jfoust at threedee.com
Fri Mar 16 14:41:46 CDT 2007
At 12:12 PM 3/16/2007, Adrian Graham wrote:
>On 16/3/07 14:17, "John Foust" <jfoust at threedee.com> wrote:
>> I certainly didn't expect 'cat' to do that. Anyone who did
>> just doesn't understand Unix and there's no sense arguing about that.
>I apologise for lacking the pre-requisite inner knowledge of unix and shall
>unsub forthwith. I'm obviously not clever enough for this list.
Please don't. I intended no offense. To me, it's merely
interesting that you thought it would do that. It's not a bad
thing. As I pointed out, it's reasonable to expect that the
concept - concatenation - remains useful in many contexts,
and it would be useful to have a variant of 'cat' that understood
multiple formats and did the appropriate action.
For example, tell a Unix shell user you'd like to concat a
thousand text files in a certain order and there's a bunch
of ways to do it easily. But give a Windows user a thousand
Word documents and ask then to merge - whew, suddenly you're
tossed into a word of obscure third-party shareware tools
that might or might not do the job.
More information about the cctech