On Thursday 11 December 2008 17:14:55 G. Matthew Rice wrote: > I think I'd like to vote for adding: > > 5. !<string> > > rerunning the previous command that started with <string> > > I had top running all night to prevent a ssh session from hanging and, > after doing some commands this morning, typed '!top' without even thinking. > > No comments from anyone on this (even Anselm and he brought it up ;)). > > Does anyone think that this is far enough (I actually prefer #5 over #3 and > #4 for LPIC-1)? > > Your last chance to say something is coming up because I have to write this > up for the addendum. Hopefully, everyone's finished their <insert > favourite winter holiday> shopping by now :)
It's my opinion that the Objective as a whole is flawed. Command history is one of those things that falls in the "really neat cute tricks to make your life easier" department. Someone who has taken the trouble to read man bash (all 4386 lines of it) will find all kinds of useful nuggets in there, none of them necessary, and all of them very leet. Personally, I never use !<string>, so can't answer questions on it. Which proves nothing. Someone else does use it, and that too proves nothing other than they have read the man page and learned a few tricks. Without those tricks, a user will still be able to use the shell very effectively, just take a teeny bit longer to get some things done. It's not the same order of importance as shell .profile files for example. What I do consider important is that the sysadmin knows where bash stores it's files. I would expect him to know of the existence of ~/.bash_history, the effects of HISTSIZE, HISTFILE, HISTFILESIZE, and that you can't stop the user from editing the history file (whereas knowing about script or a shell logger is beyond the scope of the Objective). -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
