>>40 xs
The syntax is irregular, and getting used to bash's retardedness already wasted too much of my time. I want a Lisp with constructs that help doing shell scripting stuff. Something like scsh but that isn't shit. I suppose I could write my own in over 9000 hours in Scheme inb4 back to /b/, >mfw I've been here since 2006, but I have better things to do.
>>39
Were in Earth have you worked? There's at the least awk and dash on most systems that has bash. I dunno one thing that you cannot do in awk and ksh93 for server scripting that bash is \\requiredǁ.
And like I said, personally I use low level stuff when I can. Make my own daemons and mini binary DBs. Do near tcp.h configurations, and get done with it.
>>50
Please don't call me ``anon''. It's very debilitating.
Though your link was to the wrong place (It's insanely clear that I meant .shrc and friends I'm not even joking), I now know the answer, and I thank you from the bottom of my anus.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-03 10:53
fucking cunts. why can't they name it something meaningful? rc? what in the fucking goddam cunt is r motherfucking c?
It is better to have consistent semantics than semantics that bend in various directions for special circumstances, because no one will be able to remember the exceptions for every circumstance. If you can't handle this concept, then maybe you should not attempt to use a shell, and stick to using guis and flipping burgers. I think that is more cut out for you.
>>59
Richie and Thompson don't have anything to do with sudo. Coggeshall and Spencer wrote it, and the fact that its semantics don't mesh perfectly with the command line's is their fault.
It has exactly nothing to do with Unix; neither POSIX nor SUS mention it. That's like blaming Unix for emacs.
>>65
sudo is a command and behaves as such. Now go scrub another mental burger you toilet fryer.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-03 14:53
>>33 KSH93 ─> ksh
$ variable="HAX MY ANUS"
$ echo $variable
HAX MY ANUS
$ exit
I fucking hate this ``feature''.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-03 16:13
>>65
Are you stupid?
Semantics of a > b: Run command a and save its output to file b
Semantics of sudo printf "foo" >/etc/file: Run command sudo printf "foo" and save its output to file /etc/file
Sounds about as inconsistent as a tautology.
It's a byproduct of the shell tokenising input for you.
The alternative is for each command to do its own tokenisation, but then you'd have all sorts of bullshit like needing to escape different sets of charactors for cp and rm.
It's a byproduct of the shell tokenising input for you.
The alternative is for each command to do its own tokenisation, but then you'd have all sorts of bullshit like needing to escape different sets of charactors for cp and rm.
One thing I don't get, though, is why you sometimes have to «>/dev/null 2>&1», instead of a straight «&>/dev/null»…
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-05 14:13
>>67,70-72,76 echo $variable
$variable is expanded, then its expansion is passed to echo. echo then sees three arguments HAX, MY, and ANUS, and then outputs them sequentially, with a space in between, because that's what it does.