[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: w(1), who(1), last(1) and unix philosophy

From: David Both
Subject: Re: w(1), who(1), last(1) and unix philosophy
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 15:23:10 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0

Actually, quite the opposite.

"Make each program do one thing well," Mike Gancarz, "Linux and the Unix Philosophy," Digital Press. Others say it in this form: "Each program should do one thing and do it well."

These programs are only similar on the surface. If we look at the man pages and then try some of the options, we find that who(1) has some interesting capabilities that are not present in that of w(1) or last(1). I find each of these useful as they are and would prefer not to see all of their functions, options, and output formats mashed into a single larger program.

I suggest you explore each of these in some detail to understand the differences and the simplicity of each. Simplicity is elegance.

On 07/03/2018 01:48 PM, kalle wrote:
with this mail I address e-mail-adresses related to the projects GNU
coreutils, util-linux and procps.

it seems to me, that the programs who(1) [belonging to GNU coreutils], w
(1) [belonging to procps] and maybe also last(1) [belonging to
util-linux] are giving out similar output.
Wouldn't it make sense in the spirit of UNIX philosophy to have only one
specialized command with the different capabilities included ??



David P. Both, RHCE
Millennium Technology Consulting LLC
Raleigh, NC, USA

address@hidden - Home of the DataBook for Linux
DataBook is a Registered Trademark of David Both

David P. Both
The value of any software lies in its usefulness
not in its price.

— Linus Torvalds

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]