Re: [xubuntu-users] shell tools

[Steve Litt]

On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 19:59:34 -0500
pereira  wrote:


> Still, adding to the instructions how best to add the link to
> whatever to $PATH

http://www.troubleshooters.com/linux/prepostpath.htm
 
SteveT

Steve Litt 
December 2016 featured book: Rapid Learning for the 21st Century
http://www.troubleshooters.com/rl21

-- 
xubuntu-users mailing list
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users

Re: [xubuntu-users] shell tools

[Eric Christopherson]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017, pereira wrote:
> I learn a lot here... keep it going!
> 
> > Like /usr
> > No, it is NOT a short name fuer /user
> > It is an abbreviation of UNIX system ressources.
> > 
> > We have to live with it since 1970 :-)

That's a total urban legend, a folk etymology, and a backronym.

-- 
Eric Christopherson

-- 
xubuntu-users mailing list
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users

Re: [xubuntu-users] shell tools

[pereira]

I learn a lot here... keep it going!


Like /usr
No, it is NOT a short name fuer /user
It is an abbreviation of UNIX system ressources.

We have to live with it since 1970 :-)





--
xubuntu-users mailing list
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users

Re: [xubuntu-users] shell tools

[Ulli Horlacher]

On Tue 2017-01-10 (21:48), Peter Flynn wrote:


(/opt)

> The idea has merit but the name is bad.
> What I said: call things what they are, not what imagination offers.
> Calling it /apps might have been a better idea, but it's too late now,
> just another ill-considered name that needs better documenting.

Like /usr
No, it is NOT a short name fuer /user
It is an abbreviation of UNIX system ressources.

We have to live with it since 1970 :-)


-- 
Ullrich Horlacher  Server und Virtualisierung
Rechenzentrum TIK 
Universitaet Stuttgart E-Mail: horlac...@tik.uni-stuttgart.de
Allmandring 30aTel:++49-711-68565868
70569 Stuttgart (Germany)  WWW:http://www.tik.uni-stuttgart.de/
REF:

-- 
xubuntu-users mailing list
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users

Re: [xubuntu-users] shell tools

[Peter Flynn]

> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:06 AM, Ulli Horlacher
> SysV UNIX

On 01/10/2017 12:17 PM, Benjamin P. August wrote:
> In some worlds it was /opt and others it was /usr/local that got used
> for extra packages. 
> But Solaris (SysV based) used /opt, and once upon a time it was the #1
> proprietary UNIX. 

That would explain it. I stuck with SunOS 4.1.3 when Solaris appeared,
so I missed /opt.

> It is a good idea. You can place an optional software package in a
> single directory and do not have to spread it over /etc /usr/bin /lib
> ...

The idea has merit but the name is bad.
What I said: call things what they are, not what imagination offers.
Calling it /apps might have been a better idea, but it's too late now,
just another ill-considered name that needs better documenting.

///Peter



-- 
xubuntu-users mailing list
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users

Re: [xubuntu-users] shell tools

[Len Philpot]

Of course it depends onthe developer/packager to an extent(whether or 
not they follow standards). Thereare the occasional packages that 
install under /opt yet also put stuff under /usr/lib, /usr/share, etc. 
Fortunately that doesn't happen too often. On our Solaris boxen, we have 
stuff in just about every location- wherever the packager wanted it to 
go. Usually the packaging tools keep track of it, but not always...


*Len Philpot*
lphilpo...@gmail.com 
/Sent from Thunderbird on Xubuntu Linux/
On 01/10/2017 06:24 AM, Ulli Horlacher wrote:

On Tue 2017-01-10 (07:17), Benjamin P. August wrote:

In some worlds it was /opt and others it was /usr/local that got used for
extra packages.

There is a BIG difference:
Applications in /opt/ are in ONE subdirectory, whereas in /usr/local/ they
are spread over many subdirectories.
To remove an application under /opt you can simply "rm /opt/$APPLICATION"
This is not possible for a /usr/local/ installation.



But Solaris (SysV based) used /opt

Also HPUX, AIX, OSF/1, etc...




-- 
xubuntu-users mailing list
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users

Re: [xubuntu-users] shell tools

[Benjamin P. August]

In some worlds it was /opt and others it was /usr/local that got used for
extra packages.
But Solaris (SysV based) used /opt, and once upon a time it was the #1
proprietary UNIX.

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:06 AM, Ulli Horlacher <
frams...@rus.uni-stuttgart.de> wrote:

> On Mon 2017-01-09 (22:33), Peter Flynn wrote:
>
> > I must have been off-planet when /opt got "standardised"...I still don't
> > know where it came from.
>
> SysV UNIX
>
>
> > Possibly one of the most unnecessary changes ever to affect Linux.
>
> It is a good idea. You can place an optional software package in a single
> directory and do not have to spread it over /etc /usr/bin /lib ...
>
> --
> Ullrich Horlacher  Server und Virtualisierung
> Rechenzentrum TIK
> Universitaet Stuttgart E-Mail: horlac...@tik.uni-stuttgart.de
> Allmandring 30aTel:++49-711-68565868
> 70569 Stuttgart (Germany)  WWW:http://www.tik.uni-stuttgart.de/
> REF:<759e06e1-e311-150c-435e-652638567...@silmaril.ie>
>
> --
> xubuntu-users mailing list
> xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/
> mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users
>



-- 
--Ben
Benjamin P. August - Chapel Hill, NC - @bigbenaugust1 -
https://github.com/bigbenaugust

"A party without cake is just a meeting."
  --Julia Child
-- 
xubuntu-users mailing list
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users

Re: [xubuntu-users] shell tools

[Ulli Horlacher]

On Mon 2017-01-09 (22:33), Peter Flynn wrote:

> I must have been off-planet when /opt got "standardised"...I still don't
> know where it came from. 

SysV UNIX


> Possibly one of the most unnecessary changes ever to affect Linux.

It is a good idea. You can place an optional software package in a single
directory and do not have to spread it over /etc /usr/bin /lib ...

-- 
Ullrich Horlacher  Server und Virtualisierung
Rechenzentrum TIK 
Universitaet Stuttgart E-Mail: horlac...@tik.uni-stuttgart.de
Allmandring 30aTel:++49-711-68565868
70569 Stuttgart (Germany)  WWW:http://www.tik.uni-stuttgart.de/
REF:<759e06e1-e311-150c-435e-652638567...@silmaril.ie>

-- 
xubuntu-users mailing list
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users

Re: [xubuntu-users] shell tools

[pereira]

I saw it uses /etc/os-release, which is so well-named that there is no
doubt about what it's good for but I did not know existed. It's good to
know though

There are many good ideas which have never succeeded, alas.


Amen

That's the kind of thing that drives me up the wall. There should be
standards for these things

Some things need standardising to make life easier for people;
some things simply don't need standardising at all.


As usual, common sense (whatever that is) should determine which is which.
Please, give those who make/discuss/contribute to the rules the wisdom 
to know.

Same with where you put programs that you get elsewhere. You mention
putting them in /opt:

I must have been off-planet when /opt got "standardised"...I still don't
know where it came from. Possibly one of the most unnecessary changes
ever to affect Linux.

For example, LibreOffice is not "an option", it's an application.

What Linux (and OS software in general) needs is not more and more
standardisation, but a Common Sense Advisor, preferably an individual,
not a committee, whose job is to scream "horsesh*t" very loudly :-)
whenever someone decides to start doing unnecessary things in
unnecessary ways that break everything else for everyone.

It used to be the job of Usenet to do this, but since everything got
politically-correct and moved to SE, the option of flaming offenders has
disappeared, and has been replaced by overworked mods disallowing
questions that they haven't had time to read carefully enough.


Again, Amen Brother!


///Peter




--
xubuntu-users mailing list
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users

Re: [xubuntu-users] shell tools

[Ulli Horlacher]

On Mon 2017-01-09 (17:03), pereira wrote:

> Another post mentioned that your way of doing it is not necessarily

Which way?


> You mention putting them in /opt: the problem is then that they
> disappear  when you install a new version from scratch, so  now I put 
> them under
> /home (and, I'm the only  user on my system).

/home also disappears when you install a new version from scratch.

Before you do a new installation you should make a backup.

And there are more users on your systen, at least there is user root.
When you install additional software in your $HOME/bin, then user root has
it not his $PATH.

-- 
Ullrich Horlacher  Server und Virtualisierung
Rechenzentrum TIK 
Universitaet Stuttgart E-Mail: horlac...@tik.uni-stuttgart.de
Allmandring 30aTel:++49-711-68565868
70569 Stuttgart (Germany)  WWW:http://www.tik.uni-stuttgart.de/
REF:<6badc899-174c-326d-ae55-30833ecb2...@gmail.com>

-- 
xubuntu-users mailing list
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users

Re: [xubuntu-users] shell tools

[Peter Flynn]

On 01/09/2017 10:03 PM, pereira wrote:
> On 01/09/2017 08:19 AM, Ulli Horlacher wrote:
[...]
>> Though I am German, I have NEVER written German programs. All my
>> programs are in English, because this is the world languange.

All my [few] programs are in English, but I have also written the
documentation in German and French because there were (at the time) no
native-speakers of those languages available locally who understood the
programs. Very different nowadays.

>>> I saw it uses /etc/os-release, which is so well-named that there is no
>>> doubt about what it's good for but I did not know existed. It's good to
>>> know though

There are many good ideas which have never succeeded, alas.

> That's the kind of thing that drives me up the wall. There should be
> standards for these things

Some things need standardising to make life easier for people;
some things simply don't need standardising at all.

> Same with where you put programs that you get elsewhere. You mention
> putting them in /opt:

I must have been off-planet when /opt got "standardised"...I still don't
know where it came from. Possibly one of the most unnecessary changes
ever to affect Linux.

For example, LibreOffice is not "an option", it's an application.

What Linux (and OS software in general) needs is not more and more
standardisation, but a Common Sense Advisor, preferably an individual,
not a committee, whose job is to scream "horsesh*t" very loudly :-)
whenever someone decides to start doing unnecessary things in
unnecessary ways that break everything else for everyone.

It used to be the job of Usenet to do this, but since everything got
politically-correct and moved to SE, the option of flaming offenders has
disappeared, and has been replaced by overworked mods disallowing
questions that they haven't had time to read carefully enough.

///Peter

-- 
xubuntu-users mailing list
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users

Re: [xubuntu-users] shell tools

[pereira]

Ulli,
Another post mentioned that your way of doing it is not necessarily

the canonical (that is, preferred; not the Ubuntu people) .

I do not write programs just for Ubuntu. Seldomly I wrote Linux-only code.
Normally my programs are generic for all UNIX systems, even MacOS.

Therefore I do not support any "Ubuntu preferred" installation.
Anyone who thinks it is necessary is invited to add a specific installer.

Sorry, here I use the two of the three (at least) meanings of 'canonical';
What I intended was to say 'proper', according to standard unix or linux.
Then, I remembered that 'Canonical' is also the name of the company that
keeps Ubuntu going. And, of course, 'canonical' originally meant 'according
to the Canon of the Catholic Church', which is where the first meaning comes
from.

I agree with you on writing things in English. My first language is Dutch,
but even when I wrote a tiny little bit of computer code there (in 
algol, of all

languages, in the late 1960s) any comments were already in English. And when
I write a little code (in fortran) here in the US it's also commented in 
English.

Still, comments in German, French or on occasion Spanish are better than no
comments.

Though I am German, I have NEVER written German programs. All my
programs are in English, because this is the world languange.
See http://fex.rus.uni-stuttgart.de:8080/
All other languages, even German, are contributions from others.
This is the way how open source works: someone creates an interesting
program and others contribute to it.



I have added then http://fex.belwue.de/swinstall for "foreigners"
especially to have a generic update machanism for my fstools.


Thank you; I might look at this when I have some time.


I saw it uses /etc/os-release, which is so well-named that there is no
doubt about what it's good for but I did not know existed. It's good to
know though

Not every UNIX has this file, not even every Linux!
It is just common for some distributions.

That's the kind of thing that drives me up the wall. There should be 
standards
for these things, just as there is a standard that tells you to 
increment 'path' in
.profile rather than in .bashrc (which is where I used to put things 
before .bashrc
pulled them in from other files). Same with where you put programs that 
you get

elsewhere. You mention putting them in /opt: the problem is then that they
disappear  when you install a new version from scratch, so  now I put 
them under

/home (and, I'm the only  user on my system).

Despite comments like this, I do appreciate you and other's enlightening 
posts to the list.


Thank you

Nino


--
xubuntu-users mailing list
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users

Re: [xubuntu-users] shell tools

[Ulli Horlacher]

On Sun 2017-01-08 (19:59), pereira wrote:

> > Everbody working with the shell should know what $PATH is.
> > If you do not know what a shell is, then fstools is nothing for you.

> Actually, I did know just enough to get the $PATH added, but as you
> pointed out, not in what you consider the right way, by adding the path
> to .profile. In your comment on this you educated me, so that's how I
> learn. Another post mentioned that your way of doing it is not necessarily
> the canonical (that is, preferred; not the Ubuntu people) way, so now
> I'm in doubt again.

I do not write programs just for Ubuntu. Seldomly I wrote Linux-only code.
Normally my programs are generic for all UNIX systems, even MacOS.

Therefore I do not support any "Ubuntu preferred" installation.
Anyone who thinks it is necessary is invited to add a specific installer.

Though I am German, I have NEVER written German programs. All my
programs are in English, because this is the world languange.
See http://fex.rus.uni-stuttgart.de:8080/
All other languages, even German, are contributions from others.
This is the way how open source works: someone creates an interesting
program and others contribute to it.

Back to fstools:
The traditional place to set $PATH is /etc/profile (or /etc/profile.d/*)
and $HOME/.profile

This is UNIX basic knowhow, which I premise, like how to start a shell in
a terminal or using a keyboard. I offer no extra explanation on these
topics.


> >> Better yet would be to package fstools as something that installs them
> >> the newfangled debian/unix way with apt-get
> > fstools is free software: just do it.
> I would if I could. I can't.  In this I depend on people more expert 
> than me, and
> I appreciate their contributions. Sorry.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/NewPackages


> You mentioned sw as a Stuttgart-written way to distribute software.

It is called "/sw" - with a leading slash! It is important :-)


> happened to have
> downloaded the executables swlink (or something), and tried to learn 
> what they are
> doing.

SWlink is just one script (not a binary executable) of the whole systems.
You cannot use it standalone.

I admit, the /sw documentation is not very good, because It was never
planned to use it outside of the University of Stuttgart.

I have added then http://fex.belwue.de/swinstall for "foreigners"
especially to have a generic update machanism for my fstools.


> I saw it uses /etc/os-release, which is so well-named that there is no
> doubt about what it's good for but I did not know existed. It's good to
> know though

Not every UNIX has this file, not even every Linux!
It is just common for some distributions.

-- 
Ullrich Horlacher  Server und Virtualisierung
Rechenzentrum TIK 
Universitaet Stuttgart E-Mail: horlac...@tik.uni-stuttgart.de
Allmandring 30aTel:++49-711-68565868
70569 Stuttgart (Germany)  WWW:http://www.tik.uni-stuttgart.de/
REF:

-- 
xubuntu-users mailing list
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users

Re: [xubuntu-users] shell tools

[pereira]

an additional step is necessary

to get them to work without having to jump through hoops.

The only hoop is setting $PATH.
Everbody working with the shell should know what $PATH is.
If you do not know what a shell is, then fstools is nothing for you.

Actually, I did know just enough to get the $PATH added, but as you
pointed out, not in what you consider the right way, by adding the path
to .profile. In your comment on this you educated me, so that's how I
learn. Another post mentioned that your way of doing it is not necessarily
the canonical (that is, preferred; not the Ubuntu people) way, so now
I'm in doubt again.

Still, adding to the instructions how best to add the link to whatever 
to $PATH
makes it easier for the less sophisticated to do the right thing without 
too much
gnashing of teeth. And, adding some explanation of the why might even 
give them
insight, and perhaps reason for other sophisticates to discuss with you 
why you have it

wrong. Also interesting to read.

Better yet would be to package fstools as something that installs them
the newfangled debian/unix way with apt-get

fstools is free software: just do it.
I would if I could. I can't.  In this I depend on people more expert 
than me, and

I appreciate their contributions. Sorry.

In this connection let me mention the following.
You mentioned sw as a Stuttgart-written way to distribute software. I 
happened to have
downloaded the executables swlink (or something), and tried to learn 
what they are
doing. I saw it uses /etc/os-release, which is so well-named that there 
is no doubt about what

it's good for but I did not know existed. It's good to know though.
But, the executable had no comments that I remember, so I could not 
follow what it was
trying to do and I deleted it. I might have learned something from any 
comments.

Nino






--
xubuntu-users mailing list
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users

Re: [xubuntu-users] shell tools

[Ulli Horlacher]

On Sun 2017-01-08 (14:12), pereira wrote:

> > You can download fstools or part of them manually from
> > http://fex.belwue.de/fstools/
> 
> get -O- http://fex.belwue.de/sw/share/fstools-0.0.tar | tar xvf -
> 
> This worked without problem, except that the executables ended up in a 
> local directory fstools-0.0/bin, so that an additional step is necessary
> to get them to work without having to jump through hoops.

The only hoop is setting $PATH.
Everbody working with the shell should know what $PATH is.
If you do not know what a shell is, then fstools is nothing for you.


> Better yet would be to package fstools as something that installs them 
> the newfangled debian/unix way with apt-get

fstools is free software: just do it.


-- 
Ullrich Horlacher  Server und Virtualisierung
Rechenzentrum TIK 
Universitaet Stuttgart E-Mail: horlac...@tik.uni-stuttgart.de
Allmandring 30aTel:++49-711-68565868
70569 Stuttgart (Germany)  WWW:http://www.tik.uni-stuttgart.de/
REF:

-- 
xubuntu-users mailing list
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users

Re: [xubuntu-users] shell tools

[pereira]

On 01/08/2017 12:06 PM, Ulli Horlacher wrote:

On Sun 2017-01-08 (11:22), pereira wrote:


Trying to learn some more, I tried sudo apt get install sw,
and sudo apt-get install swtools, but nothing useful happend.

/sw is a UNIX software distribution system developed at the University of
Stuttgart, long before Linux existed!

You cannot install it with apt, because /sw is not an application, but a
software distribution system!

Part of /sw are my fstools.
Using of /sw is not mandatory, it is just easier to do so, because of the
updater, etc.

You can download fstools or part of them manually from
http://fex.belwue.de/fstools/

I did this with the command given below the list  of fstools, viz.,

get -O- http://fex.belwue.de/sw/share/fstools-0.0.tar | tar xvf -

This worked without problem, except that the executables ended up in a 
local
directory fstools-0.0/bin, so that an additional step is necessary to 
get them to

work without having to jump through hoops. By now I know enough about linux
to know which hoops those are, but a few years ago I would have been 
stymied,
and would have had to spend a lot of time to find out what to do. Most 
likely I

would have given up.

So, an additional piece of information ($PATH... bla-bla) would have 
helped here.


Better yet would be to package fstools as something that installs them 
the newfangled
debian/unix way with apt-get; I certainly don't know how to do it with 
the more

venerable sw.

Nino

Nino



--
xubuntu-users mailing list
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users

Re: [xubuntu-users] shell tools (was Re: Is it possible to edit the right-click menu?)

[Richard Owlett]

On 1/8/2017 10:05 AM, Len Philpot wrote:

TECO ... fondly?:-)  :-)


It did teach me to watch my punctuation. IIRC it was a misused 
comma or semicolon in an edit macro that put me in an infinite loop.
Besides its what was available in the department at the time - 
was an Engr Tech at DEC at the time.




I think I tried it once... kinda like EMACS. Just once. I do vi
for quick stuff all over the place, but even so I'll jump to
(e.g.) Geanyfor longer-term editing. However, use vi on Solaris
for while and it'll make you appreciate Vim greatly.  :-)


*Len Philpot*
lphilpo...@gmail.com 
/Sent from Thunderbird on Xubuntu Linux/
On 01/08/2017 09:44 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:

On 1/8/2017 8:50 AM, Ulli Horlacher wrote:

On Sun 2017-01-08 (08:24), Richard Owlett wrote:


http://fex.belwue.de/fstools/del.html



I would suggest that any new to Linux browse
http://fex.belwue.de/fstools/index.html just to gain perspective
of what can be done at the command line.


Beware!
This is only for Real Men [TM] without fear because no
clicky-pointy ;-)


See also:

http://fex.belwue.de/fstools/bash.html
http://fex.belwue.de/fstools/vv.html




Will likely be useful also.
P.S. Real Men fondly remember using an 026 or KSR35 to
communicate with CORC, CUPL, TECO, CP/M-80, et cetera. Do I
predate rodents?













--
xubuntu-users mailing list
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users

Re: [xubuntu-users] shell tools

[Len Philpot]

You're right - sloppy wording on my part. More accurate would be 
"for-terminal-use".  For example, $PS1 and other terminal related stuff. 
That is,things I want set typically for all terminal instances.


That's based on the bash manpage I read somewhere back on Solaris years 
ago. It said that .bashrc was sourced upon shell invocation whereas 
.bash_profile was sourced only at login. For my purposes that essentially 
made .bashrc work for terminal sessions. For others it might be different. 
Like I said you'll see different approaches.


... man, that was tough to type on my phone, with dot file names and auto 
correct / auto predict!   :-)


Len Philpot
lphilpo...@gmail.com
Sent from my Android phone using AqualMail Pro



On January 8, 2017 10:11:57 AM Ulli Horlacher 
 wrote:



On Sun 2017-01-08 (10:02), Len Philpot wrote:


For bash, I usually put per-terminal-instance values in ~/.bashrc


No good idea, because *every* bash subshell will execute ~/.bashrc, not
only when you start a new terminal program!

You can see it, when you add the line
echo executing ~/.bashrc
into your ~/.bashrc


--
Ullrich Horlacher  Server und Virtualisierung
Rechenzentrum TIK
Universitaet Stuttgart E-Mail: horlac...@tik.uni-stuttgart.de
Allmandring 30aTel:++49-711-68565868
70569 Stuttgart (Germany)  WWW:http://www.tik.uni-stuttgart.de/
REF:

--
xubuntu-users mailing list
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users
-- 
xubuntu-users mailing list
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users

Re: [xubuntu-users] shell tools

[pereira]

Hi Uri,

Real Unix Men were once little children too, and passed through various 
stages as they
developed their magical powers in dealing with xubuntu or more in 
general unix.
Others, though, became Real Expert Men in other areas, never having had 
the time
or the motivation to learn other OSs than a 1960s IBM system or the cos 
that came
with the Cray7600 in the 1970s. Then, when it came time to learn new 
magic with
linux and xubuntu, they must use a walker in unix land and count on the 
Real Unix Men
to help them cross the street or whatever else might cause difficulty if 
they mess up.


So, my reaction was intended to gently remind the experts that this list 
is lurked
on by all kinds, from experts who contribute to those who want to more 
than to find
glimmers of insight or stimulus to explore a little and learn from it. 
For the latter it is
best not to assume too much knowledge, e.g., an active knowledge of what 
$PATH
is for. Instead, it is more helpful to be explicit in the commands that 
are needed to make
things work even if these are very basic. That's how many people learn, 
by repetition

ad nauseam.

Really helpful is Ulli's correction to where I put the path to the 
fstools-0.0 directory.
When I first did it, I vaguely remembered something about PATH in 
.bashrc. So I looked
where to add to the $PATH variable, and I noticed a reminder to myself 
that it should
be put in .bash_aliases. When I looked there I did find another addition 
to $PATH,
so I added it there. Thanks to Ulli, I realized that I should have put 
it in .profile, so I
did that and added a note to myself reminding me what .bashrc, 
.bash_aliases and .profile
are for. Then I might do it properly when the next time to do this rolls 
along. Maybe 2018...,

or never. but then again who knows.

Trying to learn some more, I tried sudo apt get install sw,
and sudo apt-get install swtools, but nothing useful happend. So I gave 
up, since I
don't really need any of this right now and I have other things to do, 
like listening

to  songs on youtube with my grandchild.

Be this what it may, thanks to Ulli and others who make it worthwhile to 
lurk on xubuntu-users.


Nino


On 01/08/2017 10:24 AM, Ulli Horlacher wrote:

On Sun 2017-01-08 (10:00), pereira wrote:


the web site downloads
and installs all the 193 (IIRC) files in the fstool directory. That's easy.

But, to make use of them you have to know some linux magic that is not
described anywhere

Of course, one should know what $PATH is (for)!
This is so basic, I have not described it.



(that I could find). The executable files end up in a directory called
fstools-0.0/bin, with minimal
documentation in fstools-0.0/doc

This is a copy of what you see on http://fex.belwue.de/fstools/



and a useless fstools-0.0/README.

This README is for /sw, a software distribution system developed at the
University of Stuttgart 1990.
You can use it with Ubuntu, too, see http://fex.belwue.de/swinstall

My fstools are part of /sw, but you can use it independently.

Some of the /sw applications you can also find in the ubuntu repository,
but the newest, best, more shiny versions are in /sw. This is what I
maintain.



But, if you know your
own linux magic you would know one of many options: put in your
.bash_aliases the abacadabra

# look in fstools directory, with useful perl scripts from Stuttgart U:
http://fex.belwue.de/fstools/del.html
export PATH=$PATH:/home/your-name-here/fstools-0.0/bin

NO!

Environment variables like PATH must be placed in /etc/profile or
$HOME/.profile

$HOME/.bash_aliases is for - oh-wonder! - bash aliases!

Do not mix them!



Then you can use such useful commands as del, df3, and other useful
esoterica.

But only for you and not for other users!
If you want to make them accessible for all, then create an own directory,
e.g. /opt/fstools/ and add to /etc/profile :
PATH=$PATH:/opt/fstools/bin

.. or simply install /sw (local copy) :-)





--
xubuntu-users mailing list
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users

Re: [xubuntu-users] shell tools

[Ulli Horlacher]

On Sun 2017-01-08 (10:02), Len Philpot wrote:

> For bash, I usually put per-terminal-instance values in ~/.bashrc

No good idea, because *every* bash subshell will execute ~/.bashrc, not
only when you start a new terminal program!

You can see it, when you add the line
echo executing ~/.bashrc
into your ~/.bashrc


-- 
Ullrich Horlacher  Server und Virtualisierung
Rechenzentrum TIK 
Universitaet Stuttgart E-Mail: horlac...@tik.uni-stuttgart.de
Allmandring 30aTel:++49-711-68565868
70569 Stuttgart (Germany)  WWW:http://www.tik.uni-stuttgart.de/
REF:

-- 
xubuntu-users mailing list
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users

Re: [xubuntu-users] shell tools (was Re: Is it possible to edit the right-click menu?)

[Len Philpot]

TECO ... fondly?:-)  :-)

I think I tried it once... kinda like EMACS. Just once. I do vi for 
quick stuff all over the place, but even so I'll jump to (e.g.) Geanyfor 
longer-term editing. However, use vi on Solaris for while and it'll make 
you appreciate Vim greatly.  :-)



*Len Philpot*
lphilpo...@gmail.com 
/Sent from Thunderbird on Xubuntu Linux/
On 01/08/2017 09:44 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:

On 1/8/2017 8:50 AM, Ulli Horlacher wrote:

On Sun 2017-01-08 (08:24), Richard Owlett wrote:


http://fex.belwue.de/fstools/del.html



I would suggest that any new to Linux browse
http://fex.belwue.de/fstools/index.html just to gain perspective
of what can be done at the command line.


Beware!
This is only for Real Men [TM] without fear because no clicky-pointy ;-)


See also:

http://fex.belwue.de/fstools/bash.html
http://fex.belwue.de/fstools/vv.html




Will likely be useful also.
P.S. Real Men fondly remember using an 026 or KSR35 to communicate 
with CORC, CUPL, TECO, CP/M-80, et cetera. Do I predate rodents?








-- 
xubuntu-users mailing list
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users

Re: [xubuntu-users] shell tools

[Len Philpot]

On 01/08/2017 09:24 AM, Ulli Horlacher wrote:


Environment variables like PATH must be placed in /etc/profile or
$HOME/.profile

$HOME/.bash_aliases is for - oh-wonder! - bash aliases!

Do not mix them!


You'll get a lot of varied opinions on this kind of topic, but 
~/.profile is actually where sh (Bourne) and ksh (Korn) shells get their 
per-account initialization / customization values (seems like ksh also 
reads ~/.kshrc, maybe? been a while).


There are probably other shells that read them as well. Bash does read 
them, but out of compatibility, as it does /etc/profile, IIRC. For bash, 
I usually put per-terminal-instance values in ~/.bashrc and general 
per-login values in ~/.bash_profile. From appearances, *unbuntu also 
uses /etc/bash.bashrc.


I typically don't stay on the leading edge of software, so I tend to use 
long-established conventions.


YMMV.

--

*Len Philpot*
lphilpo...@gmail.com 
/Sent from Thunderbird on Xubuntu Linux/

-- 
xubuntu-users mailing list
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users

Re: [xubuntu-users] shell tools (was Re: Is it possible to edit the right-click menu?)

[Richard Owlett]

On 1/8/2017 8:50 AM, Ulli Horlacher wrote:

On Sun 2017-01-08 (08:24), Richard Owlett wrote:


http://fex.belwue.de/fstools/del.html



I would suggest that any new to Linux browse
http://fex.belwue.de/fstools/index.html just to gain perspective
of what can be done at the command line.


Beware!
This is only for Real Men [TM] without fear because no clicky-pointy ;-)


See also:

http://fex.belwue.de/fstools/bash.html
http://fex.belwue.de/fstools/vv.html




Will likely be useful also.
P.S. Real Men fondly remember using an 026 or KSR35 to 
communicate with CORC, CUPL, TECO, CP/M-80, et cetera. Do I 
predate rodents?






--
xubuntu-users mailing list
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users

Re: [xubuntu-users] shell tools

[Ulli Horlacher]

On Sun 2017-01-08 (10:00), pereira wrote:

> the web site downloads
> and installs all the 193 (IIRC) files in the fstool directory. That's easy.
> 
> But, to make use of them you have to know some linux magic that is not 
> described anywhere

Of course, one should know what $PATH is (for)!
This is so basic, I have not described it.


> (that I could find). The executable files end up in a directory called 
> fstools-0.0/bin, with minimal
> documentation in fstools-0.0/doc

This is a copy of what you see on http://fex.belwue.de/fstools/


> and a useless fstools-0.0/README. 

This README is for /sw, a software distribution system developed at the
University of Stuttgart 1990.
You can use it with Ubuntu, too, see http://fex.belwue.de/swinstall

My fstools are part of /sw, but you can use it independantly.

Some of the /sw applications you can also find in the ubuntu repository,
but the newest, best, more shiny versions are in /sw. This is what I
maintain.


> But, if you know your
> own linux magic you would know one of many options: put in your 
> .bash_aliases the abacadabra
> 
> # look in fstools directory, with useful perl scripts from Stuttgart U: 
> http://fex.belwue.de/fstools/del.html
> export PATH=$PATH:/home/your-name-here/fstools-0.0/bin

NO! 

Environment variables like PATH must be placed in /etc/profile or
$HOME/.profile 

$HOME/.bash_aliases is for - oh-wonder! - bash aliases!

Do not mix them!


> Then you can use such useful commands as del, df3, and other useful 
> esoterica.

But only for you and not for other users!
If you want to make them accessible for all, then create an own directory,
e.g. /opt/fstools/ and add to /etc/profile :
PATH=$PATH:/opt/fstools/bin

.. or simply install /sw (local copy) :-)


-- 
Ullrich Horlacher  Server und Virtualisierung
Rechenzentrum TIK 
Universitaet Stuttgart E-Mail: horlac...@tik.uni-stuttgart.de
Allmandring 30aTel:++49-711-68565868
70569 Stuttgart (Germany)  WWW:http://www.tik.uni-stuttgart.de/
REF:

-- 
xubuntu-users mailing list
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users

Re: [xubuntu-users] shell tools (was Re: Is it possible to edit the right-click menu?)

[pereira]

FWIW, thh ones I tried (del and df3) work fine.

Pointing and clicking on an almost invisible command at the bottom of 
the web site downloads

and installs all the 193 (IIRC) files in the fstool directory. That's easy.

But, to make use of them you have to know some linux magic that is not 
described anywhere
(that I could find). The executable files end up in a directory called 
fstools-0.0/bin, with minimal
documentation in fstools-0.0/doc and and a useless fstools-0.0/README. 
But, if you know your
own linux magic you would know one of many options: put in your 
.bash_aliases the abacadabra


# look in fstools directory, with useful perl scripts from Stuttgart U: 
http://fex.belwue.de/fstools/del.html

export PATH=$PATH:/home/your-name-here/fstools-0.0/bin

Then you can use such useful commands as del, df3, and other useful 
esoterica.


Thank you Uri

Nino



On 01/08/2017 09:50 AM, Ulli Horlacher wrote:

On Sun 2017-01-08 (08:24), Richard Owlett wrote:


http://fex.belwue.de/fstools/del.html

I would suggest that any new to Linux browse
http://fex.belwue.de/fstools/index.html just to gain perspective
of what can be done at the command line.

Beware!
This is only for Real Men [TM] without fear because no clicky-pointy ;-)


See also:

http://fex.belwue.de/fstools/bash.html
http://fex.belwue.de/fstools/vv.html





--
xubuntu-users mailing list
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users

[xubuntu-users] shell tools (was Re: Is it possible to edit the right-click menu?)

[Ulli Horlacher]

On Sun 2017-01-08 (08:24), Richard Owlett wrote:

>> http://fex.belwue.de/fstools/del.html

> I would suggest that any new to Linux browse 
> http://fex.belwue.de/fstools/index.html just to gain perspective 
> of what can be done at the command line.

Beware! 
This is only for Real Men [TM] without fear because no clicky-pointy ;-)


See also:

http://fex.belwue.de/fstools/bash.html
http://fex.belwue.de/fstools/vv.html


-- 
Ullrich Horlacher  Server und Virtualisierung
Rechenzentrum TIK 
Universitaet Stuttgart E-Mail: horlac...@tik.uni-stuttgart.de
Allmandring 30aTel:++49-711-68565868
70569 Stuttgart (Germany)  WWW:http://www.tik.uni-stuttgart.de/
REF:<58724b83.7000...@cloud85.net>

-- 
xubuntu-users mailing list
xubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-users