Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site baylor.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!rocksanne!sunybcs!kitty!baylor!peter From: peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: Re: cat -v and ls -C considered harmful Message-ID: <354@baylor.UUCP> Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 11:23:40 EDT Article-I.D.: baylor.354 Posted: Mon Aug 12 11:23:40 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 15-Aug-85 00:10:47 EDT References: <1303@utcsri.UUCP> <93600010@siemens.UUCP> <2578@sun.uucp> Organization: Ancient Illuminated Seers of Bavaria Lines: 13 > Why "cat -v" may be bad, even though the functionality it provides is good: > > Why not have a command called "vis" (as I believe P of K&P > has suggested) which does the job of "cat -v"? Nobody's On our system it's called "type". The only sensible option I can think of for cat is "-u" for "unbuffered". Why do you think "~%take" in cu generates a "tee /dev/null" command on the remote system? Sometimes an unbuffered file copy is useful. -- Peter da Silva (the mad Australian) UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076