CDROM of CDROMs 1994 May/The CD-ROM of CD-ROMs - The Consumer's Guide to CD-ROMs - Walnut Creek May 1994.iso/samples/unix/part3

Internet Message Format | 1994-04-12 | 30.1 KB

From: [e-mail] (Ted M A Timar)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.shell,news.answers,comp.answers
Subject: Unix - Frequently Asked Questions (3/7) [Frequent posting]

Archive-name: unix-faq/faq/part3
Version: $Id: part3,v 2.2 1993/03/18 23:06:21 tmatimar Exp $

These seven articles contain the answers to some Frequently Asked
Questions often seen in comp.unix.questions and comp.unix.shell.
Please don't ask these questions again, they've been answered plenty
of times already - and please don't flame someone just because they may
not have read this particular posting.  Thank you.

Many FAQs, including this one, are available on the archive site
rtfm.mit.edu (18.172.1.27) in the directory pub/usenet/news.answers.
The name under which a FAQ is archived appears in the "Archive-Name:"
line at the top of the article.  This FAQ is archived as
"unix-faq/faq/part[1-7]".

These articles are divided approximately as follows:

      1.*) General questions.
      2.*) Relatively basic questions, likely to be asked by beginners.
      3.*) Intermediate questions.
      4.*) Advanced questions, likely to be asked by people who thought
       they already knew all of the answers.
      5.*) Questions pertaining to the various shells, and the differences.
      6.*) An overview of Unix variants.
      7.*) An comparison of configuration management systems (RCS, SCCS).

This article includes answers to:

      3.1)  How do I find the creation time of a file?
      3.2)  How do I use "rsh" without having the rsh hang around
              until the remote command has completed?
      3.3)  How do I truncate a file?
      3.4)  Why doesn't find's "{}" symbol do what I want?
      3.5)  How do I set the permissions on a symbolic link?
      3.6)  How do I "undelete" a file?
      3.7)  How can a process detect if it's running in the background?
      3.8)  Why doesn't redirecting a loop work as intended?  (Bourne shell)
      3.9)  How do I run 'passwd', 'ftp', 'telnet', 'tip' and other interactive
              programs from a shell script or in the background?
      3.10) How do I find the process ID of a program with a particular
            name from inside a shell script or C program?
      3.11) How do I check the exit status of a remote command
            executed via "rsh" ?
      3.12) Is it possible to pass shell variable settings into an awk program?
      3.13) How do I get rid of zombie processes that persevere?
      3.14) How do I get lines from a pipe as they are written instead of
            only in larger blocks.

If you're looking for the answer to, say, question 3.5, and want to skip
everything else, you can search ahead for the regular expression "^3.5)".

While these are all legitimate questions, they seem to crop up in
comp.unix.questions or comp.unix.shell on an annual basis, usually
followed by plenty of replies (only some of which are correct) and then
a period of griping about how the same questions keep coming up.  You
may also like to read the monthly article "Answers to Frequently Asked
Questions" in the newsgroup "news.announce.newusers", which will tell
you what "UNIX" stands for.

With the variety of Unix systems in the world, it's hard to guarantee
that these answers will work everywhere.  Read your local manual pages
before trying anything suggested here.  If you have suggestions or
corrections for any of these answers, please send them to to
[e-mail].

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: How do I find the creation time of a file?
Date: Thu Mar 18 17:16:55 EST 1993

3.1)  How do I find the creation time of a file?

      You can't - it isn't stored anywhere.  Files have a last-modified
      time (shown by "ls -l"), a last-accessed time (shown by "ls -lu")
      and an inode change time (shown by "ls -lc"). The latter is often
      referred to as the "creation time" - even in some man pages -
      but that's wrong; it's also set by such operations as mv, ln,
      chmod, chown and chgrp.

      The man page for "stat(2)" discusses this.

------------------------------

Subject: How do I use "rsh" without having the rsh hang around ... ?
Date: Thu Mar 18 17:16:55 EST 1993

3.2)  How do I use "rsh" without having the rsh hang around until the
      remote command has completed?

      (See note in question 2.7 about what "rsh" we're talking about.)

      The obvious answers fail:
              rsh machine command &
      or      rsh machine 'command &'

      For instance, try doing   rsh machine 'sleep 60 &' and you'll see
      that the 'rsh' won't exit right away.  It will wait 60 seconds
      until the remote 'sleep' command finishes, even though that
      command was started in the background on the remote machine.  So
      how do you get the 'rsh' to exit immediately after the 'sleep' is
      started?

      The solution - if you use csh on the remote machine:

        rsh machine -n 'command >&/dev/null </dev/null &'

      If you use sh on the remote machine:

        rsh machine -n 'command >/dev/null 2>&1 </dev/null &'

      Why?  "-n" attaches rsh's stdin to /dev/null so you could run the
      complete rsh command in the background on the LOCAL machine.
      Thus "-n" is equivalent to another specific "< /dev/null".
      Furthermore, the input/output redirections on the REMOTE machine
      (inside the single quotes) ensure that rsh thinks the session can
      be terminated (there's no data flow any more.)

      Note: The file that you redirect to/from on the remote machine
      doesn't have to be /dev/null; any ordinary file will do.

      In many cases, various parts of these complicated commands
      aren't necessary.

------------------------------

Subject: How do I truncate a file?
Date: Thu Mar 18 17:16:55 EST 1993

3.3)  How do I truncate a file?

      The BSD function ftruncate() sets the length of a file.  Xenix -
      and therefore SysV r3.2 and later - has the chsize() system
      call.  For other systems, the only kind of truncation you can do
      is truncation to length zero with creat() or open(..., O_TRUNC).

------------------------------

Subject: Why doesn't find's "{}" symbol do what I want?
Date: Thu Mar 18 17:16:55 EST 1993

3.4)  Why doesn't find's "{}" symbol do what I want?

      "find" has a -exec option that will execute a particular command
      on all the selected files. Find will replace any "{}" it sees
      with the name of the file currently under consideration.

      So, some day you might try to use "find" to run a command on
      every file, one directory at a time.  You might try this:

    find /path -type d -exec command {}/\* \;

      hoping that find will execute, in turn

    command directory1/*
    command directory2/*
    ...

      Unfortunately, find only expands the "{}" token when it appears
      by itself.  Find will leave anything else like "{}/*" alone, so
      instead of doing what you want, it will do

    command {}/*
    command {}/*
    ...

      once for each directory.  This might be a bug, it might be a
      feature, but we're stuck with the current behaviour.

      So how do you get around this?  One way would be to write a
      trivial little shell script, let's say "./doit", that consists of

    command "$1"/*

      You could then use

    find /path -type d -exec ./doit {} \;

      Or if you want to avoid the "./doit" shell script, you can use

    find /path -type d -exec sh -c 'command $0/*' {} \;

      (This works because within the 'command' of "sh -c 'command' A B C ...",
       $0 expands to A, $1 to B, and so on.)

      or you can use the construct-a-command-with-sed trick

    find /path -type d -print | sed 's:.*:command &/*:' | sh

      If all you're trying to do is cut down on the number of times
      that "command" is executed, you should see if your system has the
      "xargs" command.  Xargs reads arguments one line at a time from
      the standard input and assembles as many of them as will fit into
      one command line.  You could use

    find /path -print | xargs command

      which would result in one or more executions of

    command file1 file2 file3 file4 dir1/file1 dir1/file2

      Unfortunately this is not a perfectly robust or secure solution.
      Xargs expects its input lines to be terminated with newlines, so
      it will be confused by files with odd characters such as newlines
      in their names.

------------------------------

Subject: How do I set the permissions on a symbolic link?
Date: Thu Mar 18 17:16:55 EST 1993

3.5)  How do I set the permissions on a symbolic link?

      Permissions on a symbolic link don't really mean anything.  The
      only permissions that count are the permissions on the file that
      the link points to.

------------------------------

Subject: How do I "undelete" a file?
Date: Thu Mar 18 17:16:55 EST 1993

3.6)  How do I "undelete" a file?

      Someday, you are going to accidentally type something like
      "rm * .foo", and find you just deleted "*" instead of "*.foo".
      Consider it a rite of passage.

      Of course, any decent systems administrator should be doing
      regular backups.  Check with your sysadmin to see if a recent
      backup copy of your file is available.  But if it isn't, read
      on.

      For all intents and purposes, when you delete a file with "rm" it
      is gone.  Once you "rm" a file, the system totally forgets which
      blocks scattered around the disk comprised your file.  Even
      worse, the blocks from the file you just deleted are going to be
      the first ones taken and scribbled upon when the system needs
      more disk space.  However, never say never.  It is theoretically
      possible *if* you shut down the system immediately after the "rm"
      to recover portions of the data.  However, you had better have a
      very wizardly type person at hand with hours or days to spare to
      get it all back.

      Your first reaction when you "rm" a file by mistake is why not
      make a shell alias or procedure which changes "rm" to move files
      into a trash bin rather than delete them?  That way you can
      recover them if you make a mistake, and periodically clean out
      your trash bin.  Two points:  first, this is generally accepted
      as a *bad* idea.  You will become dependent upon this behaviour
      of "rm", and you will find yourself someday on a normal system
      where "rm" is really "rm", and you will get yourself in trouble.
      Second, you will eventually find that the hassle of dealing with
      the disk space and time involved in maintaining the trash bin, it
      might be easier just to be a bit more careful with "rm".  For
      starters, you should look up the "-i" option to "rm" in your
      manual.

      If you are still undaunted, then here is a possible simple
      answer.  You can create yourself a "can" command which moves
      files into a trashcan directory. In csh(1) you can place the
      following commands in the ".login" file in your home directory:

    alias can    'mv \!* ~/.trashcan'       # junk file(s) to trashcan
    alias mtcan    'rm -f ~/.trashcan/*'       # irretrievably empty trash
    if ( ! -d ~/.trashcan ) mkdir ~/.trashcan  # ensure trashcan exists

      You might also want to put a:

    rm -f ~/.trashcan/*

      in the ".logout" file in your home directory to automatically
      empty the trash when you log out.  (sh and ksh versions are left
      as an exercise for the reader.)

      MIT's Project Athena has produced a comprehensive
      delete/undelete/expunge/purge package, which can serve as a
      complete replacement for rm which allows file recovery.  This
      package was posted to comp.sources.misc (volume 17, issue
      023-026)

------------------------------

Subject: How can a process detect if it's running in the background?
Date: Thu Mar 18 17:16:55 EST 1993

3.7)  How can a process detect if it's running in the background?

      First of all: do you want to know if you're running in the
      background, or if you're running interactively? If you're
      deciding whether or not you should print prompts and the like,
      that's probably a better criterion. Check if standard input
      is a terminal:

        sh: if [ -t 0 ]; then ... fi
        C: if(isatty(0)) { ... }

      In general, you can't tell if you're running in the background.
      The fundamental problem is that different shells and different
      versions of UNIX have different notions of what "foreground" and
      "background" mean - and on the most common type of system with a
      better-defined notion of what they mean, programs can be moved
      arbitrarily between foreground and background!

      UNIX systems without job control typically put a process into the
      background by ignoring SIGINT and SIGQUIT and redirecting the
      standard input to "/dev/null"; this is done by the shell.

      Shells that support job control, on UNIX systems that support job
      control, put a process into the background by giving it a process
      group ID different from the process group to which the terminal
      belongs.  They move it back into the foreground by setting the
      terminal's process group ID to that of the process.  Shells that
      do *not* support job control, on UNIX systems that support job
      control, typically do what shells do on systems that don't
      support job control.

------------------------------

Subject: Why doesn't redirecting a loop work as intended?  (Bourne shell)
Date: Thu Mar 18 17:16:55 EST 1993

3.8)  Why doesn't redirecting a loop work as intended?  (Bourne shell)

      Take the following example:

    foo=bar

    while read line
    do
        # do something with $line
        foo=bletch
    done < /etc/passwd

    echo "foo is now: $foo"

      Despite the assignment ``foo=bletch'' this will print
      ``foo is now: bar'' in many implementations of the Bourne shell.
      Why?  Because of the following, often undocumented, feature of
      historic Bourne shells: redirecting a control structure (such as
      a loop, or an ``if'' statement) causes a subshell to be created,
      in which the structure is executed; variables set in that
      subshell (like the ``foo=bletch'' assignment) don't affect the
      current shell, of course.

      The POSIX 1003.2 Shell and Tools Interface standardization
      committee forbids the behaviour described above, i.e. in P1003.2
      conformant Bourne shells the example will print ``foo is now:
      bletch''.

      In historic (and P1003.2 conformant) implementations you can use
      the following `trick' to get around the redirection problem:

    foo=bar

    # make file descriptor 9 a duplicate of file descriptor 0 (stdin);
    # then connect stdin to /etc/passwd; the original stdin is now
    # `remembered' in file descriptor 9; see dup(2) and sh(1)
    exec 9<&0 < /etc/passwd

    while read line
    do
        # do something with $line
        foo=bletch
    done

    # make stdin a duplicate of file descriptor 9, i.e. reconnect
    # it to the original stdin; then close file descriptor 9
    exec 0<&9 9<&-

    echo "foo is now: $foo"

      This should always print ``foo is now: bletch''.
      Right, take the next example:

    foo=bar

    echo bletch | read foo

    echo "foo is now: $foo"

      This will print ``foo is now: bar'' in many implementations,
      ``foo is now: bletch'' in some others.  Why?  Generally each part
      of a pipeline is run in a different subshell; in some
      implementations though, the last command in the pipeline is made
      an exception: if it is a builtin command like ``read'', the
      current shell will execute it, else another subshell is created.

      POSIX 1003.2 allows both behaviours so portable scripts cannot
      depend on any of them.

------------------------------

Subject: How do I run ... interactive programs from a shell script ... ?
Date: Thu Mar 18 17:16:55 EST 1993

3.9)  How do I run 'passwd', 'ftp', 'telnet', 'tip' and other interactive
      programs from a shell script or in the background?

      These programs expect a terminal interface.  Shells makes no
      special provisions to provide one.  Hence, such programs cannot
      be automated in shell scripts.

      The 'expect' program provides a programmable terminal interface
      for automating interaction with such programs.  The following
      expect script is an example of a non-interactive version of
      passwd(1).

    # username is passed as 1st arg, password as 2nd
    set password [index $argv 2]
    spawn passwd [index $argv 1]
    expect "*password:"
    send "$password\r"
    expect "*password:"
    send "$password\r"
    expect eof

      expect can partially automate interaction which is especially
      useful for telnet, rlogin, debuggers or other programs that have
      no built-in command language.  The distribution provides an
      example script to rerun rogue until a good starting configuration
      appears.  Then, control is given back to the user to enjoy the game.

      Fortunately some programs have been written to manage the
      connection to a pseudo-tty so that you can run these sorts of
      programs in a script.

      To get expect, email "send pub/expect/expect.shar.Z" to
      [e-mail] or anonymous ftp same from
      durer.cme.nist.gov.

      Another solution is provided by the pty 4.0 program, which runs a
      program under a pseudo-tty session and was posted to
      comp.sources.unix, volume 25.  A pty-based solution using named
      pipes to do the same as the above might look like this:

    #!/bin/sh
    /etc/mknod out.$$ p; exec 2>&1
    ( exec 4<out.$$; rm -f out.$$
    <&4 waitfor 'password:'
        echo "$2"
    <&4 waitfor 'password:'
        echo "$2"
    <&4 cat >/dev/null
    ) | ( pty passwd "$1" >out.$$ )

      Here, 'waitfor' is a simple C program that searches for
      its argument in the input, character by character.

      A simpler pty solution (which has the drawback of not
      synchronizing properly with the passwd program) is

    #!/bin/sh
    ( sleep 5; echo "$2"; sleep 5; echo "$2") | pty passwd "$1"

------------------------------

Subject: How do I find the process ID of a program with a particular name ... ?
Date: Thu Mar 18 17:16:55 EST 1993

3.10) How do I find the process ID of a program with a particular name
      from inside a shell script or C program?

      In a shell script:

      There is no utility specifically designed to map between program
      names and process IDs.  Furthermore, such mappings are often
      unreliable, since it's possible for more than one process to have
      the same name, and since it's possible for a process to change
      its name once it starts running.  However, a pipeline like this
      can often be used to get a list of processes (owned by you) with
      a particular name:

        ps ux | awk '/name/ && !/awk/ {print $2}'

      You replace "name" with the name of the process for which you are
      searching.

      The general idea is to parse the output of ps, using awk or grep
      or other utilities, to search for the lines with the specified
      name on them, and print the PID's for those lines.  Note that the
      "!/awk/" above prevents the awk process for being listed.

      You may have to change the arguments to ps, depending on what
      kind of Unix you are using.

      In a C program:

      Just as there is no utility specifically designed to map between
      program names and process IDs, there are no (portable) C library
      functions to do it either.

      However, some vendors provide functions for reading Kernel
      memory; for example, Sun provides the "kvm_" functions, and Data
      General provides the "dg_" functions.  It may be possible for any
      user to use these, or they may only be useable by the super-user
      (or a user in group "kmem") if read-access to kernel memory on
      your system is restricted.  Furthermore, these functions are
      often not documented or documented badly, and might change from
      release to release.

      Some vendors provide a "/proc" filesystem, which appears as a
      directory with a bunch of filenames in it.  Each filename is a
      number, corresponding to a process ID, and you can open the file
      and read it to get information about the process.  Once again,
      access to this may be restricted, and the interface to it may
      change from system to system.

      If you can't use vendor-specific library functions, and you
      don't have /proc, and you still want to do this completely
      in C, you
      are going to have to do the grovelling through kernel memory
      yourself.  For a good example of how to do this on many systems,
      see the sources to "ofiles", available in the comp.sources.unix
      archives.  (A package named "kstuff" to help with kernel
      grovelling was posted to alt.sources in May 1991 and is also
      available via anonymous ftp as
      usenet/alt.sources/articles/{329{6,7,8,9},330{0,1}}.Z from
      wuarchive.wustl.edu.)

------------------------------

Subject: How do I check the exit status of a remote command executed via "rsh"?
Date: Thu Mar 18 17:16:55 EST 1993

3.11) How do I check the exit status of a remote command
      executed via "rsh" ?

      This doesn't work:

    rsh some-machine some-crummy-command || echo "Command failed"

      The exit status of 'rsh' is 0 (success) if the rsh program
      itself completed successfully, which probably isn't what
      you wanted.

      If you want to check on the exit status of the remote program,
      you can try using Maarten Litmaath's 'ersh' script, which was
      posted to alt.sources in January, 1991.  ersh is a shell script
      that calls rsh, arranges for the remote machine to echo the
      status of the command after it completes, and exits with that
      status.

------------------------------

Subject: Is it possible to pass shell variable settings into an awk program?
Date: Thu Mar 18 17:16:55 EST 1993

3.12) Is it possible to pass shell variable settings into an awk program?

      There are two different ways to do this.  The first involves
      simply expanding the variable where it is needed in the program.
      For example, to get a list of all ttys you're using:

    who | awk '/^'"$USER"'/ { print $2 }'                (1)

      Single quotes are usually used to enclose awk programs because
      the character '$' is often used in them, and '$' will be
      interpreted by the shell if enclosed inside double quotes, but
      not if enclosed inside single quotes.  In this case, we *want*
      the '$' in "$USER" to be interpreted by the shell, so we close
      the single quotes and then put the "$USER" inside double quotes.
      Note that there are no spaces in any of that, so the shell will
      see it all as one argument.  Note, further, that the double
      quotes probably aren't necessary in this particular case (i.e. we
      could have done

    who | awk '/^'$USER'/ { print $2 }'                (2)

      ), but they should be included nevertheless because they are
      necessary when the shell variable in question contains special
      characters or spaces.

      The second way to pass variable settings into awk is to use an
      often undocumented feature of awk which allows variable settings
      to be specified as "fake file names" on the command line.  For
      example:

    who | awk '$1 == user { print $2 }' user="$USER" -        (3)

      Variable settings take effect when they are encountered on the
      command line, so, for example, you could instruct awk on how to
      behave for different files using this technique.  For example:

    awk '{ program that depends on s }' s=1 file1 s=0 file2        (4)

      Note that some versions of awk will cause variable settings
      encountered before any real filenames to take effect before the
      BEGIN block is executed, but some won't so neither way should be
      relied upon.

      Note, further, that when you specify a variable setting, awk
      won't automatically read from stdin if no real files are
      specified, so you need to add a "-" argument to the end of your
      command, as I did at (3) above.

------------------------------

Subject: How do I get rid of zombie processes that persevere?
From: [e-mail] (Jonathan I. Kamens)
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 14:40:09 -0500

3.13) How do I get rid of zombie processes that persevere?

      Unfortunately, it's impossible to generalize how the death of
      child processes should behave, because the exact mechanism varies
      over the various flavors of Unix.

      First of all, by default, you have to do a wait() for child
      processes under ALL flavors of Unix.  That is, there is no flavor
      of Unix that I know of that will automatically flush child
      processes that exit, even if you don't do anything to tell it to
      do so.

      Second, under some SysV-derived systems, if you do
      "signal(SIGCHLD, SIG_IGN)" (well, actually, it may be SIGCLD
      instead of SIGCHLD, but most of the newer SysV systems have
      "#define SIGCHLD SIGCLD" in the header files), then child
      processes will be cleaned up automatically, with no further
      effort in your part.  The best way to find out if it works at
      your site is to try it, although if you are trying to write
      portable code, it's a bad idea to rely on this in any case.
      Unfortunately, POSIX doesn't allow you to do this; the behavior
      of setting the SIGCHLD to SIG_IGN under POSIX is undefined, so
      you can't do it if your program is supposed to be
      POSIX-compliant.

      If you can't use SIG_IGN to force automatic clean-up, then you've
      got to write a signal handler to do it.  It isn't easy at all to
      write a signal handler that does things right on all flavors of
      Unix, because of the following inconsistencies:

      On some flavors of Unix, the SIGCHLD signal handler is called if
      one *or more* children have died.  This means that if your signal
      handler only does one wait() call, then it won't clean up all of
      the children.  Fortunately, I believe that all Unix flavors for
      which this is the case have available to the programmer the
      wait3() call, which allows the WNOHANG option to check whether or
      not there are any children waiting to be cleaned up.  Therefore,
      on any system that has wait3(), your signal handler should call
      wait3() over and over again with the WNOHANG option until there
      are no children left to clean up.

      On SysV-derived systems, SIGCHLD signals are regenerated if there
      are child processes still waiting to be cleaned up after you exit
      the SIGCHLD signal handler.  Therefore, it's safe on most SysV
      systems to assume when the signal handler gets called that you
      only have to clean up one signal, and assume that the handler
      will get called again if there are more to clean up after it
      exits.

      On older systems, signal handlers are automatically reset to
      SIG_DFL when the signal handler gets called.  On such systems,
      you have to put "signal(SIGCHILD, catcher_func)" (where
      "catcher_func" is the name of the handler function) as the first
      thing in the signal handler, so that it gets reset.
      Unfortunately, there is a race condition which may cause you to
      get a SIGCHLD signal and have it ignored between the time your
      handler gets called and the time you reset the signal.
      Fortunately, newer implementations of signal() don't reset the
      handler to SIG_DFL when the handler function is called.  To get
      around this problem, on systems that do not have wait3() but do
      have SIGCLD, you need to reset the signal handler with a call to
      signal() after doing at least one wait() within the handler, each
      time it is called.

      The summary of all this is that on systems that have wait3(), you
      should use that and your signal handler should loop, and on
      systems that don't, you should have one call to wait() per
      invocation of the signal handler.

      One more thing -- if you don't want to go through all of this
      trouble, there is a portable way to avoid this problem, although
      it is somewhat less efficient.  Your parent process should fork,
      and then wait right there and then for the child process to
      terminate.  The child process then forks again, giving you a
      child and a grandchild.  The child exits immediately (and hence
      the parent waiting for it notices its death and continues to
      work), and the grandchild does whatever the child was originally
      supposed to.  Since its parent died, it is inherited by init,
      which will do whatever waiting is needed.  This method is
      inefficient because it requires an extra fork, but is pretty much
      completely portable.

------------------------------

Subject: How do I get lines from a pipe ... instead of only in larger blocks?
From: [e-mail] (Jonathan I. Kamens)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 92 20:59:28 -0500

3.14) How do I get lines from a pipe as they are written instead of only in
      larger blocks?

      The stdio library does buffering differently depending on whether
      it thinks it's running on a tty.  If it thinks it's on a tty, it
      does buffering on a per-line basis; if not, it uses a larger
      buffer than one line.

      If you have the source code to the client whose buffering you
      want to disable, you can use setbuf() or setvbuf() to change the
      buffering.

      If not, the best you can do is try to convince the program that
      it's running on a tty by running it under a pty, e.g. by using
      the "pty" program mentioned in question 3.9.

------------------------------

End of unix/faq Digest part 3 of 7
**********************************

--
Ted Timar - [e-mail]