freebsd at edvax.de
Thu Jun 14 16:33:56 UTC 2018
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 23:46:02 -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> Polytropon <freebsd at 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, 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
> 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
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
More information about the freebsd-questions