From ragnarok@pobox.com Tue Feb 12 15:53:20 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 12 Feb 2002 23:53:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 36374 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2002 23:53:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Feb 2002 23:53:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 2002 23:53:20 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id AAF2363010C; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 18:53:22 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] tar(1) tao Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 18:53:20 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> 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. >To be more specific, "tar" is the Unix command for making tape >archives; it collects a set of files and combines them into one file >that can be later resplit. The (1) is the section of the online >manual pages, indicating that you can get the manual page for the >command by typing "man 1 tar" (although in this case, "man tar" >would work just as well because it's not ambiguous--sometimes a >user command might have the same name as a library function or >system call, though, so the number is there to disambiguate). A. This is not lojbanic. B. This thread died a while ago.