Template talk:Unix commands

message: Isn't ssh used more commonly than rlogin these days? Would probably be worth adding if so. Hairy Dude 12:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ssh redirects to Secure Shell, and that article describes the protocol, not the Unix command. --tyomitch 04:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Should we add a page for information about the unix command?  Like Ssh (Unix)?  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ssh 

message: I'm about to rearrange the template a little: currently it's just too big and clumsy and unwieldy. In particular, I'm going to remove all the red links: they are fine in an article like List of Unix programs, but not in a nav template. --tyomitch 14:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. The template is 3/4 its former height now. --tyomitch 04:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about if it were formatted as in the example below? Then it would be even more compact. — RJH (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The template needs editing (2006) 

message: This template is the bulkiest and offensive template I've seen.  It's design insults the simplistic design philosophy of Unix. Simply linking to List of Unix programs and maintaining Category:Unix software seems more than adequate. --71.254.7.215 06:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lists and categories are not navigational aids. And if you think its so bad, why dont you try to improve it? --larsinio (poke)(prod) 15:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the OP, this thing is bloated?  I think the only way to improve it is to bury it.  Not to mention, this kind of stuff breaks "What links here". --Ashawley (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The template is non-unixy 

message: In which unix command category should wall be included? 
Temporarily I have added it to misc !
IrfanAli 09:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would, I think, be under the same category as write. I moved it. grendel|khan 12:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wall command 

message: Could we establish some criterion for what goes in here? I think tree, timex, and nkf are all pushing it, giving their limited installed base. Twinxor t 15:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Removed. As for criteria, POSIX should probably suffice, with some additions for GNU Coreutils etc. –EdC 23:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unneeded links 

message: Do the moreand less commands really need to be in both the File and file system management: section and the Text processing: section? I think one section is enough. Also, if both more and less belong here, the pg command should be here too. My opinion is that either all three commands should be included in only one section, or only 1 of the commands should be in one section - for consistency's sake. Once we decide the criteria (see above section) - that would answer this issue of which commands, but the multi-section question remains. --Unixguy 13:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commands in 2 sections - more and less 

message: I use the watch command alot and felt that it deserved a small article. Maybe it should be added to the template.
Watch_%28Unix%29 Kidane 23:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice.  Added under process management.  Btw, Wikipedia talk page etiquette is to add new discussions at the bottom of the page. –EdC 04:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for updating the template, and for the heads-up. :) Kidane 19:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Command added 

message: exit_(unix) and mount_(unix) redirect elsewhere. That should not happen and should be repaired...  Seeing that I also thought of an alternative > throwing all articles in one, 'unix commands', this would be especially useful in regard to the shortness of the articles in question and the fashion to merge them with something completely irelevant. 84.167.233.199 22:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messed up 

message: I've converted this into a standard navbox, which should make it more maintainable and makes better use of space. Comments? Chris Cunningham 12:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chris (aka User:Thumperward), it looks much better now. I might even say more Unixy if that's a word. Thanks and nice job. --Unixguy 16:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I split the last four categories into separate sections, otherwise they were all bunched up together. Hopefully everyone thinks this looks better than before. — Loadmaster 17:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it does; that's a huge amount of additional whitespace for comparatively little benefit of clarity. Do you mind if I revert this? We need another way of making the divide clearer without introducing so much dead air. Chris Cunningham 13:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In light of a lack of opposition, I'm reverting to the single line for less busy categories. Chris Cunningham 23:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, it's uglier that way, and it makes it harder to see the command groups. A little extra whitespace doesn't hurt, especially if it increases readability. — Loadmaster 17:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's about a 30% increase in the navbox area. It seems bizarre that we even have a sextion for "printing" with only one link in it when we've got a "miscellaneous" section anyway. If we could recategorise the entries in the smaller sections we could give them a "real" row again without too much dead air. Chris Cunningham 10:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navbox conversion 

message: Why are we linking to crontab which is a redirect to cron?  My edit to reflect this reality was reverted; does this make sense to anyone else? --Aquatiki (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is about Unix commands, not Unix programs. The command used to interact with cron is . Once upon a time (before I merged them), Wikipedia had two separate articles for cron and crontab. And the link should just be to crontab, rather than piped, in case they're split again at some point in the future. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see: because we type crontab, and this navbox is listing "things we type."  Gotcha. --Aquatiki (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cron vs Crontab 

message: Shouldn't the umask command appear somewhere ? I suggest putting it under the filesystem section as done -- 212.74.185.158 (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, umask and cd (just added) manipulate the process state and are implemented on Unix as shell built-in commands for that reason. Tedickey (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  umask 

message: "Locate" isn't standard on Unix.  There are (as noted in the topic) some variants. Tedickey (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is today 126 commands on this page. What about adding the 185 following others : 
addftinfo afmtodit  arch  ascii  ash  base64  bash  bashbug  bunzip2  bzcat  bzcmp  bzdiff  bzegrep  bzfgrep  bzgrep  bzip2  bzip2recover  bzless  bzmore chattr  chcon chflags  conv  crypt  csplit  d2u  date  diff  dig dir  dircolors  dirname  dnsdomainname  dos2unix  dump  dumper  editrights  egrep  emacs  eqn ethtool fgconsole  ftp  getclip  getfacl  gkill  grap2graph  grep  grn  grodvi  groff  groffer  grog  grolbp  grolj4  grops  grotty  groups  gunzip  gzexe  gzip  halt  host hostid  hostname  hpftodit  igawk  indxbib  inetutils  info  infokey  install  install-info  ipck  ipcrm  ipcs  iptable  joe  join  launchctl  lessecho  lesskey  link  lkbib  loadkeys  login lookbib  lpr  lsmod  mail   makeinfo    man2dvi    man2html    manlint    manpath    md5sum  mii-tool  mkfifo    mkgroup    mknod    mkpasswd    mkshortcut    mktemp    mmroff    modutils    mountpoint    msgtool    nano    nc    neqn    net-tools    nl    nohup    nroff    od    oldfind    patch    printf    procps    ptx    putclip    rbash    readlink    readshortcut    realpath    rebase    rebaseall    refer    regtool    run    run-parts    runcon    schred    semstat    semtool    seq    setfacl    setmetamode    sh    sha1sum    sha224sum    sha256sum    sha384sum    sha512sum    shadow    shmtool    shred    shuf    soelim    ssh    ssp    stat    strace    stty    sum    sync    sysklogd    sysvinit    tar    tbl    tcpdump    tempfile    texi2dvi    texi2pdf    texindex    tfmtodit    tracepath    troff    tsort    tty    u2d    umount    uncompress    unexpand    unix2dos    unlink    updatedb    users    util-linux    vacuum    vdir    vdirmktemp    zcat    zcmp    zdiff    zforcecpio    zgrepdate    zlessdd  ? JackPotte (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

text: And reboot, init, halt and shutdown. JackPotte (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

text: A lot of the ones listed above aren't "Unix" commands, but are programs that happen to be available on Unix systems Tedickey (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that we should do a clear sorting : the commands to add here and those for Portal:Free software. JackPotte (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There it is:
Category                              	Commands 	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands	Commands
Unix                                  	ascii    	host    	ifconfig	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	
GNU Project                           	arch     	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	
Roff                                  	addftinfo	afmtodit	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	
BIND domain name server software suite	dig      	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	
Others                                	ash      	base64  	bash    	bashbug 	sh      	ascii   	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	        	
JackPotte (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I've understood that we've carefully respected the XCU commands from 1997 in this template, but we can also qualify of Unix commands those from the newer Unix shells: ash, bash, csh, ksh, sh, tcsh, rc, zsh ? Should we create a commands template for each inside the Unix one ?  JackPotte (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The collection 

message: ascii isn't standard, isn't provided for instance on Solaris (unless one brings the source in, and compiles it there) Tedickey (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not included in most Linux distros either (I tried Arch Linux, Ubuntu, Gentoo), so it doesn't look like a popular thing among Unix-likes either. I'm removing. -- intgr [talk] 15:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I've moved it to the other line, and removed my source from the template page. JackPotte (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the fact that About.com calls it a "Linux / Unix Command", the "ascii" entry is just a man page about the ASCII standard, it does not refer to any actual command. Don't use About.com as a source for this template. -- intgr [talk] 15:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ascii

message: That's not found on "all distributions of Unix", but only on some.  For instance a quick check on Solaris, AIX, IRIX, Tru64 and HPUX doesn't find it (man locate, apropos locate).  As I recall it, outside of GNU utilities, it's not that well-known (although I recall that it did start off as an imitation of a program from Sun). Tedickey (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locate (Unix) 

message: This section is weak since there's lack of standardization per topic as shown in List of Unix utilities Tedickey (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Networking 

message: Can you please add route to that list? 189.60.188.102 (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't appear to meet the topic's criteria TEDickey (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  route 

message: Per topic description, and Spell (Unix), this does not "come with most distributions", etc.  It's been optional (not installed by default) in most places for more than ten years. TEDickey (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not accurate... Spell has always been part of *Unix* (not Linux), and is available on every Unix system I ever used, including Solaris (the last remaining Unix account I have :( ), and on Fedora Linux, while the original Johnson & McIlroy code is no longer there, the "spell" command *is* available, and pipes aspell and sort -u to exactly replicate the original "spell" behavior. So basically, spell is available like it always was - it's just not as useful as it used to be. Arguably, this is just as true for many of the other Unix utilities which aren't as useful as they used to be 40 years ago - e.g., when was the last time you used od? finger? rlogin? ed??? On the other hand, I see that you have on the list things which are definitely NOT part of standard Unix, and even things where aren't even commands (e.g., "bg"), so I think this list definitely needs an overhaul...
Nyh (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Offhand I was recalling the *BSD's (perhaps you don't consider them Unix), which do not provide spell except as an add-on.  However, I can check the various vendor Unix's and give a summary here.  Still, "legacy" has its own meaning, which you did not respond to. TEDickey (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spell 

message: in an inlined annotation to top (Unix) there is a comment stating that commands are those whats built into the shell (or command interpreter) whilst lots of other character sequences do refer to programs meaning console applications external to the shell. BTW some shells like busybox for the embedded sector do integrate lots of external program functionality in a multi function callable binary for the sake of saving memory footprint and maybe startup times. The overall approach of selecting a standard for the template sounds good. But please(!) tell which standard the list is based upon. Else you will only confuse the readers. Further a hint for the off-standard or 2nd standard commands/programs will help the reader much in understanding the "system". --Alexander.stohr (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  commands vs. programs & standards 

message: I added a software development group/section to the navbox. I realize there are a huge number of such tools in general but I believe those that are listed as part of the Unix/POSIX standard should be listed here (so long as they are notable enough to have their own articles of course). Since this is a somewhat significant change I thought I would post here as a place for comments on the matter. Thanks. 50.53.1.33 (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ctags is debatable (most people would expect the compiler cc to be listed, but of course the compiler name is debatable as well). TEDickey (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: debatable how? ctags is in the specification and apparently notable enough to have an article here (perhaps that is the part you consider debatable?). "cc" is not in the current specification (it was in issue 5 XCU: cc and c89), however, c99 and fort77 are. They could perhaps be added as well, however, I did not find articles that directly corresponded to such things (one could argue for links like: c99 and fort77). 50.53.1.33 (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

text: ctags is debatable for the usual reasons: it is not as necessary to development as the other tools in your list, while the compiler is debatable since few people use the names that the committee settled on (cc is more commonly used -- as an alias) TEDickey (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe how necessary to development something is, is not really a topic for here (unless you are arguing that ctags should be in a different group in this navbox) but more of a topic for the standards committee developing SUS/POSIX. 50.53.1.33 (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Software development]] 

message: Does lint(1) belong here? I'm asking before being bold since someone mentions some "guidelines for this template" (though I'm not sure what they are and where to find them).Moreover, the template's edit history shows a lot of rejections for items that seem to be standard utilities (in Linux, at least). Can you please clarify the criteria for inclusion and what they are based on? Is it SUS (or some other standard), or some local consensus, or something else? The template appears to miss a lot of the existing articles. — Mike Novikoff 21:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The guidelines are found in the references for this topic (things that are in the POSIX standards, and are often enough used to be useful in a template).  lint's not in the standard. TEDickey (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: So the POSIX is the limit? OK, I'll not insist, just wanted to know what's the consensus. — Mike Novikoff 22:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Well, read back through the talk page - some editors would like to add something, but have not proposed a better solution based on reliable sources which demonstrate that the feature is considered standard (but there's been no mass discussion and negotiation). TEDickey (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Strictly speaking templates aren't subject to the WP:Policies and guidelines. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  lint 

message: - «revert - changes don't match the topic's guidelines»
 - «revert - not an improvement»
 - «revert - not part of the topic»
 - «revert - off-topic»
 - «revert - not topical»
 - «revert - not relevant to topic as presented»
 - «trim - not topical»
 - «revert - not related to this topic»
 - «revert - offtopic»
:  Volume of problems. The template title is confusing. It's evident that it's not the first time you revert useful contributions. This may eventually amount to WP:OWNing. Given that this template is specific to Single Unix Specification 2008 (SUS2008) I propose to rename this template to «Unix SUS2008 utilities» in order to avoid confusion OR I propose convert this template to general Unix utilities list and drop requirement limiting the list to SUS2008 utilities otherwise. Any objections?
AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure - I generally revert things where other editors choose to make up their own facts.  So we're here on that basis. TEDickey (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  But what about suggestion? It's obvious that people are coming to edit this template because they are confused and think it's general template for unix utils. It's time to change this. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

text: If you chose to develop a relevant topic, there's a template for that, which you may have noticed at the top of several topics.  Developing the topic would be work (since as you may have noticed, none of the above provide a reliable source, rather referring to personal experience TEDickey (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:RS is not required here. I simply propose to rename this template and stop pretending like it's generalized template for all unix commands. As we have seen it's been confusing editors over the last few years. It's serious issue given that you are preventing them from contributions. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

text: You might consider reworking your comments so that they're not a personal attack.  Also, it would be helpful if you considered how to provide reliable sources to support your suggestion.  TEDickey (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  To rename template I don't need WP:RS. You can go to WP:ANI/I if you think this is a personal attack. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

text: I see that you did anyway, but find nothing you said there that is useful.  Your personal attacks on this page violate assume good faith policy, by accusing me twice of preventing others from contributing to Wikipedia, while ignoring my suggestion to develop a related topic to your own liking. TEDickey (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

text: Sure: renaming to "Standard Unix commands" for example would address about half of the previous complaints, but do take the time to read them -- for the other half, they wouldn't be satisfied with that.  My suggestion to use a redirect template for the non-standard but "conventional" programs has not been addressed in the above comments TEDickey (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think moving it to "Standard Unix commands" would be a good solution, even if it doesn't solve every complaint (nothing ever does), it would be an improvement and make it more clear what the purpose of the template was. User:Alexander_Davronov do you have an issue with such a move? - Aoidh (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for 3O but it's too broad and won't fix the issue. Editors will continue to edit meanwhile  would routinely insist criteria of SUS2008 tools isn't met. There were only 4 (four) versions of Single UNIX Specification over the last two decades so renaming the template into the latest (2008) major version isn't a big deal. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

text: The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure)  Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 09:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Template:Unix commands →  – Given the numerous past discussion and disputes, and a specific criteria set up for the template requiring it to comply with the list of Shell & Utilities of the Single Unix Specification it's reasonable to rename this template to a proposed name and have a conforming title in the template itself. Any objections? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename the template 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure)  Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 09:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Unix commands →  – Given the numerous past discussion and disputes, and a specific criteria set up for the template requiring it to comply with the list of Shell & Utilities of the Single Unix Specification it's reasonable to rename this template to a proposed name and have a conforming title in the template itself. Any objections? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 20 November 2022