▲ 43 ▼ My struggle from a UNIX background in the modern "cloud" world (www.srcbeat.com) submitted 2 years ago by otl@lemmy.sdf.org to c/programming@programming.dev 32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] ck_@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 2 years ago (2 children) Since when do Unix tools output 3,000 word long usage info? Even GNU tools don't even come close... man bash clocks in on about 43.000 words, just FYI permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] PaX@hexbear.net 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ck_@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) I would disagree, or rather: it depends. You can print the --help of bash, but will that actually tell you anything about bash except a really superficial subset of flags? In the same way that the author argues that the help of his tool is too long to be useful, the help of bash is to short for the same reason. He argues that "cloud tools have a gazillion options where UNIX tools have good defaults". Bash has a gazillion options and no good defaults. As a matter of fact, bash on defaults is fairly dangerous. Yet, it is at the heart of most Unix systems today I'd argue. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] PaX@hexbear.net 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] otl@lemmy.sdf.org [S] 2 points 2 years ago Definitely depends, yeah. bash is a huge piece of software that - for me - feels a bit out of place in other systems closer to original unix. Interesting ones are rc and even plain old /bin/sh provided by something like busybox. permalink fedilink source parent [–] zlatko@programming.dev 4 points 2 years ago Since when do Unix tools output 3,000 word long usage info? Even GNU tools don’t even come close… [zlatko@dilj ~/Projects/galactic-bloodshed]$ man grep | wc -w 4297 [zlatko@dilj ~/Projects/galactic-bloodshed]$ man man | wc -w 4697 [zlatko@dilj ~/Projects/galactic-bloodshed]$ permalink fedilink source parent
[+] PaX@hexbear.net 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ck_@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) I would disagree, or rather: it depends. You can print the --help of bash, but will that actually tell you anything about bash except a really superficial subset of flags? In the same way that the author argues that the help of his tool is too long to be useful, the help of bash is to short for the same reason. He argues that "cloud tools have a gazillion options where UNIX tools have good defaults". Bash has a gazillion options and no good defaults. As a matter of fact, bash on defaults is fairly dangerous. Yet, it is at the heart of most Unix systems today I'd argue. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] PaX@hexbear.net 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] otl@lemmy.sdf.org [S] 2 points 2 years ago Definitely depends, yeah. bash is a huge piece of software that - for me - feels a bit out of place in other systems closer to original unix. Interesting ones are rc and even plain old /bin/sh provided by something like busybox. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ck_@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) I would disagree, or rather: it depends. You can print the --help of bash, but will that actually tell you anything about bash except a really superficial subset of flags? In the same way that the author argues that the help of his tool is too long to be useful, the help of bash is to short for the same reason. He argues that "cloud tools have a gazillion options where UNIX tools have good defaults". Bash has a gazillion options and no good defaults. As a matter of fact, bash on defaults is fairly dangerous. Yet, it is at the heart of most Unix systems today I'd argue. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] PaX@hexbear.net 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] otl@lemmy.sdf.org [S] 2 points 2 years ago Definitely depends, yeah. bash is a huge piece of software that - for me - feels a bit out of place in other systems closer to original unix. Interesting ones are rc and even plain old /bin/sh provided by something like busybox. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] PaX@hexbear.net 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] otl@lemmy.sdf.org [S] 2 points 2 years ago Definitely depends, yeah. bash is a huge piece of software that - for me - feels a bit out of place in other systems closer to original unix. Interesting ones are rc and even plain old /bin/sh provided by something like busybox. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zlatko@programming.dev 4 points 2 years ago Since when do Unix tools output 3,000 word long usage info? Even GNU tools don’t even come close… [zlatko@dilj ~/Projects/galactic-bloodshed]$ man grep | wc -w 4297 [zlatko@dilj ~/Projects/galactic-bloodshed]$ man man | wc -w 4697 [zlatko@dilj ~/Projects/galactic-bloodshed]$ permalink fedilink source parent