Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!alberta!atha!auvax.AthabascaU.CA!kevinc
From: kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Kevin Crocker)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs. Unix
Message-ID: <500@auvax.AthabascaU.CA>
Date: 27 Dec 89 18:29:17 GMT
References: <260@ndla.UUCP> <487@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> <1945@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Organization: Athabasca University
Lines: 32
Keywords: favorite way to "view" a file
Summary: My vote is "look"

In article <1945@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>, davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) writes:

> In article <1989Dec20.014855.2204@druid.uucp> darcy@druid.UUCP (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes:

> | In article <487@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> jmann@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
> | >For example, to display a file under DOS, I use
> | >'type' or the near-universal bit of freeware 'd'. That's lots
> | >easier to remember than 'cat.'
> | >

> | That's your opinion.  I am always typing "cat" on DOS machines but I
> | never use "type" on my UNIX box.

> I hate to say this, but if you were choosing an intuitive command you
> would choose 'list', or 2nd choice 'show'.
> bill davidsen	(davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)

Bill, I must disagree.  To me, "look" is exceedingly intuitive.  I want
to be able to see the file so something that is analogous to 'seeing'
is the most appropriate, thus "look" or even "see", but look is a more
action oriented and see is passive.

I have a PD program called "look" on my 286 and am constantly annoyed
that I don't have the same ability on Ultrix or Sys V3.

Kevin Crocker (kevinc@cs.athabascau.ca -or- decwrl!atha!kevinc)


-- 
Kevin "auric" Crocker Athabasca University 
UUCP: ...!{alberta,ncc,attvcr}!atha!kevinc
Inet: kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA