EDAboard.com | EDAboard.eu | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | RTV forum PL | NewsGroups PL

Windows rename

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - Windows rename

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 17, 18, 19  Next

Jasen Betts
Guest

Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:54 pm   



On 2016-08-28, Tom Gardner <spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Quote:
On 28/08/16 00:26, Don Y wrote:
shrug> Pick the tool taht fits your goal most aptly
and don't bother to "apologize"

And, of course, don't extend your use of (comfortable)
tool into areas where other tools are better.

The worst case I saw of that was where someone needed to
do an infrequent RPC call from one processor to another.
They were SQL programmers, so of course the technique
they chose was to write a value into a database and
have the other side poll for the new value. Sigh.


That's a good approach if the processors are opposite sides of the
continent. but for opposite ends of a PCB it's sub-optimal.



--
This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software

Don Y
Guest

Tue Sep 13, 2016 1:25 pm   



On 9/12/2016 5:58 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Quote:
Don Y wrote:
On 9/10/2016 10:42 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
OTOH, think of the timeframe in which you sought that "example".
Now, think of how many devices (that you personally own) suffered
HARDWARE failures in that same timeframe.

That was the only hardware failure, in several years.

Really? I have monitors that crap out every few years, ditto
for TV's. Just had to repair two iPods that suffered from the
designers' failure to anticipate (and protect against) overcharging,
etc.

I repair a lot of failed electronics, that I pick up as scrap from thrift
stores. I just have very little problems with my equipment. It sees how much
stuff gets scrapped, when it has too many problems. Smile


We've been through a couple of different sets of cordless phones
(despite never "dropping" them or physically abusing them in any
way); I've fixed 4 or 5 DTV converters over the years -- usually
twice before they give up the ghost entirely; an iPod dock/clock;
another iPod *dock*; a GPS unit; opted NOT to fix the "on ceiling
display" of a bedside clock; three DVD players; SWMBO's "personal
stereos" at least 4 or 5 times; etc.

Aside from monitors (and only LCD monitors, at that!), my computers
have largely "behaved". But, the consumer kit isn't usually worth the
warranties that accompany them!

Quote:
[I suspect a two week period doesn't pass without some friend or
colleague offering me some bit of kit that has "died" in the
preceding 14 days: "Yours if you want it" (i.e., if you want
to FIX it!)]

I.e., it's somehow "acceptable" that hardware can crap out (note
how many consumer devices carry *~90* day warranties!) and be
discarded. Yet, software (that will *never* "wear out")
is derided if it doesn't perform perfectly.

My favorite word processor ran on the Commodore 64. Speedscript had
features that I have seen in no other program.

My first favorite (CP/M days) was Electric Blackboard. Most delightful
feature (for that timeframe) was the ability to specify "cursor direction".
So, you could set it to "down" and then type a vertical column of
"whatever" (handy for inserting a "comment character" in front of
several contiguous lines of text).

[This was in the days of serial terminals so having a screen oriented
editor was a HUGE win -- no waiting for line-at-a-time screen updates,
etc.]

Or, type a line of asterisks (with direction set to "right").
Then, set direction to "down" and type MORE asterisks. Then "left"
for still more. Finally, "up" to complete the drawing of the "box".

In the early PC days, Brief became my favorite. It was speedy,
small, programmable, etc.

Now, I adapt to whatever is available (I work on several different
machines using several different operating systems, etc.). Often,
an application implements (or requires) a particular "editor"
so its easier to adapt than it would be to insist the tool adapt
to *you*!

Did you ever use a word processor to edit a second copy of itself? Smile


Easy as most OS's load a *copy* of the executable into memory.
So, you're actually editing the original.

OTOH, some OS's allow you to edit "process memory" directly (assuming
you have appropriate permissions).

In the past, I would design a "run time monitor" into products... sort
of an inexpensive little debugger that would let me examine and modify
the software as it was running. Armed with a "link map" (so you knew
where "everything was"), you could patch code and data while the
programs were running and directly observe the results ("Watch me
turn this motor on...", etc.)

Of course, most of these systems had single, unified address spaces.
So, if you screwed up and crashed the machine, the monitor would also
crash (cuz it was just another "program" executing alongside all the
others)

Michael A. Terrell
Guest

Tue Sep 13, 2016 5:36 pm   



Don Y wrote:
Quote:


Michael A. Terrell wrote:

I repair a lot of failed electronics, that I pick up as scrap from thrift
stores. I just have very little problems with my equipment. It sees
how much stuff gets scrapped, when it has too many problems. :)

We've been through a couple of different sets of cordless phones
(despite never "dropping" them or physically abusing them in any
way); I've fixed 4 or 5 DTV converters over the years -- usually
twice before they give up the ghost entirely; an iPod dock/clock;
another iPod *dock*; a GPS unit; opted NOT to fix the "on ceiling
display" of a bedside clock; three DVD players; SWMBO's "personal
stereos" at least 4 or 5 times; etc.

Aside from monitors (and only LCD monitors, at that!), my computers
have largely "behaved". But, the consumer kit isn't usually worth the
warranties that accompany them!


I've repaired consumer electronics for 50 years. I started as a
teenager, and continued to do it as a sideline while working other
electronics jobs.


Quote:
Did you ever use a word processor to edit a second copy of itself? :)

Easy as most OS's load a *copy* of the executable into memory.
So, you're actually editing the original.

OTOH, some OS's allow you to edit "process memory" directly (assuming
you have appropriate permissions).

In the past, I would design a "run time monitor" into products... sort
of an inexpensive little debugger that would let me examine and modify
the software as it was running. Armed with a "link map" (so you knew
where "everything was"), you could patch code and data while the
programs were running and directly observe the results ("Watch me
turn this motor on...", etc.)

Of course, most of these systems had single, unified address spaces.
So, if you screwed up and crashed the machine, the monitor would also
crash (cuz it was just another "program" executing alongside all the
others)


This was before there were cheap UPS, so it was safer to edit the
disk. I also used a sector editor to write some 6510 (6502) machine
language directly to the disk.


--
Never piss off an Engineer!

They don't get mad.

They don't get even.

They go for over unity! Wink

Don Y
Guest

Wed Sep 14, 2016 1:48 am   



On 9/13/2016 4:36 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Quote:
Aside from monitors (and only LCD monitors, at that!), my computers
have largely "behaved". But, the consumer kit isn't usually worth the
warranties that accompany them!

I've repaired consumer electronics for 50 years. I started as a teenager,
and continued to do it as a sideline while working other electronics jobs.


I don't *like* repairing things! I prefer they "just work". I'm more
likely to do it for a friend/colleague/neighbor than myself (in the latter
case, it's *my* money so I can decide the time/cash tradeoff; in the former
case, it's someone else's and, presumably, they have already decided
that MY TIME is cheaper than THEIR MONEY! :< )

Quote:
Did you ever use a word processor to edit a second copy of itself? :)

Easy as most OS's load a *copy* of the executable into memory.
So, you're actually editing the original.

OTOH, some OS's allow you to edit "process memory" directly (assuming
you have appropriate permissions).

In the past, I would design a "run time monitor" into products... sort
of an inexpensive little debugger that would let me examine and modify
the software as it was running. Armed with a "link map" (so you knew
where "everything was"), you could patch code and data while the
programs were running and directly observe the results ("Watch me
turn this motor on...", etc.)

Of course, most of these systems had single, unified address spaces.
So, if you screwed up and crashed the machine, the monitor would also
crash (cuz it was just another "program" executing alongside all the
others)

This was before there were cheap UPS, so it was safer to edit the disk. I
also used a sector editor to write some 6510 (6502) machine language directly
to the disk.


Many years ago, I had to bring up a "tester" for a MIL subcontract.
Huge ECL memory planes to store the pattern buffer. Take ages to
test so, once you're reasonably sure they are working, it would be
nice to skip over those tests so you could concentrate on troubleshooting
other aspects of the unit.

So, I would typically "patch" the contents of the test program
(8" floppy) to skip over tests about which I was unconcerned,
"today". And, repatch them, later, to restore the original
test sequence.

Time came for the formal "sell-off". Their QC guy settled down next
to me (we'd been working together for many months so had developed a
rapport). Started up the test and then just idle banter between
us as we watched it run through the (lengthy!) test sequence.

"Memory Test. Go for coffee..."

Ooops! He wasn't thrilled to see *that*! Opened his briefcase,
took out a "clean" copy of the test disk and suggested we "start
over"

I guess trust isn't something they take for granted with big
$M bits of kit that THEY will be peddling to the gummit...

[*John* trusted me. But, having seen an obvious indication of
"tampering" with the test suite, would have a hard time
explaining why he didn't insist on the clean instance]

Michael A. Terrell
Guest

Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:23 am   



Don Y wrote:
Quote:

Many years ago, I had to bring up a "tester" for a MIL subcontract.
Huge ECL memory planes to store the pattern buffer. Take ages to
test so, once you're reasonably sure they are working, it would be
nice to skip over those tests so you could concentrate on troubleshooting
other aspects of the unit.

So, I would typically "patch" the contents of the test program
(8" floppy) to skip over tests about which I was unconcerned,
"today". And, repatch them, later, to restore the original
test sequence.

Time came for the formal "sell-off". Their QC guy settled down next
to me (we'd been working together for many months so had developed a
rapport). Started up the test and then just idle banter between
us as we watched it run through the (lengthy!) test sequence.

"Memory Test. Go for coffee..."

Ooops! He wasn't thrilled to see *that*! Opened his briefcase,
took out a "clean" copy of the test disk and suggested we "start
over"

I guess trust isn't something they take for granted with big
$M bits of kit that THEY will be peddling to the gummit...

[*John* trusted me. But, having seen an obvious indication of
"tampering" with the test suite, would have a hard time
explaining why he didn't insist on the clean instance]



Microdyne had a 'distribution board' for their 700/1620 line, and a few
other products that connected the front panel to everything else. The
manual test took over 12 hours per board, if they passed on the first
try. Engineering ALMOST built a working test fixture that required you
to ignore about half the tests because of programming errors, and
damaged connectors. I went to engineer who's name was on the
documentation to ask WTF they were thinking. They said, Then fix the
damned thing, I don't even remember building it. It took about an hour
per board, at that point to test parts of a board. I told my boss what
the $%^&* had said, and went back to work. Every time I got a failure, I
troubleshot it, then edited the software to properly do a test, or to
add message suggesting what the problem might be. It took a few months
until you could depend on a passed board working in a finished product.
Then the $%^& engineer ogt wind that I had rewritten HIS masterpiece of
crap. He complained to my boss, and wanted me fired. He was pissed when
the head of test, and the head of production informed him that I had
followed his instructions, and fixed it, myself. Once it was working
properly, it took less than 15 seconds to run the tests on a good board.

That fixture used a 6803 processor, and a 9600 baud port to talk to
an old XT running DOS 5.0 and QuickBasic. The fixture had a pile of 6821
ICs to interface with the digital circuits, and the analog circuits were
biased to give TTL compatible outputs. To add insult to injury, I added
sound effects to tell if a board passed or failed. ;-)


--
Never piss off an Engineer!

They don't get mad.

They don't get even.

They go for over unity! Wink

Jasen Betts
Guest

Fri Sep 23, 2016 5:58 pm   



On 2016-08-31, John Larkin <jjlarkin_at_highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 09:36:25 -0700, Don Y
blockedofcourse_at_foo.invalid> wrote:

On 8/26/2016 9:12 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 16:41:59 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
steve_at_easynn.com> wrote:

On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:30:00 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin_at_highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

But most code looks like that. Most programmers are outright hostile
to comments, as is obvious here. The argument, seen here, is "since
I'll get the comments wrong, we shouldn't have them."

When I write a program I write the comments first. Then it's clear to
me what I want to do with the program.

Steve

Yes. When I design hardware, I write the manual first.

This coming week, I'm going to write the manual/design notes for a new
product that's still in the architecture and rough schematic stage.
We'll later strip that to be the public manual, and keep/maintain the
design notes part.

The advantage of writing a user manual first (or, in my case, having
evolved that to a "tutorial" document) is that it lets you sit back
and look at how "clean" your design is -- or is not.

As the document must be *thorough* and cover every potentiality,
if you find it littered with lots of caveats ("... unless FOO, in
which case, BAR...") then its a red flag that you probably need
to rethink your approach: it's either inherently flawed OR will
be troublesome for the user due to its complexity (KISS).

E.g., many "programmers" like to FORCE the user to do things in a
particular order -- even when there is no underlying reason for
doing so. Or, worse, because it makes the coders job easier.

I, instead, like to give the user free-reign in as much of the UX
as possible. And, only enforce requirements when they MUST be.
E.g., when you try to advance to the next logical step.

Web coders seem to be notorious for the "you will do it THIS way"
mentality; why do you need my name and address just to give me
a price? Or, shipping information? Ask for a ZIP code (you
probably won't give a more refined price even if you asked for
ZIP+4!) and give me a ballpark estimate.

Why do pull-down country lists often start with Afghanistan?


coder too lazy to look up your IP address.

Quote:
I usually pick Afghanistan instead of scrolling down near the end to
USA.


press V and hit up three times.

--
This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software

Jasen Betts
Guest

Sat Sep 24, 2016 1:41 am   



On 2016-08-31, Tom Gardner <spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Quote:
On 31/08/16 23:52, John Larkin wrote:
There are lots of professional programmers who don't know what a state
machine is.

Including some programmers that are actually creating FSMs
for telecom systems - but don't realise it, doh!

Yes, they thought an FSM was something you used when parsing
input during compilation, sigh.


It's that too, squared. ( see "yacc", "flex" )

--
This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software

Chris
Guest

Mon Sep 26, 2016 7:30 am   



On 1/09/2016 9:15 AM, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 09:36:25 -0700, Don Y
blockedofcourse_at_foo.invalid> wrote:

On 8/26/2016 9:12 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 16:41:59 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
steve_at_easynn.com> wrote:

On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:30:00 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin_at_highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

But most code looks like that. Most programmers are outright hostile
to comments, as is obvious here. The argument, seen here, is "since
I'll get the comments wrong, we shouldn't have them."

When I write a program I write the comments first. Then it's clear to
me what I want to do with the program.

Steve

Yes. When I design hardware, I write the manual first.

This coming week, I'm going to write the manual/design notes for a new
product that's still in the architecture and rough schematic stage.
We'll later strip that to be the public manual, and keep/maintain the
design notes part.

The advantage of writing a user manual first (or, in my case, having
evolved that to a "tutorial" document) is that it lets you sit back
and look at how "clean" your design is -- or is not.

As the document must be *thorough* and cover every potentiality,
if you find it littered with lots of caveats ("... unless FOO, in
which case, BAR...") then its a red flag that you probably need
to rethink your approach: it's either inherently flawed OR will
be troublesome for the user due to its complexity (KISS).

E.g., many "programmers" like to FORCE the user to do things in a
particular order -- even when there is no underlying reason for
doing so. Or, worse, because it makes the coders job easier.

I, instead, like to give the user free-reign in as much of the UX
as possible. And, only enforce requirements when they MUST be.
E.g., when you try to advance to the next logical step.

Web coders seem to be notorious for the "you will do it THIS way"
mentality; why do you need my name and address just to give me
a price? Or, shipping information? Ask for a ZIP code (you
probably won't give a more refined price even if you asked for
ZIP+4!) and give me a ballpark estimate.

Why do pull-down country lists often start with Afghanistan?


?? Seriously?

Quote:
I usually pick Afghanistan instead of scrolling down near the end to
USA.


Type 'U' and it'll get you close...

--
Cheers,
Chris.

Tom Gardner
Guest

Mon Sep 26, 2016 1:48 pm   



On 26/09/16 02:38, Chris wrote:
Quote:
On 1/09/2016 9:15 AM, John Larkin wrote:
Why do pull-down country lists often start with Afghanistan?


Except for those lists which piss off the rest of the
world and start with "U".


Quote:
I usually pick Afghanistan instead of scrolling down near the end to
USA.

Type 'U' and it'll get you close...


Except if you live in another country that also starts
with "U". Grrr. Arrogant bastards.

But does anybody give /real/ information to these sites?

Albert van der Horst
Guest

Sun Jan 01, 2017 7:56 pm   



In article <npgu50$fqn$1_at_dont-email.me>,
Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio_at_notused.fi.invalid> wrote:
Quote:
On 22.8.16 23:01, John Larkin wrote:


I have a folder with many subdirectories of the form

99D100
99D102
etc

and I want to rename them all as

Z100
Z102
etc.


I've tried variations of the command-line REN command. It renames
files, with wild cards, but I can't make it rename directories.


Any suggestions?

There are around 100 to rename, so I guess I could do them one at a
time.


Install MinGW and MSYS (both free), and you get most of the tools
of an UNIX installation, including the Bash shell.


If you have a bash shell, you probably have rename

This would do the job:

rename 's/^99//' 99*

This is as straightforward as it gets:
"for all files matching '99*'
replace "99" at the beginning (^) of the name by nothing (//)

Groetjes Albert
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert_at_spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

Albert van der Horst
Guest

Sun Jan 01, 2017 8:15 pm   



In article <nph3li$bk$1_at_dont-email.me>,
Don Y <blockedofcourse_at_foo.invalid> wrote:
Quote:
On 8/23/2016 1:37 AM, Rob wrote:
Tom Gardner <spamjunk_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Isn't this the kind of thing powershell (MS's scripting
utility) is supposed to do? If not, why not!

My experience is that it is usually a lot more work to code a
script that does something like this, than to generate a batch
file using a text editor that does the same thing.

The examples shown in this thread confirm that.

I beg to differ. The example /bin/sh script I wrote
can be given a "dry run" trivially:

for name in *
do
if [ -d ${name} ]
then
newname=Z${name#99D}
echo renaming $name as $newname
# mv ${name} ${newname}
fi
done


Or use the inverted command file trick:
make the action for a single file rename-one.bat

"
#!/bin/sh
if [ -d $1 ]
then
> newname=Z${1#99D}
mv $1 newname
fi
done
"
Test the behevus out of rename-one.bat
Then
ls 99D* >inverted.bat

Now replace all lines
"99Dmies" -> "$1 99Dmies" 1]
e.g.
sed -e 's/^/$1 ' inverted.bat > temp 2]

and do
inverted.bat rename-one-bat

If you want to change the owner of the directories, you can do
that with chown.bat left as an exercise to the reader.
Hint do that before renaming.

Groetjes Albert

1] experts would do
"99Dmies" -> "$1 '99Dmies' $2 $3 $4"
to increase usability.

2] experts would pipe, of course.

Disclaimer, this is to get ideas accross. Nothing has been tested.
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert_at_spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

Jasen Betts
Guest

Mon Jan 02, 2017 7:45 am   



On 2017-01-01, Albert van der Horst <albert_at_cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote:
Quote:
In article <npgu50$fqn$1_at_dont-email.me>,
Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio_at_notused.fi.invalid> wrote:
On 22.8.16 23:01, John Larkin wrote:


I have a folder with many subdirectories of the form

99D100
99D102
etc

and I want to rename them all as

Z100
Z102
etc.


I've tried variations of the command-line REN command. It renames
files, with wild cards, but I can't make it rename directories.


Any suggestions?

There are around 100 to rename, so I guess I could do them one at a
time.


Install MinGW and MSYS (both free), and you get most of the tools
of an UNIX installation, including the Bash shell.

If you have a bash shell, you probably have rename


yeah, but which rename?

Quote:
This would do the job:

rename 's/^99//' 99*


That's the perl rename script, as fas as I can tell a separate install
for msys users, but well worth the hassle.

--
This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software

Clifford Heath
Guest

Mon Jan 02, 2017 7:50 am   



On 02/01/17 04:56, Albert van der Horst wrote:
Quote:
In article <npgu50$fqn$1_at_dont-email.me>,
Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio_at_notused.fi.invalid> wrote:
On 22.8.16 23:01, John Larkin wrote:
There are around 100 to rename, so I guess I could do them one at a
time.
Install MinGW and MSYS (both free), and you get most of the tools
of an UNIX installation, including the Bash shell.

If you have a bash shell, you probably have rename

This would do the job:

rename 's/^99//' 99*


"rename" is not part of bash. Please say "type rename" to your bash
and tell us what type of thing bash thinks it is.

Clifford Heath.

Albert van der Horst
Guest

Mon Jan 09, 2017 9:20 pm   



In article <5869a3e7$0$10166$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af_at_news.astraweb.com>,
Clifford Heath <no.spam_at_please.net> wrote:
Quote:
On 02/01/17 04:56, Albert van der Horst wrote:
In article <npgu50$fqn$1_at_dont-email.me>,
Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio_at_notused.fi.invalid> wrote:
On 22.8.16 23:01, John Larkin wrote:
There are around 100 to rename, so I guess I could do them one at a
time.
Install MinGW and MSYS (both free), and you get most of the tools
of an UNIX installation, including the Bash shell.

If you have a bash shell, you probably have rename

This would do the job:

rename 's/^99//' 99*

"rename" is not part of bash. Please say "type rename" to your bash
and tell us what type of thing bash thinks it is.


No one claimed that rename was part of bash.
I only said that if some one serves you up the Unix experience with bash,
it would be silly to stop there and not give you rename.

I'll tell you what I know it is, don't need bash for that:

It starts like this:

#!/usr/bin/perl -w
#
# This script was developed by Robin Barker (Robin.Barker_at_npl.co.uk),
# from Larry Wall's original script eg/rename from the perl source.
#
# This script is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
# under the same terms as Perl itself.
#
# Larry(?)'s RCS header:
# RCSfile: rename,v Revision: 4.1 Date: 92/08/07 17:20:30
#
# $RCSfile: rename,v $$Revision: 1.5 $$Date: 1998/12/18 16:16:31 $
#

So that is what they call a script, in this case a perl script.

With the man page and all, I never realised it has been a perl
script since the dawn of linux.

Quote:

Clifford Heath.


Groetjes Albert
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert_at_spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

Clifford Heath
Guest

Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:58 am   



On 10/01/17 06:20, Albert van der Horst wrote:
Quote:
In article <5869a3e7$0$10166$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af_at_news.astraweb.com>,
Clifford Heath <no.spam_at_please.net> wrote:
On 02/01/17 04:56, Albert van der Horst wrote:
In article <npgu50$fqn$1_at_dont-email.me>,
Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio_at_notused.fi.invalid> wrote:
On 22.8.16 23:01, John Larkin wrote:
There are around 100 to rename, so I guess I could do them one at a
time.
Install MinGW and MSYS (both free), and you get most of the tools
of an UNIX installation, including the Bash shell.
If you have a bash shell, you probably have rename
This would do the job:
rename 's/^99//' 99*
"rename" is not part of bash. Please say "type rename" to your bash
and tell us what type of thing bash thinks it is.

No one claimed that rename was part of bash.
I only said that if some one serves you up the Unix experience with bash,
it would be silly to stop there and not give you rename.
I'll tell you what I know it is, don't need bash for that:


So it has nothing to do with bash, as you initially claimed.

Quote:
With the man page and all, I never realised it has been a perl
script since the dawn of linux.


Since 2011, to be precise. TWENTY YEARS after the dawn of Linux.
Specifically, since the util-linux-ng fork (begun in 2006) was
renamed back to replace the defunct linux-ng package.

You are almost completely clueless.

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 17, 18, 19  Next

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - Windows rename

Ask a question - edaboard.com

Arabic versionBulgarian versionCatalan versionCzech versionDanish versionGerman versionGreek versionEnglish versionSpanish versionFinnish versionFrench versionHindi versionCroatian versionIndonesian versionItalian versionHebrew versionJapanese versionKorean versionLithuanian versionLatvian versionDutch versionNorwegian versionPolish versionPortuguese versionRomanian versionRussian versionSlovak versionSlovenian versionSerbian versionSwedish versionTagalog versionUkrainian versionVietnamese versionChinese version
RTV map EDAboard.com map News map EDAboard.eu map EDAboard.de map EDAboard.co.uk map