mailx anyone?

[Mayuresh Kathe]

does anyone on this list still use mailx?
if not regularly, at-least intermittently?
_______________________________________________
freebsd-...@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org"

[Matthew Seaman]

On 13/06/2018 16:48, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> does anyone on this list still use mailx?
> if not regularly, at-least intermittently?

Given that mail(1) is part of the FreeBSD base system and is pretty much
the same thing as mailx(1), then probably not that many will use
mailx(1). mail(1) is something I do use intermittently.

Cheers,

Matthew

[Mayuresh Kathe]

On 2018-06-13 09:37 PM, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On 13/06/2018 16:48, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
>> does anyone on this list still use mailx?
>> if not regularly, at-least intermittently?
>
> Given that mail(1) is part of the FreeBSD base system and is pretty
> much the same thing as mailx(1), then probably not that many will use
> mailx(1). mail(1) is something I do use intermittently.

mailx is just a link to mail. :-)

[Polytropon]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 23:13:13 +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> On 2018-06-13 09:37 PM, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> > On 13/06/2018 16:48, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> >> does anyone on this list still use mailx?
> >> if not regularly, at-least intermittently?
> >
> > Given that mail(1) is part of the FreeBSD base system and is pretty
> > much the same thing as mailx(1), then probably not that many will use
> > mailx(1). mail(1) is something I do use intermittently.
>
> mailx is just a link to mail. :-)

It is actually the same file; check with "ls -li". :-)


--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...

[RW via freebsd-questions]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 23:13:13 +0530

Mayuresh Kathe wrote:

> On 2018-06-13 09:37 PM, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> > On 13/06/2018 16:48, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> >> does anyone on this list still use mailx?
> >> if not regularly, at-least intermittently?
> >
> > Given that mail(1) is part of the FreeBSD base system and is pretty
> > much the same thing as mailx(1), then probably not that many will
> > use mailx(1). mail(1) is something I do use intermittently.
>
> mailx is just a link to mail. :-)

I've no idea about mail and mailx, but in general being implemented in
the same executable doesn't imply the same behaviour.

For example less and more are hard-linked, but the shared binary behaves
differently according to how it's invoked.

[Lowell Gilbert]

Polytropon <fre...@edvax.de> writes:

> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 23:13:13 +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
>> On 2018-06-13 09:37 PM, Matthew Seaman wrote:
>> > On 13/06/2018 16:48, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
>> >> does anyone on this list still use mailx?
>> >> if not regularly, at-least intermittently?
>> >
>> > Given that mail(1) is part of the FreeBSD base system and is pretty
>> > much the same thing as mailx(1), then probably not that many will use
>> > mailx(1). mail(1) is something I do use intermittently.
>>
>> mailx is just a link to mail. :-)
>
> It is actually the same file; check with "ls -li". :-)

Which doesn't mean it has the same behaviour if called by different names.
[See: 'w' vs. 'uptime']

In this case, though, I thought they were supposed to behave the same
way in either case, and I can't find any reason to think otherwise.

[Ralf Mardorf via freebsd-questions]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 23:46:02 -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
>Polytropon <fre...@edvax.de> writes:
>> It is actually the same file; check with "ls -li". :-)
>
>Which doesn't mean it has the same behaviour if called by different
>names.

#!/bin/dash
case $(basename $0) in
foo) printf "foo\n";;
bar) printf "bar\n";;
esac
exit

[Steve O'Hara-Smith]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 04:43:19 +0100
RW via freebsd-questions <freebsd-...@freebsd.org> wrote:

> For example less and more are hard-linked, but the shared binary behaves
> differently according to how it's invoked.

For a better example look in /rescue, everything in there is the
same file.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith <st...@sohara.org>

[Polytropon]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 23:46:02 -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote:

> Polytropon <fre...@edvax.de> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 23:13:13 +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> >> On 2018-06-13 09:37 PM, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> >> > On 13/06/2018 16:48, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> >> >> does anyone on this list still use mailx?
> >> >> if not regularly, at-least intermittently?
> >> >
> >> > Given that mail(1) is part of the FreeBSD base system and is pretty
> >> > much the same thing as mailx(1), then probably not that many will use
> >> > mailx(1). mail(1) is something I do use intermittently.
> >>
> >> mailx is just a link to mail. :-)
> >
> > It is actually the same file; check with "ls -li". :-)
>
> Which doesn't mean it has the same behaviour if called by different names.
> [See: 'w' vs. 'uptime']

Fully correct. On historical FreeBSD, there was a directory
full of programs (almost) all the same size, (almost) all with
different names, (almost) all pointing to the same inode entry;
that was /rescue/*. Depending on argv[0], the same (!) program
would act totally differently.

It is not uncommon on UNIX system to "select" program functionality
by program _invocation_, either via hardlink or via symlink. In
some cases, it's just different names for the same program with
the same behaviour, for providing backward compatibility, mostly
for scripts.

> In this case, though, I thought they were supposed to behave the same
> way in either case, and I can't find any reason to think otherwise.

According to "man mail", there is no difference in behaviour
listed.

--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...