From jewel@pixie.co.za Tue Feb 12 09:27:05 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jleuner@elandtech.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 12 Feb 2002 17:27:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 91239 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2002 17:27:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Feb 2002 17:27:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lenny.elandtech.com) (212.17.37.130) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 2002 17:26:57 -0000 Received: from [192.168.100.211] (helo=bapli ident=mail) by lenny.elandtech.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16agco-0005ua-00; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:21:50 +0000 Received: from jleuner by bapli with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16agfH-0006h0-00; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:24:23 +0000 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:24:23 +0000 To: pycyn@aol.com Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] tar(1) tao Message-ID: <20020212172423.M1747@bapli> References: <61.16fc4fbb.293019ec@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <61.16fc4fbb.293019ec@aol.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i Sender: John Leuner From: John Leuner X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=41106253 X-Yahoo-Profile: jewel2011 On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 04:30:20PM -0500, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 11/23/2001 1:26:00 PM Central Standard Time, > b.gohla@gmx.de writes: > > > > The tao that can be tar(1)ed is not the entire Tao. > > The path that can be specified is not the Full Path. > > > > What the fatal fandango is "tar(1)" and how is it related to Tao (in the > original)? Nuzzling into Linux suggests it is a function deep in all the > eunuchs but I am not sure that any of that applies here (nor what the "(1)" > means). Archiving a path doesn't seem to be the same as walking it -- or > describing it, depending. So, that joke failing, what is going on? to 'tar' something is to bundle it in a 'tape-archive'. the specifying of a path probably doesn't have to do with the archiving above. John Leuner