35
ruario
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2011
Location: Oslo, Norway
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,806

Rep: Reputation: 810Reputation: 810Reputation: 810Reputation: 810Reputation: 810Reputation: 810Reputation: 810
Quote:
Originally Posted by stf92 View Post
But believe me, I have many a time implemented my own tools under DOS in the form of compiled programs. For instance, one for comparison among directory trees.
Interesting, under Linux I would just use diff for that!

Code:
diff <(cd dir1; find) <(cd dir2; find)
Note: My example assumes bash

Last edited by ruario; 01-02-2013 at 01:37 PM. Reason: corrected example
 
Old 01-02-2013, 02:09 PM   #36
Wim Sturkenboom
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Roodepoort, South Africa
Distribution: Slackware 10.1/10.2/12, Ubuntu 12.04, Crunchbang Statler
Posts: 3,786

Rep: Reputation: 282Reputation: 282Reputation: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by stf92 View Post
There's the info page. But believe me, you'll still need a course on diff.
I need a course to use info
 
Old 01-02-2013, 07:57 PM   #37
stf92
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2007
Location: Buenos Aires.
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 3,069

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 45
man forever!
 
Old 01-03-2013, 12:42 AM   #38
malekmustaq
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2008
Location: /root
Distribution: Slackware & BSD
Posts: 1,206

Rep: Reputation: 230Reputation: 230Reputation: 230
Quote:
In MS-DOS/Windows, a simple 'DIR /AD' lists the names of all directories in the current directory.
Why would Gnu need a command like that when a simple
Code:
ls
can list all the directories in the folder including the files available?

You have expressly used the word TOOL above, so let's play it from that rule:

Strongest tools in Gnu/Linux are being run in three simple commands that can be issued as one this way
Code:
~# ./configure && make && make install
that runs a REAL TIME TOOL. Now, come, POST HERE AND NOW HOW MICROSOFT HAS GIVEN YOU SUCH POWER AND WISDOM TO BUILD YOUR OWN EXE FROM THEIR OWN SOURCES AND IN WHAT SIMPLE COMMANDS WHICH YOU ARE WONT TO FLAUNT VAINLY.

Last edited by malekmustaq; 01-03-2013 at 11:01 PM.
 
Old 01-03-2013, 12:45 AM   #39
malekmustaq
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2008
Location: /root
Distribution: Slackware & BSD
Posts: 1,206

Rep: Reputation: 230Reputation: 230Reputation: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by stf92 View Post
man forever!
Yes, "man" or else pay to the M$.

Last edited by malekmustaq; 01-03-2013 at 11:02 PM.
 
Old 01-03-2013, 06:31 AM   #40
unSpawn
Moderator
 
Registered: May 2001
Posts: 26,999
Blog Entries: 54

Rep: Reputation: 2745Reputation: 2745Reputation: 2745Reputation: 2745Reputation: 2745Reputation: 2745Reputation: 2745Reputation: 2745Reputation: 2745Reputation: 2745Reputation: 2745
Quote:
Originally Posted by malekmustaq View Post
Quote:
In MS-DOS/Windows, a simple 'DIR /AD' lists the names of all directories in the current directory.
Stupid commands are only for stupid people.
While you took care to avoid using his name in it the sentence you quoted was posted by the OP. This gives the impression you are calling the OP stupid. And while the OP may cause irritation by bringing in all sorts of (un)related arguments and ignoring correct answers there is absolutely no reason for you to accuse him of being lazy or being stupid.

Do not do that again: remain respectful and friendly or don't post.
 
Old 01-03-2013, 10:01 AM   #41
malekmustaq
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2008
Location: /root
Distribution: Slackware & BSD
Posts: 1,206

Rep: Reputation: 230Reputation: 230Reputation: 230
Hey Mod,

Good day.

Are we forbidden to allude to general concepts? Is logical inference a matter of offense here?

In the first post above I have quoted from someone, yes, and if I intended to foul him/her it was more convenient to use a three letter pronoun (y-o-u) than exert additional effort against my hectic helping-time at using a six letter word third person compound noun "p-e-o-p-l-e" which alludes to no specific singular person and hits no identity target. Am I held liable and answerable for something I did not intend? Or is one (accused) made wrongful out of other men's malicious conclusion? Please bear in mind that it takes more than just sufficient evidence, it requires a proof beyond reasonable doubt to hold someone guilty for an offense.

I maintain my plea of innocence respecting the first post above. Take it or leave it: for I am willing to leave from this charitable enterprise at the first signs I am no longer worthy of this honor.

I think I have done enough here to return the good things I reaped from other good souls at the time I needed their helping most as a newbie in the past.

I express my defiance to the red card in the first post above.

-----------x

Concerning the second post above:

Yes I have employed a deserving adjective "laziness" because the post at bar from the OP is irrelevant, insincere, unhelpful, a tacit mockery and derision to the efforts behind "man" pages. Reading is the only investment needed to get the meaning of what "man" pages are for. If my informal adjective was given to an innocent post I certainly deserve a yellow card; but not when it was obviously solicited by a tacit mockery and derision of what man page means to a normal user.

It is discouraging a helper to see one in defense of FOSS material rather receive a red card, while the scorner enjoys the presumption of innocence. What injustice. How arbitrary if not an abuse of authority.

Last edited by malekmustaq; 01-03-2013 at 10:04 AM.
 
Old 01-03-2013, 10:28 AM   #42
malekmustaq
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2008
Location: /root
Distribution: Slackware & BSD
Posts: 1,206

Rep: Reputation: 230Reputation: 230Reputation: 230
Quote:
"In MS-DOS/Windows, a simple 'DIR /AD' lists the names of all directories in the current directory."

Reply: Stupid commands are only for stupid people. Why would Gnu need a command like that when a simple
Compare:

(From OP) --"a simple 'DIR /AD'" == singular, a simple command
(From my Reply) -- "Stupid commands" == plural, a universal allusion, !=

Another point:

The OP == singular person/user
"people" == compound of many citizens or the whole mankind !=

A simple logical evaluation cannot and will !not equate my statement to point the OP in particular. 'Singular' against 'plural' are mathematical oppositions, such that only one can exist but not both at the same time in the same respect. If it happens to land into malicious thinking it only occurs out of mental exercise, but never as a matter of logical necessity out of my statement as it is given.

Last edited by malekmustaq; 01-03-2013 at 10:30 AM.
 
Old 01-03-2013, 10:51 AM   #43
ntubski
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 2,396

Rep: Reputation: 814Reputation: 814Reputation: 814Reputation: 814Reputation: 814Reputation: 814Reputation: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by stf92 View Post
Another example: In MS-DOS/Windows, a simple 'DIR /AD' lists the names of all directories in the current directory. Could you tell me how you do it in Linux? See how I am speaking of the most basic tool in an OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stf92 View Post
I was speaking about ls, which is the command which should perform that simple task. In fact, there is a way, and it is
Code:
ls -d */
But I new very few people knew this. You would never guess it by reading the man page! But a simple 'DIR /S/AD' will give you all dirs to any depth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stf92 View Post
But shouldn't ls satisfy such an elementary need? On the other hand you can put 'ls -d1 */'. Or add any number of ls options. How do you do this with echo?
Both DOS and Unix provide a set of command line tools that can be combined in various ways to accomplish various tasks. The toolsets are different, and they have different defaults so PARICULAR TASKS will be more difficult in one set than the other.

The man page for ls doesn't explain about */ for the same reason that the help page for echo (I speak of cmd.exe's echo) doesn't explain how to output angle brackets (the answer is in help cmd, just like */ is explained in bash's manual):
Code:
C:\>echo >>>
> was unexpected at this time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malekmustaq View Post
Why would Gnu need a command like that when a simple
Code:
ls
can list all the directories in the folder including the files available?
Just because a task is slightly harder to express with a toolset doesn't mean it's pointless. Not that ls */ is really worse than dir /ad but this complete refusal to admit that the Unix design made some tradeoffs that might make it even slightly worse for SOME tasks is rather tiresome.
 
Old 01-03-2013, 01:53 PM   #44
Thad E Ginataom
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Distribution: Ubuntu 12.04 with KXStudio, MATE & Compiz
Posts: 46

Rep: Reputation: 7
Quote:
Both DOS and Unix provide a set of command line tools that can be combined in various ways to accomplish various tasks. The toolsets are different, and they have different defaults so PARICULAR TASKS will be more difficult in one set than the other.
Well, yes, and if a person has a pet tool or usage in one system, they may not enjoy finding out how to do the same in another. It's a kind of culture shock, and often results in a lot of frustrated cries of, "Why the hell can't this work like that did?" It goes on until one gets used to, even if not to like, the new system.
Quote:
this complete refusal to admit that the Unix design made some tradeoffs that might make it even slightly worse for SOME tasks is rather tiresome.
No doubt ...but there is really no comparison between the huge and varied collection of Unix tools along with their selection of programming and scripting languages, and the much lesser MS command-line set.
 
Old 01-03-2013, 02:29 PM   #45
unSpawn
Moderator
 
Registered: May 2001
Posts: 26,999
Blog Entries: 54

Rep: Reputation: 2745Reputation: 2745Reputation: 2745Reputation: 2745Reputation: 2745Reputation: 2745Reputation: 2745Reputation: 2745Reputation: 2745Reputation: 2745Reputation: 2745
Quote:
Originally Posted by malekmustaq View Post
Hey Mod,
Let's explore this further via email. You may expect a reply to your reported post RSN.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Windows XP + GRUB not playing nice emuuu Linux - General 9 08-29-2009 08:31 PM
LXer: How Windows Can Save Itself: Three Things We Want to See in Windows 7 LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 09-29-2008 07:30 PM
How to have fonts as nice as in MS Windows? calande Linux - General 5 07-12-2006 01:20 AM
Some nice things JanDeMan Linux - Networking 2 04-17-2004 05:44 AM
Windows not playing nice.... absolute0net Linux - Networking 0 07-07-2003 08:03 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:09 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration