Re: return code wierdness

In <CvtCBw.21v@hcia.com> brena@news.hcia.com (Brian D. Renaud) writes: >: Problem 0: >: rsh is restricted shell, you probably mean remsh. >Not on his hardware/operating system. "rsh" has traditionally been the >BSD command for remote shell. From the solaris man page: >rsh(1) User Commands rsh(1) > My NCR SVR4 Unix man pages are found under "rsh", but the "actual" command is "remsh". The first time I encountered this I said, "What the f-----" rsh was the restricted shell. Finally I just laughed. Sometimes I think Un*x has reached the limit on two and three letter system executables. Hmmm, that's 26X26X26... no, we could use digits..., plus a few symbols... 40x40x40... Gee, maybe we should start using .exe and .com extensions... I had a batch file the other day on a PC that tried to run a protected mode SQL engine give me the weirdest error, something about 8086 incompatibility (it was a 486). The errorlevel acted as if it had executed perfectly normally... Maybe we need more return codes too ;-) More :-)'s... ___________________________________________________________________________ Rytis Grybauskas <rytis@osh1.OSHA.GOV> U.S. Dept. Of Labor/OSHA/OMDS/FSSB 200 Constitution Ave. N3661 just contractor scum unworthy of my Washington DC 20210 202-219-6251 federal employer, so what I say is meaningless... -- rytis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------