Re: systemd: some more questions
Sons of the icon :).
The shell was the very first environment I worked on where you did not
need to use a special naming convention or some ad hoc command to
run your programs, therefore your programs (executable binaries or
scripts) became "system commands" themselves.
Indeed there may be some situation where tagging a file could be necessary.
But not in /etc/init.d :)
--
Gian Uberto Lauri
Messaggio inviato da un tablet
> On 16/feb/2014, at 01:10, Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Chris Bannister
> <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 03:39:30PM +0100, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
>>> Am I the only one there who readed this
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unix_Programming_Environment?
>>>
>>> (once reading this you think that the .sh suffix is not only
>>> unnecessary, it is UGLY!)
>>
>> Well, it does save using the 'file' command to see if it is an editable
>> file, which saves messing up the terminal if it isn't [an editable file]
>
> Of course, if you really want to avoid messing up your terminal, even
> with the .sh extension, you may prefer to start with hexdump -C.
> (Thinking, for instance, of cat-ing a shellscript with special
> characters in the comments and such. Not to mention the occasional
> program that for some strange reason or other got compiled to a file
> name that ended in .sh.)
>
> Extensions are supposed to be hints, and that is one small example of
> why we don't want to follow the Microsoft way. (Sorry to get back up
> on the soapbox again.)
>
> --
> Joel Rees
>
> Be careful where you see conspiracy.
> Look first in your own heart.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: CAAr43iMnBzQvOtNEqaC0o39jZ9ftw_5GcWsdw1tnvXmueib+Tw@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAAr43iMnBzQvOtNEqaC0o39jZ9ftw_5GcWsdw1tnvXmueib+Tw@mail.gmail.com
>
>
Reply to: