From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Apr  9 02:37:59 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA08714
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 02:37:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA08709
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 02:37:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id CAA00406; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 02:37:56 -0700 (PDT)
To: Josh Gilliam <soil@quick.net>
cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: new ping option 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 08 Apr 1997 21:16:53 PDT."
             <Pine.BSF.3.96.970408210837.303B-100000@jg.dyn.ml.org> 
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 02:37:56 -0700
Message-ID: <403.860578676@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> I'd like to see a new ping option which does the opposite of -a; includes
> a bell character when the packet is lost. -A seems to be the proper name 
> for such an option.

This whole direction for ping is a complete and total crock. :-(

If you want to make this general, have ping(1) return a status on a
single failure or a single success, then choosing to beep, fart,
whistle, flash or provide whatever form of notification most pleases
you.  There is NO reason I can see for building this behavior into
ping, and whomever added the beep (well, OK, it was Bruce Murphy - CVS
doesn't allow you to play coy very convincingly about this kind of
thing :-) should probably be shot at dawn, but I suppose we could also
spare him and simply back out that most un-UNIX-like change to
ping. :-)

					Jordan