Re: getting a modern `more`

[Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs@gmail.com>]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 13 January 2012 19:22:15 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> "COMPATIBILITY WITH MORE
>>    If  the  environment  variable LESS_IS_MORE is set to 1, or if the
>>    program is invoked via a file link named "more", less behaves
>>    (mostly) in  conformance  with  the  POSIX "more" command
>>    specification."
> 
> you've indirectly quoted one reason for needing "more" -- POSIX wants it.
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/more.html

I guess my intent wasn't clear.  I wasn't advocating removing "more" 
from distros, I was saying that it's implementation via "less" is much 
more flexible and wasn't really required in util-linux.

I suppose the case can be made that 'more' at about 27K is much smaller 
and more efficient than 'less' at about 327K, but in the era of TB 
drives, I wouldn't think that would make a significant difference.  Both 
programs are generally used by users at the command line - rarely in a 
script.

That said, if you want to spend the effort to update and maintain a 
program that duplicates functionality, than that's up to you.  I just 
think you may want to be careful of NIH thinking.

   -- Bruce