Re: [OCLUG-Tech] is "xargs" really still useful just for limiting command line size?

Subject: Re: [OCLUG-Tech] is "xargs" really still useful just for limiting command line size?
From: Dianne Skoll <dfs [ at ] roaringpenguin [ dot ] com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 11:28:04 -0400

On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 11:04:30 -0400 (EDT)
"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday [ at ] crashcourse [ dot ] ca> wrote:

> i'm fairly sure i can conclude that a command can be at least 3882671
> characters long, can i not?

It depends on the shell, I'd think.

Regards,

Dianne.

references

[OCLUG-Tech] is "xargs" really still useful just for limiting command line size?, Robert P. J. Day
Re: [OCLUG-Tech] is "xargs" really still useful just for limiting command line size?, James
Re: [OCLUG-Tech] is "xargs" really still useful just for limiting command line size?, Robert P. J. Day

message navigation

previous by date: Re: [OCLUG-Tech] is "xargs" really still useful just for limiting command line size?
next by date: Re: [OCLUG-Tech] is "xargs" really still useful just for limiting command line size?
previous by thread: Re: [OCLUG-Tech] is "xargs" really still useful just for limiting command line size?
next by thread: Re: [OCLUG-Tech] is "xargs" really still useful just for limiting command line size?