Re: Bug in 'more' command
On Wed 16 Oct 2024 at 10:38:53 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 15:14:20 +0100, Chris Green wrote:
> > Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 15:48:07 +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > > Exporting MORE set to some unknown option (I did MORE=-q) leads to
> > > > more complaining and refusing service (so it seems to behave as if
> > > > one passed that option directly in the command line).
> > >
> > > D'oh!
> > >
> > > What a disaster. OK, now I have a better understanding of why people
> > > are complaining so vocally about this change.
> > >
> > > I still think that *conditionally* exporting MORE=-e (after performing
> > > whatever version-number-checking backflips are needed) is going to be
> > > a better solution than changing individual aliases one by one.
> >
> > Hasn't the whole linus/unix world moved to using less instead or more?
>
> This isn't about what "the whole world" uses. There are people who
> want to use more(1), because it better fits their needs, or for any
> other reason. Just as I use fvwm instead of a Desktop Environment,
> regardless of what other people may prefer, the OP of this thread is
> free to use more instead of less as their pager.
Agreed. And I'd have suggested MORE if I'd known of its existence,
which I ought to have, as I use LESS (but set it through .lesskey
rather than the shell).
ISTR using a real more in the 1990s; nowadays I use the
version that offers this grand selection of options:
(Enter:next line Space:next page Q:quit R:show the rest)
and doesn't hang around at the end. IOW, busybox's.
Go fvwm!
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: