From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mail-tul01m020-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:41926 "EHLO mail-tul01m020-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753327Ab2ANAWS (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:22:18 -0500 Received: by obcva7 with SMTP id va7so2886670obc.19 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:22:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F10CAB7.6060808@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:22:15 -0600 From: Bruce Dubbs MIME-Version: 1.0 To: util-linux@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: getting a modern `more` References: <201201130128.49700.vapier@gentoo.org> <4F10BA5A.6020001@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Sami Kerola wrote: > On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 00:12, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> Does anyone still use 'more'? The only thing needed is a symlink to 'less': >> http://www.greenwoodsoftware.com/less/ > > I do. > >> Are there any distros that don't provide 'less' by default? >> >> What value added does 'more' provide? > > It does not clear screen when 'q' is pressed, which is the main reason > I sometime choose to use more. "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." >> I'd think development time would be >> better used elsewhere. To me, 'more' was developed in the era of paper >> terminals (e.g. Teletype) and it is time to retire it. > > I appreciate highly when someone volunteers to maintain & develop > something superficially old and obsolete. Earlier one might have said > that why bother to make vi better now when emacs is so great, which > lead eventually to vim. Who knows how much better more might be in > future in comparison to less if people who like it have change of > making it such. You have a point here, but I would certainly suggest that the volunteer start with the most robust current software. Of course there is nothing wrong with reviewing the older code for missing features. -- Bruce