Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 19:51:45 -0400 (EDT) From: bv@wjv.com To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "ifconfig" == "ifconfig -a" Message-ID: <200007192351.TAA96891@mail.wanlogistics.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007191626510.236-100000@bagabeedaboo.security.at12.de> from Paul Herman at "Jul 19, 2000 04:35:18 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Reply to: bv@wjv.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL61 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > 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? I think retaining the classic Unix behaviour with no arguments giving useage options is the way it should be. That keeps the consitancy. Changing the standard design to match other OSes implementation is a step in the wrong direction. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200007192351.TAA96891>