On Tuesday 27 November 2001 18:50, you wrote:
the aliases aren't so bad.
*Aliases* are not bad. Aliases that substitute a well known command with something *different* are. IMO anyway... especially if this happens without *some* warning...
Someone said mount /A: was a good mnemonic, but 'floppy' says what it is.
true
environmental damages from various other OSes could find A: 'intuitive' and they have to be re-educated ASAP.
sure ;) <snip>
gets me the manpage for bash... this is even more confusing... I know from "type type", that type is a shell builtin, but this manpage is >5000 lines, and I'm really no closer to understanding what type *does* :P
type [-atp] name [name ...] With no options, indicate how each name would be interpreted if used as a command name. If the -t
<snip> Yeah, right after I sent the other message I found that in the manpage, but that's not the point... Point is that if I enter a command, it should do what that command is *supposed* to do. If I enter 'man <command>', then the manpage for *that* command should show. Now that we all know that 'which' is an alias for 'type -p' it's not that big of a deal, but I still think that Ted was right in his initial post... So do I just edit /etc/bash.bashrc -or what? Jon Clausen