From owner-freebsd-net Wed Jul 19 14: 8:24 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from gluttony.henshaw.net (gluttony.henshaw.net [63.70.222.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AB46337B873 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:08:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ben@henshaw.net) Received: (qmail 43927 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2000 21:08:06 -0000 Received: from dhcp-63-70-222-246.henshaw.net (HELO ben.henshaw.net) (63.70.222.246) by gluttony.henshaw.net with SMTP; 19 Jul 2000 21:08:06 -0000 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000719150237.00c41100@mail.henshaw.net> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:08:06 -0600 To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG From: Ben Schumacher Subject: Re: "ifconfig" == "ifconfig -a" In-Reply-To: References: <20000719140202.H4668@strontium.scientia.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 04:35 PM 7/19/00 +0200, Paul Herman wrote: >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? I personally, cast my (mostly meaningless) vote against "route print" or just "route" showing routing tables. To be honest, even on those other OSes, I always type netstat -r to get routing tables (which works on Win9x/NT, as well). Normally when I type just "route" it is to remind my simple mind of the syntax I need to use on the rare occasions that I need to change routing tables. Just my two cents. - Ben Schumacher To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message