* Peter da Silva [2007-09-17 13:35]:
> So the FSF is being hatefully literal minded about their
> emulation.
What I find even worse is that any way I can imagine to
implement this bonehaded literalism requires dedicated code.
And that's inexcusable. Gratuitous complexity is mortal sin.
Regards,
Peter da Silva wrote:
> So the FSF is being hatefully literal minded
You didn't have to continue here...
> about their emulation.
I think the point is that the traditional tail that GNU tail is
maintaining compatibility with only worked with one file. So the FSF
is being hatefully literal minded about their emulation.
* Timothy Knox [2007-09-17 05:05]:
> I have gotten in to the habit of using "tail -n 10" instead of
> the traditional "tail -10". FreeBSD's tail also supports the
> "-n " notation, so I can use one consistent (if cumbersome)
> notation.
Thanks; I'd already managed to find the manpage. Did you hav
is hateful, but I am forced to use enough boxen w/ GNU tail (and head)
that I have gotten in to the habit of using "tail -n 10" instead of the
traditional "tail -10". FreeBSD's tail also supports the "-n " notation, so
I can use one consistent (if cumbersome) notati
$ tail -10 /var/log/messages
[ 10 lines of output ]
$ tail -10 /var/log/messages /var/log/syslog
tail: invalid option -- 1
Try `tail --help' for more information.
