SCO 2.2.1 tar question

[Scott "The Pseudo-Hacker" Neugroschl]

In article <100 at pigs.UUCP> haugj at pigs.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>> In article <8WQW5Ky00Vs8MSNUQN at andrew.cmu.edu> jl42+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jay Mathew Libove) writes:
>> ...
>> | % tar cf - /pathname | compress | tar cfk /dev/rfd096ds9 720 -
>
>this must be an april's fools day joke of some kind.  the person (jay libove)
>who posted the original article has made too many mistakes for this to be
>simple stupidity.
>
>first off, last time i checked there was no 96 tpi 9 sector device.  the
>only 96 tpi device was 15 sectored.
>
> [deleted]
> 
>i suppose the correct response now would be `RTFM'.

FLAME ON!!!!

I don't normally respond to idiocy like this, but this deserves special
treatement.

John, Why dont YOU `RTFM'?  First of all, it should be obvious from the
cfk ... 720 that he is writing to a 3.5 in floppy.  3.5 inch floppies are
	^^^
in fact 96tpi 9 sectors (720K), or 96tpi 18sectors (1.44M).  So get of your
F***ING high horse and follow your own advice!!!!!!!

FLAME OFF!!!

Granted that Jay's tar command line is incorrect.  If it wasn't he wouldn't
be asking for help.  But (possibly) novice programmers and novice *NIX hacks 
can't always `RTFM'.  The *NIX manuals are not exactly known for clarity.  As
a matter of fact, I consider myself a valuable employee where I work BECAUSE
I can decipher the *NIX manuals.  Maybe Jay did read the manual, and that's
how he got that command line through a (probably very understandable)
misinterpretation.  Jay, I'm not sure how to do what you want (no manuals
handy), but the "tar cfk /dev/rfd096ds9 720 -" part should not have the "-"
in it.  Tar is getting confused, as "-" is the argument of the "f", as is
the /dev/rfd096ds9.  Can anybody who doesn't have their head up their rear,
and who does have the manuals help Jay?


-- 
Scott "The Pseudo-Hacker" Neugroschl
UUCP:  ...!ihnp4!csun!csuna!abcscnge
-- "They also surf who stand on waves"
-- Disclaimers?  We don't need no stinking disclaimers!!!