1. Home
  2. Categories
  3. Side Bar WTF
  4. Um ... I don't think that does what you think it does ...

Um ... I don't think that does what you think it does ...

  • S

     @blakeyrat said:

    And it's not just me, look how you treat Nagesh simply because he's from India and English is his second language.

    I don't think that is the reason, english is not my first language either and being from India is better than being from Corrupsylvania although we share some common traits

     @dohpaz42 said:

    I don't honestly know if he's real

    Nobody is, except me 

    @dohpaz42 said:

    the product of someone's imagination (and boredom), or both.

    Everybody is like that, Adam was a byproduct of god boredom and imagination , the Bible was probably a byproduct of a lot of people's boredom and imagination we were a byproduct of our parents boredom and imagination, etc.

    @dohpaz42 said:

      you get what you give

    Soo true, are you perchance writing a book?

     @blakeyrat said:

    Hell, look at that poor guy, SpectateSwamp, who writes a search app for his own use, you poke and prod and make fun of like he was a circus freak.

    Have you read the thread, tried reasoning with the guy or are you as nuts as he is?  Frankly he is not a good example, download his code sample and give a go. Do some research on the subject and let me know if your opinion varies on the subject

     @dohpaz42 said:

     In other words, we like you dude, and picking on you is our way of saying that we think you're cute. ;)

    No we don't

    0
  • S

    @blakeyrat said:

    And it's not just me, look how you treat Nagesh simply because he's from India and English is his second language.
    No, he's treated that way because he's a troll.  Nobody treats serguey that way.  Why?  Because it's obvious serguey is adding to the conversation and TRYING to speak correct English.  Nagesh it's fairly obvious isn't.  If you misspell names that are on the screen right in front of you, you might be a troll.

    As others have said, you give what you get, blakey.  I have very little experience with Linux and I knew what bash_history was.  It's not unreasonable for the OP to not spell that part out.  It IS unreasonable for you to go on a rant about not understanding it instead of asking for clarification.  But that's what we've come to expect.

    0
  • Scarlet_Manuka

    In addition, recall the sequence of events in this thread:

    • WTF is posted
    • SilentRunner asked politely for the WTF to be clarified
    • A couple of people provided some explanation of the WTF
    • Blakey complained about the quality of the explanations and the lack of supporting detail in the original WTF
    • Thread descended into flamewar
    If all you want to do is understand the WTF, it's not hard to achieve this goal. Ask politely and people will respond politely; it worked for SilentRunner. But if all you're going to do is alternately complain and insult people, don't be surprised at the responses you get.
    0
  • G

    @zelmak said:

    In a recently discovered .bash_history:

    cvs update && cvs update

    It does what I think it does. It may not do what you think it does but that a different matter.

    Typically the output of cvs update looks like: 

    cvs update: Updating some/dir
P some/dir/file-1 (file updated in repository)
P some/dir/file-2 (file updated in repository)
P some/dir/file-3 (file updated in repository)
U some/dir/file-4 (file added in repository)
U some/dir/file-5 (file added in repository)
? some/dir/file-6 (file added locally - not yet added with cvs add)
RCS file: .../file-7,v
retrieving revision 1.2.4.1.2.1.2.3.6.4
retrieving revision 1.2.4.1.2.1.2.3.6.5
Merging differences between 1.2.4.1.2.1.2.3.6.4 and 1.2.4.1.2.1.2.3.6.5 into some/dir/file-7
M some/dir/file-7 (file updated locally)
M some/dir/file-8 (file updated locally)
C some/dir/file-9 (merge conflict)
....

    When there are many changes then this output becomes completely unreadable.
    That is: getting the relevant important information, merge conflicts and the files that were modified/added locally, is a bit complex.
    Three options exist to get the status:
    - cvs status which is way too verbose to be useful on a 'large' tree (for small values of large)
    - cvs diff which does not show new files that only exist locally
    - cvs update

    A cvs update after the above update will show: 

    cvs update: Updating some/dir
? some/dir/file-6 (file added locally - not yet added with cvs add)
M some/dir/file-8 (file updated locally)
C some/dir/file-9 (merge conflict)

    When the repository has many changes then I usually run a cvs update after an update because that's the easiest way to get the information I want.
    (I actually run 'cvs update -d | grep -v '^cvs update: Updating' since it otherwise display too much useless information)

    0
  • FrostCat
    Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    @serguey123 said:
    Ok, maybe, maybe you did not know 1 but 2?

    I know it's AND in C#, C++, JavaScript, probably a bunch of other language. I did not know it was one in bash. (Not that I initially knew the WTF related to bash at all, mind you...)

    I don't give a shit about street cred. You guys already know I'm not the prototypical geek who worships Richard Stallman, and masturbates over a bash CLI in Linux all day, or at least you should. That doesn't make me a worse engineer; in fact, I'd argue it makes me a better engineer. I'm not going to apologize for being outside the groupthink.

    You're welcome to think I'm dumb for not instantly assuming that bash has the same logic operators as C++, or for not instantly making the connection between something called ".bash_history" and the Linux bash shell.

    But that doesn't change the fact that I was confused by the OP.

    Seeing .bash_history should've given you most of what you need to know. From context, it had to be either part of the cvs command or else part of the shell. man bash | grep "&&" would've told you it's the latter. From that you can man bash | more and search for &&, then back up and re-read the appropriate section.

    0
  • FrostCat
    Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    @topspin said:
    It's therefore not too far fetched that the cvs command was rather typed into a command line shell than into firebug,

    For all I know, it was just sitting in a text file. To know it was typed into a CLI first requires knowledge of what .bash_history is. ... people on this board are having issues with this, I really don't know why.

    Probably because we want to give you credit for being smart enough to have been able to google .bash_history if it really wasn't obvious. Did you know every full-featured shell, going back to /bin/sh, has a history file, and by convention they're .[something]history?

    0
  • FrostCat
    Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    Googling doesn't help. I already posted about that.

    ...and, know we know you're trolling. Hey, why not try http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bash+%26%26, where you'll find, at link #2, the advanced bash shell scripting guide. GOing crazy and searching on that page for && and backing up a screen tells you what && does.

    Since you're probably too lazy to look even though I did all the work for you, from the screen before http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/ops.html#ANDOR, && AND

    if [ $condition1 ] && [ $condition2 ]

    Same as: if [ $condition1 -a $condition2 ]

    Returns true if both condition1 and condition2 hold true...

    if [[ $condition1 && $condition2 ]] # Also works.

    Note that && operator not permitted inside brackets

    #+ of [ ... ] construct.

    && may also be used, depending on context, in an and list to concatenate commands.

    0
  • blakeyrat

    Thanks, FrostCat. You've contributed so much to this thread. Usually when people post on a thread that's like 5-6 days old, they just post stuff that''s already been said ages ago. But you? You have all these highly original ideas to contribute. We're all more enlightened now.

    0
  • fennec

    @blakeyrat said:

    Thanks, FrostCat. You've contributed so much to this thread. Usually when people post on a thread that's like 5-6 days old, they just post stuff that''s already been said ages ago. But you? You have all these highly original ideas to contribute. We're all more enlightened now.

    Heya Blakeyrat?

    You think you could give it a rest and, like, not be completely obnoxious like this for a while?

    Please? as an early-Christmas present maybe?

    Thanks, dude.

    0
  • S

    @Anonymouse said:

    I've maybe come into touch with a Unix/Linux environment about a dozen times at the most, and never even used the 'bash' shell during those times.
     

    how is that even possible? how did you manage to spend more than 5 minutes in linux without having to use shell? you, sir, are a High Wizard.

    0
  • S

    I agree with him in this instance.

    0
  • wrack

    Welp, I usually use zsh. There is also tcsh, which's kinda different from all the Bourne-style ones. And then there is the RC shell, which's TOTALLY different.

    0
  • ?

    @SEMI-HYBRID code said:

    @Anonymouse said:
    I've maybe come into touch with a Unix/Linux environment about a dozen times at the most, and never even used the 'bash' shell during those times.
    how is that even possible? how did you manage to spend more than 5 minutes in linux without having to use shell? you, sir, are a High Wizard.
    how is that even possible? how did you manage to spend more than 5 minutes in linux without realizing that that's not the only flavor of unix out there, and that 'bash' is not the only type of shell available? you, sir, are highly narrowminded.

     

    0
  • S

    @Anonymouse said:

    @SEMI-HYBRID code said:

    @Anonymouse said:
    I've maybe come into touch with a Unix/Linux environment about a dozen times at the most, and never even used the 'bash' shell during those times.
    how is that even possible? how did you manage to spend more than 5 minutes in linux without having to use shell? you, sir, are a High Wizard.
    how is that even possible? how did you manage to spend more than 5 minutes in linux without realizing that that's not the only flavor of unix out there, and that 'bash' is not the only type of shell available? you, sir, are highly narrowminded.

     

    Dodging the question, I see.
    0
  • S

    @Anonymouse said:

    how did you manage to spend more than 5 minutes in linux without realizing that that's not the only flavor of unix out there, and that 'bash' is not the only type of shell available? you, sir, are highly linux/unix unskilled.
     

    FTFY.

    1. i admit i didn't know that there's more types of shell (until i read it in this thred)

    2. i realize there's probably (num_unix_slash_linux_users * 2) flavors of unix/linux out there, i even realize that Mac OS is in fact a flavor of unix, i just naively thought that at least such a basic thing as a shell would be kind of standardized/unified

    3. i don't use linux/unix, i never had to use it and i hope i'll never have to, though it can be an amusing toy sometimes, i don't consider it suitable for any productive work (last time i tried to learn python in it, as it is nearly impossible to find a good IDE/interpreter for windows, had an idea to try code dynamic webpage in it, and ended up wasting 6 hours trying to install python runtime into apache - unsuccesfully). i generally don't like operating systems that i have to fight to death until i force them to even allow me to try to do what i need to do.

    0
  • PJH
    Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @SEMI-HYBRID code said:

    last time i tried to learn python in it, as it is nearly impossible to find a good IDE/interpreter for windows, had an idea to try code dynamic webpage in it, and ended up wasting 6 hours trying to install python runtime into apache - unsuccesfully
    Did you have any luck installing python under apache under Windows? Enquiring minds etc.

    0
  • ?

    @SEMI-HYBRID code said:

    i just naively thought that at least such a basic thing as a shell would be kind of standardized/unified
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0

    (Sorry, couldn't resist ;)

    0
  • ?

    @Anonymouse said:

    @SEMI-HYBRID code said:

    i just naively thought that at least such a basic thing as a shell would be kind of standardized/unified
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0

    (Sorry, couldn't resist ;)

    But it is!

    [url]http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/sh.html[/url]

    [url=http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_18_09_03_06]http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html[/url]

    0
  • D

    @blakeyrat said:

    Thanks, FrostCat. You've contributed so much to this thread. Usually when people post on a thread that's like 5-6 days old, they just post stuff that''s already been said ages ago. But you? You have all these highly original ideas to contribute. We're all more enlightened now.

    Of course, that's only to be expected on a small embedded device with no filing system.

     

    0
Log in to reply