From owner-freebsd-net Wed Jul 19 7:35:45 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mail2.netcologne.de (mail2.netcologne.de [194.8.194.103]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0D9137BEE5; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 07:35:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pherman@frenchfries.net) Received: from bagabeedaboo.security.at12.de (dial-195-14-226-174.netcologne.de [195.14.226.174]) by mail2.netcologne.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA05352; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:35:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost (localhost.security.at12.de [127.0.0.1]) by bagabeedaboo.security.at12.de (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6JEZI600355; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:35:18 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:35:18 +0200 (CEST) From: Paul Herman To: Ben Smithurst Cc: Matthew Hunt , freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: "ifconfig" == "ifconfig -a" In-Reply-To: <20000719140202.H4668@strontium.scientia.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Ben Smithurst wrote: > > One uses flags, or sees documentation. :-) > > Actually, I don't think I'll mention the -r flag at all. The route(8) > manpage isn't the right place to document netstat(1)'s flags, IMO. I > think I'll just say "... please use the netstat(1) command". On second > thoughts, I think "For that functionality, the netstat(1) command should > be used" would be better. Hmmm... what led to this idea was: people who use "route print" to print the routing table in "other" OSes need to be informed how to print the routing table under FreeBSD. If that's really true, some how I have a feeling they would already know about "netstat -r" (which AFAIK is pretty much ubiquitous among Unicies.) Is it just me, who thinks this? -Paul. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message