Talk:Tail (Unix)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Linux Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Software: Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

I removed this text from the article:

This displays the last 15 bytes of all files starting with foo:

tail -15c foo*

This example is misleading - it would only should the last 15 chars of the last file in the list, not the last 15c from each file.

The example below would work as a shell script or command line, but it might not be relevant to the article:

for FILE in foo*
do
  echo -->$FILE<---
  tail -15c $FILE
done

--Unixguy 12:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just confusing to include obsolete usage and should be removed? DGerman (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, it is in common use still. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 09:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article documents the GNU version of tail to the exclusion of all others. That probably should be mentioned in it somewhere. Wocky (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

tail -e pattern

should print everything from the last occurrence of pattern to the end. This would be useful for some kinds of log file.

Encyclopedant (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before the imposition of "nonstandard", the text made sense in English. After that, none at all because it required the reader to believe a contradictory statement. The current phrasing doesn't demand the reader do that, and leaves only the facts

Please don't repeat proven wrong statements. Your claim (BSD supports -F) is of course wrong. Learn to read sources correctly. And BTW: something that is not part of the POSIX standard is of course "nonstandard" with respect of our topic. Schily (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current topic cites FreeBSD's manual page, which documents -F. A quick check finds NetBSD since 1998. Certainly you can find some variant of BSD lacking the feature, but your statement as phrased does not agree with the observable facts. As for the main point in discussion, advising someone to use a nonstandard feature is contradictory, and the text as given is clear enough that it is not standard without attempting to make that the only information which the reader can gain.