'When the operating system grew too big to fit on the first RK05 disk pack (their root filesystem) they let it leak into the second one, which is where all the user home directories lived (which is why the mount was called /usr). They replicated all the OS directories under there (/bin, /sbin, /lib, /tmp...) and wrote files to those new directories because their original disk was out of space. When they got a third disk, they mounted it on /home and relocated all
the user directories to there so the OS could consume all the space on both disks and grow to THREE WHOLE MEGABYTES (ooooh!).' - http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074...
Be right back, solving some Windows backslash and CRLF issues.
> What's False: That similarity is based much more on coincidence and inherent physical limitations than a direct line of imitation.
The width of chariots/wagons/car/trains doesn't vary all that much, not compared to stuff like sailing ships.
But the Space Shuttle SRBs have a considerably larger diameter (3.7m compared to 1.435m rails) so it's more likely due to civil engineering standards: you can only transport something so big until you need to take down power lines and cut down trees.
The Falcon 9 has the same diameter and it was explicitly chosen because it's the maximum transportable by road.
Gauge is, most of all, a tradeoff between construction costs (tunnels, bridges, cuttings, oh my! Every additional inch of the gauge gets real expensive in Actual Terrain; ditto for train stations: narrow gauge can fit many more tracks next to each other), and between operating costs (wider gauge cars can be wider _and_ higher, as they're inherently more stable; thus, more cargo on same number of cars).
( ObXkcd: https://xkcd.com/927/ )
% find /bin /usr
% which cp
% readlink $(which cp)
This is the OS where each binary runs with a different path and library path, with only the programs it needs (on the versions it needs) linked there.
> Fact: This would make the separation between vendor-supplied OS resources and machine-specific even worse, thus making OS snapshots and network/container sharing of it much harder and non-atomic, and clutter the root file system with a multitude of new directories.
... Also check out those ^Zs at EOF, will ya.
The whole "move fast and break things" is a big lie, because you know that in that way, the system works, newer changes will break countless systems/scripts/etc
There is a risk of change.
There is a risk of stasis.
See page 9.
Or do you add it to the server and they only run when you login to that server?
> Commands in this file are executed by ssh when the user logs in, just before the user's shell (or command) is started. See the sshd(8) manual page for more information.
I use it for updating a symlink in a known location to point to SSH_AUTH_SOCK. I then get tmux sessions set up to look in that location. Effectively, each time I ssh in, I fix all the ssh forwarding in active sessions (this is on local dev vagrant machines).
For me, I've heard it explained as 'run configuration' many years ago and that is the explanation that stuck because rc is in essence used for config files no matter if they run commands or not. Others have found different expansions, which are probably equally obvious for them. The ones I stumbled upon by a quick search [1,2,3,4]:
The purple prose!
Wouldn't "the RC in .bashrc stands for Run Command" be alright?
You're literally saying you're okay with clickbait removing four words and an exclamation point.
But some systems treat all terminal emulator windows as login shells by default (e.g MacOS), though you can change that behavior.
Wait... is this the reason why you see profiles that load bashrc?
But for "power users," the ability to alter the experience depending on context is there awaiting your specifics.
The real answer is, read the entire man page to understand.
From the page .bashrc runs in every shell, so long as it is an interactive shell. Bash can be interactive according to a complex system of connected variables, including $PS1, $-, and the arguments passed into bash itself. I found all of this described fully in the Invocation section of the man page, section on interactive shells.
However, profile is loaded when the shell is a login shell. Which profile? Also from Invocation, continuing on from an explanation of when .bashrc is loaded:
> After reading that file, it looks for ~/.bash_profile, ~/.bash_login, and ~/.profile, in that order, and reads and executes commands from the first one that exists and is readable.
So, .bash_profile may or may not be loaded, and .profile being loaded or not loaded depends on the existence of those other two files in order.
Your response was lazy but on point. This is the darkest of man page magic, and nobody who hasn't read the manual will know the answer in complete detail. Everyone who has spent any real time in a shell has learned part of this answer.
So if you only have a .profile, it makes sense to source that. If you have one of the bash-specific ones, then it's up to you whether you want to `source` the common .profile one or not.
The only way to do that is to have the file's path explicitly in $ENV, or $BASH_ENV of course...
I wondered what "rc" actually meant. It's interesting because I found the answer today on HN. So random and unexpected .
Anyway, I wonder whether if I referred to it as the "Run Commands File", would the people recognize what I meant.
FreeBSD init(8) still refers to it as "runcom":
Now we seem to be flooded with them. TTY, terminal, core dump, floppy disk save icon.
rc in Unix
> It is used for any file that contains startup information for a command.
In case you didn't want to click the link.
It could be in the future you'd need to click to send some crucial evidence to stop you getting sentenced to death. It could be that this saved click is the difference between the mouse failing or not on that occasion.
Of course the parent clicked send on their comment undoing the OPs good work.
This is all astoundingly improbable, but people buy lottery tickets each week.
Omron switches (most commonly used) are rated from 1M to 20M clicks.
>It could be in the future you'd need to click to send some crucial evidence to stop you getting sentenced to death. It could be that this saved click is the difference between the mouse failing or not on that occasion.
Double click is the most common failure mode. When clicking, the switch hesitates back and forth resulting in two mouse click events generated. This could turn "drag and drop" into "launch program". Will leave the rest for your imagination.
RC files were remote control files for m. I am pretty sure, I can't be the only one who asssumed that.