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]:37874 "EHLO mail-tul01m020-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752493Ab2ANDRo (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:17:44 -0500 Received: by obcva7 with SMTP id va7so2964102obc.19 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:17:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F10F3D5.9080706@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 21:17:41 -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> <4F10CAB7.6060808@gmail.com> <201201132008.20863.vapier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <201201132008.20863.vapier@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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