From rick at rickgordon.com Fri Nov 2 13:01:48 2007 From: rick at rickgordon.com (Rick Gordon) Date: Fri Nov 2 13:01:58 2007 Subject: [X-Unix] Standard Protocol Equivalent for Terminal "open" Command?? Message-ID: [Cross-posted to the OS X for Users list, but with no response to date] Is there any standard (or easily distributable) protocol (syntactically like http, file, ftp, etc.) that can be prefixed to a POSIX path that can duplicate a Terminal "open" command? So that (assuming that the protocol was "open"): open:///Library/Application%20Support would open the global Application Support folder in the Finder, or open:///Applications/Utilities/Disk%20Utility.app would launch the Disk Utility application, or reveal:///Applications/Utilities/Disk%20Utility.app would reveal the Disk Utility application in the Finder? Some thing like that would be a boon for technical support emails requiring an unsophisticated user to easily access a file or folder, without having to laboriously explain the file path. -- ___________________________________________________ RICK GORDON EMERALD VALLEY GRAPHICS AND CONSULTING ___________________________________________________ WWW: http://www.shelterpub.com From macosxforme at gmail.com Fri Nov 2 13:29:41 2007 From: macosxforme at gmail.com (david) Date: Fri Nov 2 13:29:52 2007 Subject: [X-Unix] Standard Protocol Equivalent for Terminal "open" Command?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <075656A8-8DD2-430E-A1FE-93023C10DF67@gmail.com> On Nov 2, 2007, at 4:01 PM, Rick Gordon wrote: > [Cross-posted to the OS X for Users list, but with no response to > date] > > Is there any standard (or easily distributable) protocol > (syntactically like http, file, ftp, etc.) that can be prefixed to > a POSIX path that can duplicate a Terminal "open" command? So that > (assuming that the protocol was "open"): > > open:///Library/Application%20Support would open the global > Application Support folder in the Finder, or > open:///Applications/Utilities/Disk%20Utility.app would launch the > Disk Utility application, or > reveal:///Applications/Utilities/Disk%20Utility.app would reveal > the Disk Utility application in the Finder? > > Some thing like that would be a boon for technical support emails > requiring an unsophisticated user to easily access a file or > folder, without having to laboriously explain the file path. > -- Why not simply use: open /Applications/Utilities/Disk\ Utility.app or for a file path: open /Library/Application\ Support You can even bundle it within a double-clickable AppleScript if you want. ie, via: do shell script "open /Applications/Utilities/Disk\ Utility.app" although you can do that via AppleScript itself. From rick at rickgordon.com Fri Nov 2 13:46:53 2007 From: rick at rickgordon.com (Rick Gordon) Date: Fri Nov 2 13:47:11 2007 Subject: [X-Unix] Standard Protocol Equivalent for Terminal "open" Command?? Message-ID: Because what I would prefer is to simple be able to key in a double-clickable URL into an email, rather than have to explain to a newbie how to use Terminal, negotiate a file path, or even create and attach an AppleScript to an email. Simplicity. Rick Gordon ------------------ On 11/2/07 at 4:29 PM -0400, david wrote in a message entitled "Re: [X-Unix] Standard Protocol Equivalent for Terminal "ope": >On Nov 2, 2007, at 4:01 PM, Rick Gordon wrote: > >>[Cross-posted to the OS X for Users list, but with no response to date] >> >>Is there any standard (or easily distributable) protocol (syntactically like http, file, ftp, etc.) that can be prefixed to a POSIX path that can duplicate a Terminal "open" command? So that (assuming that the protocol was "open"): >> >>open:///Library/Application%20Support would open the global Application Support folder in the Finder, or >>open:///Applications/Utilities/Disk%20Utility.app would launch the Disk Utility application, or >>reveal:///Applications/Utilities/Disk%20Utility.app would reveal the Disk Utility application in the Finder? >> >>Some thing like that would be a boon for technical support emails requiring an unsophisticated user to easily access a file or folder, without having to laboriously explain the file path. >>-- > >Why not simply use: > >open /Applications/Utilities/Disk\ Utility.app > > or for a file path: > >open /Library/Application\ Support > >You can even bundle it within a double-clickable AppleScript if you want. > >ie, via: > >do shell script "open /Applications/Utilities/Disk\ Utility.app" > >although you can do that via AppleScript itself. -- ___________________________________________________ RICK GORDON EMERALD VALLEY GRAPHICS AND CONSULTING ___________________________________________________ WWW: http://www.shelterpub.com From Peter_Dyballa at Web.DE Fri Nov 2 14:59:37 2007 From: Peter_Dyballa at Web.DE (Peter Dyballa) Date: Fri Nov 2 14:59:54 2007 Subject: [X-Unix] Re: Standard Protocol Equivalent for Terminal "open" Command?? In-Reply-To: <20071102204710.D98E91BA4330@listserver.themacintoshguy.com> References: <20071102204710.D98E91BA4330@listserver.themacintoshguy.com> Message-ID: <32A215E1-0C79-40F5-A878-E2667105D5C3@Web.DE> Am 02.11.2007 um 21:47 schrieb Rick Gordon: > Is there any standard (or easily distributable) protocol > (syntactically like http, file, ftp, etc.) that can be prefixed to > a POSIX path that can duplicate a Terminal "open" command? A bit of JavaScript or ECMAScript on a button in an HTML eMail that does something like system() does in awk or Perl? That could be useful, indeed! -- Greetings Pete "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein From rick at rickgordon.com Fri Nov 2 16:32:09 2007 From: rick at rickgordon.com (Rick Gordon) Date: Fri Nov 2 16:32:25 2007 Subject: [X-Unix] Standard Protocol Equivalent for Terminal "open" Command?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I may have some sort of solution with the AppleScript URL Protocol: Rick Gordon ------------------ On 11/2/07 at 1:46 PM -0700, Rick Gordon wrote in a message entitled "Re: [X-Unix] Standard Protocol Equivalent for Terminal "ope": >Because what I would prefer is to simple be able to key in a double-clickable URL into an email, rather than have to explain to a newbie how to use Terminal, negotiate a file path, or even create and attach an AppleScript to an email. -- ___________________________________________________ RICK GORDON EMERALD VALLEY GRAPHICS AND CONSULTING ___________________________________________________ From dhiggins at mchsi.com Fri Nov 2 23:46:25 2007 From: dhiggins at mchsi.com (Dave Higgins) Date: Fri Nov 2 23:46:34 2007 Subject: [X-Unix] Standard Protocol Equivalent for Terminal "open" Command?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Is there any standard (or easily distributable) protocol > (syntactically like http, file, ftp, etc.) that can be prefixed to a > POSIX path that can duplicate a Terminal "open" command? So that > (assuming that the protocol was "open"): > > open:///Library/Application%20Support would open the global > Application Support folder in the Finder, or > open:///Applications/Utilities/Disk%20Utility.app would launch the > Disk Utility application, or > reveal:///Applications/Utilities/Disk%20Utility.app would reveal the > Disk Utility application in the Finder? > > Some thing like that would be a boon for technical support emails > requiring an unsophisticated user to easily access a file or folder, > without having to laboriously explain the file path. I agree that this would be helpful, but I doubt you're going to see that much control over a machine by URL, mainly because of security concerns. Used correctly and responsibly it could be quite powerful. Used maliciously it could raise some serious concerns. At least an "open://" type call... Now, this "reveal", on the other hand, would be safe. But, alas, I have no idea how to do such a thing. > > That's pretty cool... Didn't know you could do that... After doing a little Google searching, I came across an interesting free tool... It'll take an AS from the front window of Script Editor and create that type of URL (placing it in your clipboard), or even make a whole HTML page. You can find it at . The whole HTML pages came up with a couple minor flaws for me with quick tests, but it can create a good start. Not "exactly" what you were looking for in the original post, but I suppose you could have a link like this open a script in Script Editor, then have them just click the "Run" button. Your AS inside it could do the opening of the window in Finder, or launch applications, or whatever. As much as I hate AppleScript (I'm more of a SuperCard user), you can do quite a bit with it if you're willing to endure it. Any idea where we can get a whole list of protocols handled this way (known ones are http, https, file, ftp, and now applescript)? Dave. From dledger at ivdcs.demon.co.uk Sat Nov 3 01:24:58 2007 From: dledger at ivdcs.demon.co.uk (David Ledger) Date: Sat Nov 3 01:26:44 2007 Subject: [X-Unix] Standard Protocol Equivalent for Terminal "open" Command?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 13:46 -0700 2/11/07, Rick Gordon wrote: >Because what I would prefer is to simple be able to key in a >double-clickable URL into an email, rather than have to explain to a >newbie how to use Terminal, negotiate a file path, or even create >and attach an AppleScript to an email. You can get to files with the file:// specifier. will show the contents of /Applications in a browser. (Note the triple /). This may or may not be recognised by an email client. Eudora can't. Users can report size and last modified time from the list. Because most applications are bundles they show as directories and have to be opened further. You can not run any program from a browser. It's a fundamental part of browser design that they mustn't. If they could all security would be breached. When the web started and the early browsers appeared they were a major security concern until the community was convinced that browsers could neither run programs nor write files other than their own (bookmarks, cookies etc.). The fact that they could store cookies was a concern for a while being as cookies are arbitrary data. That's why JavaScript was developed. JavaScript was a new language written to have no ability to run other programs or write to disc. David -- David Ledger - Freelance Unix Sysadmin in the UK. HP-UX specialist of hpUG technical user group (www.hpug.org.uk) david.ledger@ivdcs.co.uk www.ivdcs.co.uk From beyond.theframe at verizon.net Sat Nov 3 14:38:40 2007 From: beyond.theframe at verizon.net (Ethan Rips) Date: Sat Nov 3 14:38:19 2007 Subject: [X-Unix] Re: X-Unix Digest, Vol 35, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: <20071102204710.1487E1BA432C@listserver.themacintoshguy.com> Message-ID: On 11/17/07 4:47 PM, " Thom Holland" wrote: > Ethan, > > Did you get this fixed? I don't have a solution, I was just curious. > Did you call the consultant? He should have been able to fix it. Also, on 10/18/07 4:47 PM, " Jakob Peterhaensel" wrote: > I would get a copy of Print Setup Repair: > http://macupdate.com/info.php/id/8070/printer-setup-repair > > You can use it for some daus, and it should be able to fix your > problems. Thom/Jakob-- I still haven't solved the problem. I bought Print Setup Repair & that did improve the situation temporarily, but the system reverted again to its previous incorrect settings. I'm now able to use the print command to generate PDFs, but I still can't access either my desktop printer or any of our network printers. Does anyone know a good way to access & edit plists via the terminal? I'd like to read them & see whether there's anything unusual going on with them. (Just a semi-educated guess--for all I know, the problem may well reside elsewhere.) I don't even know where exactly the print settings for a given app reside. On the other hand, given that this is affecting all apps, it's probably due to something global--ppds, perhaps? To quote Tom Waits, I'm "open for suggestions." Thanks. -- Ethan Rips beyond.theframe@verizon.net From douglist at macnauchtan.com Sat Nov 3 15:06:11 2007 From: douglist at macnauchtan.com (Doug McNutt) Date: Sat Nov 3 15:06:20 2007 Subject: [X-Unix] Re: X-Unix Digest, Vol 35, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 17:38 -0400 11/3/07, Ethan Rips wrote: >Does anyone know a good way to access & edit plists via the terminal? I'd >like to read them & see whether there's anything unusual going on with them. >(Just a semi-educated guess--for all I know, the problem may well reside >elsewhere.) I don't even know where exactly the print settings for a given >app reside. On the other hand, given that this is affecting all apps, it's >probably due to something global--ppds, perhaps? man plutil man defaults Of, if they're not compressed or you decompress them any text editor. - BBEdit? -- --> Halloween == Oct 31 == Dec 25 == Christmas <-- From rick at rickgordon.com Sat Nov 3 17:56:29 2007 From: rick at rickgordon.com (Rick Gordon) Date: Sat Nov 3 17:57:53 2007 Subject: [X-Unix] Standard Protocol Equivalent for Terminal "open" Command?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Actually, it turns out that a 3rd party shell command has been created for to reveal files in the Finder: The main downside for my prospective use is that it must be installed on a user's machine. The AppleScript URL protocol seems quite cool -- and of course, you could embed a do shell script command in that -- but the downside is keeping it short enough. At least in Eudora, the URL won't link properly if its over 255 characters in length. Rick Gordon ------------------ On 11/3/07 at 1:46 AM -0500, Dave Higgins wrote in a message entitled "Re: [X-Unix] Standard Protocol Equivalent for Terminal "ope": >>Is there any standard (or easily distributable) protocol (syntactically like http, file, ftp, etc.) that can be prefixed to a POSIX path that can duplicate a Terminal "open" command? So that (assuming that the protocol was "open"): >> >>open:///Library/Application%20Support would open the global Application Support folder in the Finder, or >>open:///Applications/Utilities/Disk%20Utility.app would launch the Disk Utility application, or >>reveal:///Applications/Utilities/Disk%20Utility.app would reveal the Disk Utility application in the Finder? >> >>Some thing like that would be a boon for technical support emails requiring an unsophisticated user to easily access a file or folder, without having to laboriously explain the file path. > >I agree that this would be helpful, but I doubt you're going to see that much control over a machine by URL, mainly because of security concerns. Used correctly and responsibly it could be quite powerful. Used maliciously it could raise some serious concerns. At least an "open://" type call... Now, this "reveal", on the other hand, would be safe. But, alas, I have no idea how to do such a thing. > >> > >That's pretty cool... Didn't know you could do that... > >After doing a little Google searching, I came across an interesting free tool... It'll take an AS from the front window of Script Editor and create that type of URL (placing it in your clipboard), or even make a whole HTML page. You can find it at . > >The whole HTML pages came up with a couple minor flaws for me with quick tests, but it can create a good start. > >Not "exactly" what you were looking for in the original post, but I suppose you could have a link like this open a script in Script Editor, then have them just click the "Run" button. Your AS inside it could do the opening of the window in Finder, or launch applications, or whatever. As much as I hate AppleScript (I'm more of a SuperCard user), you can do quite a bit with it if you're willing to endure it. > >Any idea where we can get a whole list of protocols handled this way (known ones are http, https, file, ftp, and now applescript)? -- ___________________________________________________ RICK GORDON EMERALD VALLEY GRAPHICS AND CONSULTING ___________________________________________________ WWW: http://www.shelterpub.com From RussellMcGaha at mac.com Sat Nov 17 06:28:59 2007 From: RussellMcGaha at mac.com (Russell McGaha) Date: Sat Nov 17 07:23:03 2007 Subject: [X-Unix] 10.5 netinfo ? Message-ID: What's the equivalent to netinfo on 10.5? When I installed Leopard it thought I had a "Shared" Users folder, [which I actually had at one time, but no longer] and did not copy my /Users folder over to the new Mac. Normally this would be not problem, cp -Rpv the /Users folder, to the new /Users folder, go into NetInfo and change where the 'Home' folders are located, reboot, problem fixed. HOW is this done under 10.5 ???? Russell From ecrist at secure-computing.net Sat Nov 17 07:46:19 2007 From: ecrist at secure-computing.net (Eric F Crist) Date: Sat Nov 17 07:47:23 2007 Subject: [X-Unix] 10.5 netinfo ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <62216371-2E34-456B-95DD-D1CF095E940E@secure-computing.net> On Nov 17, 2007, at 8:28 AM, Russell McGaha wrote: > What's the equivalent to netinfo on 10.5? When I installed Leopard > it thought I had a "Shared" Users folder, [which I actually had at > one time, but no longer] and did not copy my /Users folder over to > the new Mac. Normally this would be not problem, cp -Rpv the /Users > folder, to the new /Users folder, go into NetInfo and change where > the 'Home' folders are located, reboot, problem fixed. HOW is this > done under 10.5 ???? From what I understand, netinfo has been replaced with Directory Services, which has a pretty robust command line utility called dscl, short for Directory Service Command Line utility. There's a pretty good article on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetInfo_Manager HTH ----- Eric F Crist Secure Computing Networks From groups at pursued-with.net Sat Nov 17 10:20:40 2007 From: groups at pursued-with.net (Kevin Stevens) Date: Sat Nov 17 10:20:46 2007 Subject: [X-Unix] 10.5 netinfo ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <77A9FF4F-8A60-4CD9-A3FF-754F4AEB7C9E@pursued-with.net> On Nov 17, 2007, at 06:28, Russell McGaha wrote: > What's the equivalent to netinfo on 10.5? When I installed Leopard > it thought I had a "Shared" Users folder, [which I actually had at > one time, but no longer] and did not copy my /Users folder over to > the new Mac. Normally this would be not problem, cp -Rpv the /Users > folder, to the new /Users folder, go into NetInfo and change where > the 'Home' folders are located, reboot, problem fixed. HOW is this > done under 10.5 ???? > > Russell Here's the best article I've seen so far on it: http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/11/16/netinfo/index.php?lsrc=mwrss KeS From dhiggins at mchsi.com Sat Nov 17 16:49:05 2007 From: dhiggins at mchsi.com (Dave Higgins) Date: Sat Nov 17 16:49:18 2007 Subject: [X-Unix] 10.5 netinfo ? In-Reply-To: <62216371-2E34-456B-95DD-D1CF095E940E@secure-computing.net> References: <62216371-2E34-456B-95DD-D1CF095E940E@secure-computing.net> Message-ID: On Nov 17, 2007, at 9:46 AM, Eric F Crist wrote: > From what I understand, netinfo has been replaced with Directory > Services, which has a pretty robust command line utility called > dscl, short for Directory Service Command Line utility. You can also access some of it (short username, login shell, home folder) by going into System Prefs > Users. Unlock for access, then right-click on any user's name to pop up and "Advanced..." menu. It'll bring up a panel where you can make the changes. Dave. From macmonster at myrealbox.com Sun Nov 18 05:29:23 2007 From: macmonster at myrealbox.com (Stroller) Date: Sun Nov 18 05:29:30 2007 Subject: [X-Unix] Re: [X4U] 10.5 netinfo ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9224283E-85EB-49F3-8EA7-F8EFD0A5FF91@myrealbox.com> On 17 Nov 2007, at 14:28, Russell McGaha wrote: > What's the equivalent to netinfo on 10.5? Last week's thread on this subject was called "Leopard's lost NetInfo": Stroller. From rips.ej at dreyfus.com Mon Nov 19 07:12:15 2007 From: rips.ej at dreyfus.com (Ethan Rips) Date: Mon Nov 19 07:14:40 2007 Subject: [X-Unix] Re: Printing Dilemma In-Reply-To: <20071117154724.0CE381E12811@listserver.themacintoshguy.com> Message-ID: On 11/3/07 at 4:06 PM, " Doug McNutt wrote: > man plutil > man defaults > > Of, if they're not compressed or you decompress them any text editor. - > BBEdit? Thank you, Doug. The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential and is intended solely for the use of the named addressee. Access, copying or re-use of the e-mail or any information contained therein by any other person is not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient please notify us immediately by returning the e-mail to the originator.(17b) Disclaimer Version MB.US.1 From juntunen at crc-inc.com Tue Nov 20 04:16:14 2007 From: juntunen at crc-inc.com (Thomas Juntunen) Date: Tue Nov 20 05:18:15 2007 Subject: [X-Unix] 10.5 netinfo ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 11/17/07 9:28 AM, "Russell McGaha" wrote: > What's the equivalent to netinfo on 10.5? When I installed Leopard > it thought I had a "Shared" Users folder, [which I actually had at > one time, but no longer] and did not copy my /Users folder over to > the new Mac. Apple released a Knowledge Base article about missing home folders in Leopard yesterday: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=307033 HTH, Thomas Juntunen From macdaddee at gmail.com Thu Nov 29 20:05:30 2007 From: macdaddee at gmail.com (Mac Daddy) Date: Thu Nov 29 20:29:40 2007 Subject: [X-Unix] 10.5 cli -what's up with 'more'? Message-ID: <855DD0F3-741B-488A-B947-4F4D348F5207@gmail.com> Every time I 'more' something in Leopard, the output ends with a reverse text " 99%" line. THEN if I hit a key, I get a reverse text "(END)", THEN if I hit a key I get my prompt. Grrr. HOW ANNOYING! This never happened back with Tiger. How can I stop this and go back to my file scrolling out and then ending with my prompt again? -md From ecrist at secure-computing.net Fri Nov 30 05:30:02 2007 From: ecrist at secure-computing.net (Eric F Crist) Date: Fri Nov 30 05:32:55 2007 Subject: [X-Unix] 10.5 cli -what's up with 'more'? In-Reply-To: <855DD0F3-741B-488A-B947-4F4D348F5207@gmail.com> References: <855DD0F3-741B-488A-B947-4F4D348F5207@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Nov 29, 2007, at 10:05 PM, Mac Daddy wrote: > Every time I 'more' something in Leopard, the output ends with a > reverse text " 99%" line. THEN if I hit a key, I get a > reverse text "(END)", THEN if I hit a key I get my prompt. Grrr. HOW > ANNOYING! This never happened back with Tiger. > > How can I stop this and go back to my file scrolling out and then > ending with my prompt again? > > -md I'm not experiencing the same symptoms on my 10.5.1 system here. Until you get it fixed, you could use 'less' as a replacement. ----- Eric F Crist Secure Computing Networks From subscriber at gloaming.com Fri Nov 30 07:13:10 2007 From: subscriber at gloaming.com (James Bucanek) Date: Fri Nov 30 07:13:24 2007 Subject: [X-Unix] 10.5 cli -what's up with 'more'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric F Crist wrote (Friday, November 30, 2007 6:30 AM -0600): >On Nov 29, 2007, at 10:05 PM, Mac Daddy wrote: > >>Every time I 'more' something in Leopard, the output ends with >>a reverse text " 99%" line. THEN if I hit a key, I >>get a reverse text "(END)", THEN if I hit a key I get my >>prompt. Grrr. HOW ANNOYING! This never happened back with Tiger. >> >>How can I stop this and go back to my file scrolling out and >>then ending with my prompt again? >> >>-md > >I'm not experiencing the same symptoms on my 10.5.1 system >here. Until you get it fixed, you could use 'less' as a replacement. He is using less. more has been hard linked to less since Panther, maybe earlier. When less is executed as more it runs in more compatibility mode. There might be some clues there as to what's going on. See man less. -- James Bucanek From dledger at ivdcs.demon.co.uk Thu Nov 29 22:32:15 2007 From: dledger at ivdcs.demon.co.uk (David Ledger) Date: Fri Nov 30 10:54:31 2007 Subject: [X-Unix] 10.5 cli -what's up with 'more'? In-Reply-To: <855DD0F3-741B-488A-B947-4F4D348F5207@gmail.com> References: <855DD0F3-741B-488A-B947-4F4D348F5207@gmail.com> Message-ID: At 23:05 -0500 29/11/07, Mac Daddy wrote: >Every time I 'more' something in Leopard, the output ends with a >reverse text " 99%" line. THEN if I hit a key, I get a >reverse text "(END)", THEN if I hit a key I get my prompt. Grrr. HOW >ANNOYING! This never happened back with Tiger. > >How can I stop this and go back to my file scrolling out and then >ending with my prompt again? That's the way some of the Linux distributions are going - at least, the HP RedHat one is. It's the thing I most dislike about Linux. Lots of people making trivial changes to make it the way *they* think it should be. Under HP RedHat, 'ls' sorts the '.' files amongst the others. Why??. If they change things it should be controlled with a flag. Guess it's just a bunch of ex-Wintel users saying 'Look - I can change the OS'. I would expect the binary from Tiger to work. David -- David Ledger - Freelance Unix Sysadmin in the UK. HP-UX specialist of hpUG technical user group (www.hpug.org.uk) david.ledger@ivdcs.co.uk www.ivdcs.co.uk From macmonster at myrealbox.com Fri Nov 30 14:37:38 2007 From: macmonster at myrealbox.com (Stroller) Date: Fri Nov 30 14:37:50 2007 Subject: [X-Unix] 10.5 cli -what's up with 'more'? In-Reply-To: References: <855DD0F3-741B-488A-B947-4F4D348F5207@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 30 Nov 2007, at 06:32, David Ledger wrote: > ... > That's the way some of the Linux distributions are going - at > least, the HP RedHat one is. It's the thing I most dislike about > Linux. Lots of people making trivial changes to make it the way > *they* think it should be. Under HP RedHat, 'ls' sorts the '.' > files amongst the others. Why? Are you sure this isn't configured in the distro's default .bash_profile or .bashrc? (or /etc/profile?) The GNU versions of the "standard utilities" are different from those in Posix, System V or the BSDs, but I personally think these changes are often (much needed) improvements upon the originals and are generally for the best. IMO Bash & the GNU utilis are what a modern Unix shouldbe aiming for - it's certainly my expectation in terms of ease-of-use. I'd be surprised if Dead Rat - or any other modern distro - is using any other version of `ls` than the GNU one. I think that - with a bit of hunting around - it should be possible to pin down how `ls` is being called and get it to behave the way you expect. Stroller.