Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #90165 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-19 21:20 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-08-29 18:15 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 225 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
/dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-19 21:20 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 23:53 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-19 23:42 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-20 00:59 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-20 03:59 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-20 10:10 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-20 18:15 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-20 23:30 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 01:18 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-21 09:52 +0200
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-21 08:12 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-21 11:16 +0200
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-21 22:57 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-22 06:17 +0200
Re: /dev/tcp David De La Harpe Golden <david@harpegolden.net> - 2026-08-30 17:56 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 21:50 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2026-08-24 17:42 +0300
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-24 23:53 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:27 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-08-23 00:56 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-23 04:01 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-23 03:37 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:50 +0200
Re: /dev/tcp vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-08-23 22:28 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 09:35 +0200
Overwriting with random data (was: Re: /dev/tcp) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 11:10 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 20:34 +0200
Re: Overwriting with random data Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 20:57 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 22:26 +0200
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:39 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 08:45 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 21:39 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-26 18:08 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-28 00:49 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-28 00:59 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:19 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:36 +0200
Re: Overwriting with random data Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 15:19 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 03:33 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 09:18 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 17:34 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 01:52 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-27 12:11 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-28 01:00 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 22:16 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 08:32 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-28 03:34 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-08-28 11:37 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:44 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-08-28 13:25 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 15:27 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 19:30 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 00:59 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 01:57 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-29 20:42 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:33 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 19:50 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-29 10:11 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-29 05:25 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 02:12 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-29 10:15 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 21:56 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:29 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-08-28 13:43 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-28 20:15 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-08-28 21:59 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 02:09 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-08-29 08:59 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-29 09:25 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-08-29 11:19 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-29 20:45 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-29 22:38 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-08-29 15:10 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-08-30 08:58 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-30 23:45 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 21:47 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-29 13:56 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-08-29 14:17 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-08-29 16:02 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-29 22:12 +0200
Re: Overwriting with random data Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-08-29 21:04 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-28 00:58 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:23 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-28 00:53 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:12 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 00:09 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 08:52 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-28 01:02 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-28 00:48 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 00:37 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 00:31 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 09:45 +0200
Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 12:52 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 12:50 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-20 13:50 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-20 13:02 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-20 18:26 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-08-29 13:48 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-29 22:44 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-08-29 23:05 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-08-30 00:58 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-08-30 04:12 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-08-30 09:25 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-30 11:00 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-30 23:54 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-30 13:06 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 13:54 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 22:57 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-22 21:47 +0200
The hammer is best (Was: /dev/tcp) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-08-22 23:50 +0000
Re: The hammer is best (Was: /dev/tcp) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-23 04:28 -0400
Re: The hammer is best Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 10:14 +0100
Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:55 +0200
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:16 +0100
Re: The hammer is best Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-23 21:20 +0200
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 02:18 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 11:26 +0100
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:06 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:18 +0100
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 00:51 -0400
Re: The hammer is best Joed Oakes <lost@noway.home.invalid> - 2026-08-23 19:42 -0400
Re: The hammer is best Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-23 23:56 +0000
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 02:25 -0400
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-24 01:14 +0000
Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 09:50 +0200
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 00:56 -0400
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 00:53 -0400
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-24 06:42 +0000
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 23:34 -0400
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 04:08 +0000
Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:29 +0200
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 18:52 +0000
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 04:19 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 09:29 +0100
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 17:03 +0000
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 21:31 +0100
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 22:18 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 11:28 +0100
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:07 -0400
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 06:39 +0000
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:23 +0100
Re: The hammer is best Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-25 18:26 +0000
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 20:05 +0100
Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 21:43 +0200
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 08:35 +0100
Re: The hammer is best Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-25 20:21 +0000
Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 23:14 +0200
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 19:08 +0000
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 04:38 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 10:22 +0100
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 17:26 +0000
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 00:00 -0400
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:44 -0400
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 01:49 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:20 +0100
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 01:23 -0400
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-23 22:16 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-21 13:41 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-21 22:58 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 22:28 -0400
ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-24 13:56 +0100
Bash vs. ksh - Does it matter? And the 'vi' mode thing... (Was: ksh (was: /dev/tcp)) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-08-24 14:57 +0000
Re: Bash vs. ksh - Does it matter? And the 'vi' mode thing... (Was: ksh Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-30 13:26 +0100
Re: Bash vs. ksh - Does it matter? And the 'vi' mode thing... (Was: ksh Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-30 23:49 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-24 21:08 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-08-24 21:28 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-08-29 13:29 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-29 22:41 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 01:11 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-25 13:25 +0100
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-25 21:58 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-26 13:34 +0100
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-27 02:23 +0000
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:40 -0400
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 01:40 -0400
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-08-29 13:40 +0000
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:25 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 06:52 +0000
Re: ksh The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:27 +0100
Re: ksh Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-25 18:26 +0000
Re: ksh Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-25 22:03 +0000
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 04:04 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 18:00 +0000
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:17 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-27 15:22 +0000
Re: ksh The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-27 17:55 +0100
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 23:14 -0400
Re: ksh The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:48 +0100
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 22:43 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 04:17 +0000
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-28 03:18 -0400
Re: ksh Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-08-28 15:54 +0000
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 20:40 +0000
Re: ksh The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-29 10:14 +0100
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-29 21:12 +0000
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 02:35 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 18:17 +0000
Re: ksh Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-08-25 09:56 +0200
Re: ksh "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:24 +0200
Re: ksh Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-25 20:36 +0200
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 04:23 +0000
Re: ksh "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-26 10:04 +0200
Re: ksh Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 10:03 +0100
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 21:50 -0400
Re: ksh Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-08-29 13:38 +0000
Re: ksh Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-29 22:42 +0000
Re: ksh "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-30 14:26 +0200
Re: ksh The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:27 +0100
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 02:43 -0400
Re: ksh Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-25 22:01 +0000
Re: ksh "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-26 01:32 +0200
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 21:46 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 04:25 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-20 18:22 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 13:57 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-23 06:37 -0700
Re: /dev/tcp Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 14:49 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 16:13 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-23 22:31 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 19:08 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp David De La Harpe Golden <david@harpegolden.net> - 2026-08-29 00:52 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-29 04:14 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp David De La Harpe Golden <david@harpegolden.net> - 2026-08-29 19:06 +0100
[OT] Weather Underground (was: Re: /dev/tcp) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-29 08:58 +0100
Re: [OT] Weather Underground David De La Harpe Golden <david@harpegolden.net> - 2026-08-29 18:15 +0100
Page 9 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Next page →
| From | Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-24 13:56 +0100 |
| Subject | ksh (was: /dev/tcp) |
| Message-ID | <0lrtlm-c0k.ln1@ID-313840.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90313 |
c186282 wrote: > On 8/21/26 08:41, Geoff Clare wrote: >> >> According to https://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/061 the feature was >> added to bash in version 2.04 and was "Copied from / Inspired by" ksh93. >> >> It certainly works in the versions of ksh93 I have. > > You run ksh93 ??? > > Not too many Kornies left these days :-) Ksh has been my preferred interactive shell since I first started using SVR4-based systems in the late 80's. Prior to that I used something called wash, short for Warwick Shell (a version of Bourne Shell with added interactive history, written by some folks - students I assume - at Warwick University in the UK). Wash's history mechanism used control characters for all the editing, which as a vi user I hated. Once I discovered ksh's vi mode I never looked back. I use bash as a fallback when ksh isn't available, but a few things in its vi mode don't quite work the same way. -- Geoff Clare <netnews@gclare.org.uk>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-24 14:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Bash vs. ksh - Does it matter? And the 'vi' mode thing... (Was: ksh (was: /dev/tcp)) |
| Message-ID | <116hm4m$3oo16$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #90452 |
In article <0lrtlm-c0k.ln1@ID-313840.user.individual.net>,
Geoff Clare <netnews@gclare.org.uk> wrote:
...
>I use bash as a fallback when ksh isn't available, but a few things
>in its vi mode don't quite work the same way.
I've never used ksh (other than to quickly test a quick thing here and
there), so I don't know how its vi mode works. That said:
1) The idea of compressing "vi" down to a single line editor is
problematic in any case. It will always be an approximation of the
real thing. In fact, if I want to do anything non-trivial in command
line editing (in bash), I use "fc" (which invokes real vi on a temp
file) rather than doing "inline" editing.
2) There are a few things that bug me about bash's vi mode, but I've
mostly accepted/gotten used to them over the years. Here are just a
couple (there are others, but these are what comes immediately to mind):
a) That you are in insert mode by default. This is just not how vi
is supposed to be used. tcsh gets this one right.
b) That the wildcard is "*" (as if you were in glob mode) rather
than ".*" as it would be in real vi.
Does ksh improve on either of these points?
--
There's nothing more American than demanding to carry an AR-15 to
"protect yourself" but refusing to wear a mask to protect everyone else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-30 13:26 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Bash vs. ksh - Does it matter? And the 'vi' mode thing... (Was: ksh |
| Message-ID | <nfilonFdrqbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90454 |
Kenny McCormack wrote: > Geoff Clare <netnews@gclare.org.uk> wrote: > >> I use bash as a fallback when ksh isn't available, but a few things >> in its vi mode don't quite work the same way. > > I've never used ksh Recently I've used ksh on quite an ancient QNX platform, I needed to transfer some binary files over telnet where ftp/scopy wasn't available. I managed to persuade google (gemini?) AI to produce a script to b64encode the files, working around the lack of external utilities, which at about the 6th attempt it did manage to get the job done, where I would never have known the subtleties of ksh it used.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-30 23:49 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Bash vs. ksh - Does it matter? And the 'vi' mode thing... (Was: ksh |
| Message-ID | <1172fho$fkiu$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90901 |
On Sun, 30 Aug 2026 13:26:24 +0100, Andy Burns wrote: > I managed to persuade google (gemini?) AI to produce a script to > b64encode the files, working around the lack of external utilities, > which at about the 6th attempt it did manage to get the job done, > where I would never have known the subtleties of ksh it used. I think just about all of these unixy shells have a common core of POSIXish functionality that you can use to fumble at least part of your way to a solution. For the rest, there’s always the man page ... <https://manpages.debian.org/ksh(1)> <https://manpages.debian.org/zsh(1)>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-24 21:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) |
| Message-ID | <116ibt3$373dj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90452 |
On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 13:56:32 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote: > I use bash as a fallback when ksh isn't available, but a few things > in its vi mode don't quite work the same way. By “vi mode” do you mean “GNU readline”?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-24 21:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) |
| Message-ID | <116id1r$3pmq0$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #90470 |
In article <116ibt3$373dj$2@dont-email.me>, Lawrence DOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 13:56:32 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote: > >> I use bash as a fallback when ksh isn't available, but a few things >> in its vi mode don't quite work the same way. > >By 'vi mode', do you mean GNU readline? I think he is referring to the vi-like editing mode that is, in bash, functionally provided by the 'readline' package (and usually compiled-in in the bash executable file). Is that what you meant? -- The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4-ish lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL: http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/Snicker
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 13:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) |
| Message-ID | <6a92dea7$0$28055$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #90472 |
Le 24-08-2026, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> a écrit : > In article <116ibt3$373dj$2@dont-email.me>, > Lawrence DOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 13:56:32 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote: >> >>> I use bash as a fallback when ksh isn't available, but a few things >>> in its vi mode don't quite work the same way. I'll have to try that. Because I tried Fish and zsh but never like them. >>By 'vi mode', do you mean GNU readline? > > I think he is referring to the vi-like editing mode that is, in bash, > functionally provided by the 'readline' package (and usually compiled-in in > the bash executable file). > > Is that what you meant? I really guess, yes, he's speaking about setting 'set -o vi' in the .bashrc because without it it's fall back to Emacs defaults. The [CTRL]+U works the same in vi and Emacs mode, but the [CTRL]+W doesn't works as good in vi mode. And when this option is set, the readline can enter vi modes and it's great. But the [AltGr]+[Shift]+[.] in Emacs mode works better than [AlrtGr]+[_] in vi mode if you don't want to use the very last one but something a little bit older. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 22:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) |
| Message-ID | <116vn6q$3jcff$13@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90823 |
On 29 Aug 2026 13:29:11 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > The [CTRL]+U works the same in vi and Emacs mode, but the [CTRL]+W > doesn't works as good in vi mode. Given that the same underlying readline code is available in both modes, it seems to me any difference in behaviour is by deliberate design, not because the same code was implemented twice and screwed up the second time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 01:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) |
| Message-ID | <nf48edF5rktU40@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90470 |
On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 21:08:51 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 13:56:32 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote: > >> I use bash as a fallback when ksh isn't available, but a few things in >> its vi mode don't quite work the same way. > > By “vi mode” do you mean “GNU readline”? set -o vi If you type a line and <Ctrl>b moves you back a character you're in readline's emacs mode. If yuo see ^B you are in vi mode.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 13:25 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) |
| Message-ID | <86e0mm-7bi.ln1@ID-313840.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90470 |
Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 13:56:32 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote: > >> I use bash as a fallback when ksh isn't available, but a few things >> in its vi mode don't quite work the same way. > > By “vi mode” do you mean “GNU readline”? As others have pointed out, I'm referring to how history editing works after you "set -o vi" in POSIX-conforming shells. In bash I believe this is provided by GNU readline, but ksh has its own implementation. -- Geoff Clare <netnews@gclare.org.uk>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 21:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) |
| Message-ID | <116l35b$4nha$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90535 |
On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 13:25:12 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote: > Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 13:56:32 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote: >> >>> I use bash as a fallback when ksh isn't available, but a few >>> things in its vi mode don't quite work the same way. >> >> By “vi mode” do you mean “GNU readline”? > > As others have pointed out, I'm referring to how history editing > works after you "set -o vi" in POSIX-conforming shells. You were specifically talking about bash, though. What sort of things did you find “don’t quite work the same way”?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 13:34 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) |
| Message-ID | <h333mm-qcg.ln1@ID-313840.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90573 |
Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 13:25:12 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote: > >> Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 13:56:32 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote: >>> >>>> I use bash as a fallback when ksh isn't available, but a few >>>> things in its vi mode don't quite work the same way. >>> >>> By “vi mode” do you mean “GNU readline”? >> >> As others have pointed out, I'm referring to how history editing >> works after you "set -o vi" in POSIX-conforming shells. > > You were specifically talking about bash, though. My post was mostly about ksh, with a comparison of ksh and bash at the end (the only bit you quoted). > What sort of things did you find “don’t quite work the same way”? I recall finding that repeating an R command with "." didn't work at all in bash, but I reported that one to Chet and it was fixed at some point. Mostly I think the remaining differences come down to "look and feel". For example, if I give a repeat count before a command, bash changes my shell prompt to "(arg: N)" then changes it back when it executes the command, which I find distracting. In ksh the behaviour has exactly the same feel as in the vi editor. -- Geoff Clare <netnews@gclare.org.uk>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 02:23 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) |
| Message-ID | <116o734$14ar5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90630 |
On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 13:34:25 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote: > My post was mostly about ksh, with a comparison of ksh and bash at > the end (the only bit you quoted). That was the only part I was asking about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 03:40 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <G6-dnTlsRIBrdBL3nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90656 |
On 8/26/26 22:23, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 13:34:25 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote: > >> My post was mostly about ksh, with a comparison of ksh and bash at >> the end (the only bit you quoted). > > That was the only part I was asking about. Ksh is good, Bash is good. Not gonna get drawn into 'shell wars'. Use what best syncs with YOUR brain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 01:40 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <G6-dnQBsRIBPUBL3nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90630 |
On 8/26/26 08:34, Geoff Clare wrote: > Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 13:25:12 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote: >> >>> Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 13:56:32 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote: >>>> >>>>> I use bash as a fallback when ksh isn't available, but a few >>>>> things in its vi mode don't quite work the same way. >>>> >>>> By “vi mode” do you mean “GNU readline”? >>> >>> As others have pointed out, I'm referring to how history editing >>> works after you "set -o vi" in POSIX-conforming shells. >> >> You were specifically talking about bash, though. > > My post was mostly about ksh, with a comparison of ksh and bash at > the end (the only bit you quoted). There's nothing WRONG with ksh ... gets it done pretty much as good as bash. But it's become 'uncommon'. In theory I could stick to ancient shells and COBOL for stuff - but it's just not worth it. "Modern" isn't ALWAYS bad. Note, you CAN write almost anything in COBOL if you want, even deep 'system' utils. But 'C' is much better. DO remember when 'C' was the Great NewFangled Lang for my PDP-11. Linux, you CAN still get 'B' compilers and even ones for the predecessors. Did a few examples, they CAN get shit done. 'C' is "nicer" though. Never found much use for 'D' ... just seems to look like 'C' but with much shittier syntax. DO install it however, Just In Case. Same for a few of the 'modern' langs. There IS a point where the proverbial wheel HAS been invented.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 13:40 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) |
| Message-ID | <6a92e160$0$28046$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #90535 |
Le 25-08-2026, Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> a écrit : > Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 13:56:32 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote: >> >>> I use bash as a fallback when ksh isn't available, but a few things >>> in its vi mode don't quite work the same way. >> >> By “vi mode” do you mean “GNU readline”? > > As others have pointed out, I'm referring to how history editing > works after you "set -o vi" in POSIX-conforming shells. In bash I > believe this is provided by GNU readline, but ksh has its own > implementation. Well, I'm reading that long after everyone, so I guessed rightly about the option. But I didn't knew it was a POSIX feature. I believed it was a bash feature. I'll really have to look at ksh someday. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 02:25 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <UaqcnZ45f_v9qBD3nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90452 |
On 8/24/26 08:56, Geoff Clare wrote: > c186282 wrote: > >> On 8/21/26 08:41, Geoff Clare wrote: >>> >>> According to https://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/061 the feature was >>> added to bash in version 2.04 and was "Copied from / Inspired by" ksh93. >>> >>> It certainly works in the versions of ksh93 I have. >> >> You run ksh93 ??? >> >> Not too many Kornies left these days :-) > > Ksh has been my preferred interactive shell since I first started using > SVR4-based systems in the late 80's. Well, we like what we like. But for a LONG LONG time, most everybody goes with Bash. DO have a c-shell installed, always do, but have not USED it for anything in 20 years. Also always install a FORTH ... but again haven't USED it for anything in 20+ years. Always install a COBOL too ... HAVE used it to make a few odd things - but mostly to "keep my hand in", nothing important. > Prior to that I used something called wash, short for Warwick Shell > (a version of Bourne Shell with added interactive history, written by > some folks - students I assume - at Warwick University in the UK). > Wash's history mechanism used control characters for all the editing, > which as a vi user I hated. Once I discovered ksh's vi mode I never > looked back. > > I use bash as a fallback when ksh isn't available, but a few things > in its vi mode don't quite work the same way. No. Anyway, for an interpreted script lang these days, PYTHON. Massively better in every way than the old shit. Ya usually need ONE of the old script langs to RUN Python however, but there are shortcuts. Some kind of "Bash-E", ONLY meant to start other scripts, would not be a bad idea.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 06:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <nf4sd4F5rktU46@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90491 |
On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 02:25:36 -0400, c186282 wrote: > DO have a c-shell installed, always do, but have not USED it for > anything in 20 years. Also always install a FORTH ... but again > haven't USED it for anything in 20+ years. https://wellys.com/posts/rp2040_forth/ I briefly thought about playing with this -- very briefly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 12:27 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <116ju6j$3l7js$13@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90496 |
On 25/08/2026 07:52, rbowman wrote: > On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 02:25:36 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> DO have a c-shell installed, always do, but have not USED it for >> anything in 20 years. Also always install a FORTH ... but again >> haven't USED it for anything in 20+ years. > > https://wellys.com/posts/rp2040_forth/ > > I briefly thought about playing with this -- very briefly. I was paid to retype around 200 pages of 8086 assembler from a magazine scan in to create a FORTH interpreter. I think it took about 3-4 weeks. I raised my mental hat to the idea of it, but I was never tempted to use it By that time C compilers, 32 bit chips and many megabytes of RAM were cheap enough to make it not my first choice. -- No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 18:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <J7ljS.3$UGU.0@fx46.iad> |
| In reply to | #90523 |
On 2026-08-25, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 25/08/2026 07:52, rbowman wrote: > >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 02:25:36 -0400, c186282 wrote: >> >>> DO have a c-shell installed, always do, but have not USED it for >>> anything in 20 years. Also always install a FORTH ... but again >>> haven't USED it for anything in 20+ years. >> >> https://wellys.com/posts/rp2040_forth/ >> >> I briefly thought about playing with this -- very briefly. > > I was paid to retype around 200 pages of 8086 assembler from a magazine > scan in to create a FORTH interpreter. > I think it took about 3-4 weeks. > I raised my mental hat to the idea of it, but I was never tempted to use it > > By that time C compilers, 32 bit chips and many megabytes of RAM were > cheap enough to make it not my first choice. I found a CP/M version of Forth and got it running on my IMSAI. I'm currently trying to resurrect that box - if I get it going then maybe I can play with it some more. I did manage to write a Sieve of Eratosthenes... Forth love if honk then -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | In this world there are \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | two kinds of people: X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | 1. Those who can extrapolate / \ if you read it the right way. | from incomplete data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web