RFC - Bugs 688 & 732

Bill's LFS Login lfsbill at nospam.dot
Tue Jan 27 05:59:24 PST 2004


On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Archaic wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:42:51AM +0000, Ken Moffat wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but - if you are in console mode, you're rotating through the
> > consoles anyway - one to run the commands, one to read the book, one to
> > keep an eye on `top'...
>
> Then how about sending the output to a file for a person's later perusal
> at their own convenience. Seems well worth it to be able to drop a
> package.

Nothing wrong with the thought, but let's do keep in mind that we are
not *primarily* about a minimalist install. I see nothing wrong with
doing that if the more usual things we might consider indicate no major
problem. Like what? Um... encouraging learning (probably not an issue
here), what we do helps them succeed, etc. I just awoke so you'll have
to help me out on this.

I think more significant is that we have many time suggested things like

  cmd | tee file | [less | more]

this was so that they could watch what was going on. One thing to keep
in mind if less | more is not available is that scroll-back gets
effectively defeated when new output arrives at the screen. So even if
you keep scrolling back to try and see something that caught your eye,
every time a new message arrives, the view port is moved immediately back
to the "bottom" of the output. If output is frequent, you will never see
what you desired.

Use of the <CTL-[S|Q]> combo is also not great because while you have
the output stopped, the buffer is still being filled by the process.
When the <CTL-Q> is used to resume output display, the stuff may scroll
by so quickly that you can never see some stuff.

All this may be moot if you all think that these sorts of things are
over-ridden by the alternatives (only save to a file and view is
needed), but that would be a pretty significant shift from our
(apparent) former view and seems to be a lot of restrictions just to
eliminate a package, IMO.

I use *IX because I want to have the power to do what I want, not what
I'm told and control is buried in some program by M$. So unless the
change saves a *lot* of *something*, I would think it a less-than-ideal
suggestion.

Of course the educational value when all these things are discovered by
the (less experienced) user could be considered a plus by many is it
doesn't increase list traffic.

-- 
NOTE: I'm on a new ISP, if I'm in your address book ...
Bill Maltby
lfsbillATearthlinkDOTnet
Fix line above & use it to mail me direct.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list