From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from executioner.lis.net.au([203.35.83.3]) (1923 bytes) by braille.uwo.ca via smail with P:esmtp/D:aliases/T:pipe (sender: ) id for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:12:52 -0400 (EDT) (Smail-3.2.0.102 1998-Aug-2 #2 built 1999-Sep-5) Received: from uucp by executioner.lis.net.au with local-rmail (Exim 2.05 #1) id 13TvUr-0003Ro-00 (Debian); Wed, 30 Aug 2000 10:12:53 +1000 Received: from kerry by gotss.eu.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1) id 13TvRC-0001Ee-00 (Debian); Wed, 30 Aug 2000 11:09:06 +1100 Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 11:09:06 +1100 From: Kerry Hoath To: speakup@braille.uwo.ca Subject: Re: Stupid kernel question Message-ID: <20000830110906.A4728@gotss.eu.org> References: <3.0.5.32.20000829144121.007a53b0@ycardz.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from kirk@braille.uwo.ca on Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 04:13:25PM -0400 List-Id: They probably use cat because you can use that to put the kernel ona file; a block device etc. Also catting a file >another file preserves the permitions of the original whereas cp doesn't usually. It also means that if you cat >another file and the file exists; your umask won't come into play. Those are my ideas on the issue but nothing wrong with cp. On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 04:13:25PM -0400, Kirk Reiser wrote: > No reason I can think of. I use cp all the time and would recommend > it. Maybe they don't know there's a copy command under linux!? 'grin' > > Kirk > > -- > > Kirk Reiser The Computer Braille Facility > e-mail: kirk@braille.uwo.ca University of Western Ontario > phone: (519) 661-3061 > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > -- -- Kerry Hoath: kerry@gotss.eu.org Alternates: kerry@emusys.com.au kerry@gotss.spice.net.au or khoath@lis.net.au ICQ UIN: 8226547