Talk:List of Unix programs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 date
2 what is a "unix program"
3 sudo
4 tree - which Unix version does it come with?
5 link backs to this page
6 See also
7 This is an encyclopedia
8 shutdown
9 Cleanup notice

[edit] date

Is date really kernel specific? I would think it's available on just about every Unix variant in existence. --Shawn K. Quinn 01:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] what is a "unix program"

This list is becoming more of a "list of programs that can run on Unix" rather than a list of proper Unix programs. I think we should clean up and keep only programs that historically have been part of most unix environments and follow it's tradition.

It's a standard nowadays: I suggest starting from POSIX 1003.1 Comte0 03:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The page currently reads like a 'list of stuff I found on my Linux box.' I would recommend listing everything in POSIX / SUS, and indicating where they came from (e.g. System V, BSD). Oh and info it not a GNU/Linux alternative to man, it is a GNU alternative to man. It is part of the GNU project, and has no connection to Linux other than running on Linux (as well as *BSD, Solaris, OS X, etc). Linking to the Linux page when talking about it is just plain nonsense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Chisnall (talk • contribs) 01:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

I disagree that programs should be removed from the page, unless they really do not run under Unix. If anything, List of Unix programs is not comprehensive enough. The page is a handy reference for looking up Unix program names which often make poor search keywords due to being very short, or having other meanings (e.g., cat, find, echo). The specific article title that Wikipedia uses for a given program may be hard to guess, as various articles use different methods of disambiguation in their titles (see the list in Category:Unix software and note the unpredictable variation of parenthesized qualifiers after the program names).

A page with a comprehensive list of programs that run on Unix, grouped by function, is often better than the online help which comes with Unix. The man command is great when I know the name of a program, but if all I remember is the general function of a program rather than its name, I can find it faster here. This page is useful in its current form; before changing it into something else, we should obtain some usage statistics for the page. Maybe other people find the page handy for looking up "improper" Unix programs.

If "proper" Unix programs need to be distinguished from "improper" programs (whatever that means), there are some nondestructive ways to do that:

Add a section List of Unix programs#Proper Unix programs and list the proper ones there, or add a whole new page: List of proper Unix programs, List of POSIX programs, etc.
Start a new category: Category:Proper Unix programs and categorize all the "proper" Unix programs accordingly.
Convert the program lists on List of Unix programs into one or more tables, with columns to indicate "properness," "origin," or whatever else seems important.
- Using sortable tables will allow purists to sort the programs by "properness" if they wish, while still allowing those who don't care about "properness" to look up information about programs on their Linux box.

--Teratornis 20:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A list of all UNIX programs will be huge.

Yes, and so? The list is not going to contain all Unix programs any time soon, because editors are only adding the programs they have found interesting enough to add. See Pareto rule and 10/90 gap. Something like 10% of the commands or features in a typical system get 90% of the use. The list is probably valuable because it represents the product of some intelligent human filtering. Odds are that the programs people have added to the list are the programs readers need to look up. See WP:SS for the procedure to follow for splitting large pages as they grow; this is a natural aspect of Wikipedia. --Teratornis 02:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There are over 6000 distributed for NetBSD alone, and this is not including proprietary software, or software that doesn't run on NetBSD. Currently, this page is woefully inadequate as a list of all programs that run on UNIX, and misleading as a list of all programs required to be present on a UNIX® or POSIX system.

The latter two problems are easy to address with a small disclaimer section added to the list, in the unlikely event that anyone would make either mistake in interpretation. Who exactly would read the page and imagine these are all the programs that run on Unix, or imagine these are all the programs required to be present on a Unix or POSIX system? Most people who have spent much time on Wikipedia would know the "list of" articles don't normally claim to be exhaustive (for example, List of wiki software does not imply that if something is not on the list, it cannot be wiki software), and I think anyone who has heard of POSIX would know where to find information specific to it, and would know when they are looking at something else. The list is too long for most people to memorize quickly, and is not in a suitable format for turning into some sort of a specification list, so it's hard to imagine how someone would misuse the list content in the ways you mention. --Teratornis 02:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can't find help about an application using man, I suggest you learn how to use apropos (or man -k). David Chisnall 00:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The output of man is inefficient for note-taking. Perhaps few Unix users are sufficiently literate to keep notes about their work, but I do. I prefer to look up documentation on a Web site with stable URLs, so I can cite them in my notes, send them in e-mail to others, etc. Now that I am taking notes on wikis, I can link to Wikipedia articles with interwiki links. Thus the List of Unix programs is a valuable resource for note-taking. When I find a command entry there, I have the reference I can cite, without having to do a secondary lookup as is necessary if I find the command first with man. Then when I read my notes again in a year or two, after I have done thousands of other tasks, I can refresh my memory quickly about any seldom-used commands. Keeping notes has taught me how much I forget; sometimes I look at my notes from just a few months ago, and they seem to have been written by someone else. Someone whose work is more repetitive, or who forms long-term memories more quickly, might not have the same difficulty. But everybody I work with seems just as forgetful.

I'd guess Bill Gates loves man -k, as well as your belief it should suffice — those factors are a small part of why Windows continues to dominate the desktop, and Gates remains the world's richest man. I've used man -k enough to know it is an ergonomic throwback for many people without the luxury to think about Unix full-time. Humans designed computers because human brains can only recall a limited number of details, especially in areas of knowledge they access only occasionally. The primitive keyword retrieval mechanism of man -k was already obsolete in the 1980's, when the help system should have provided regular-expression search on the full text of all man pages, with options to prune the search by categories. Then by the 1990s everybody got to see what hypertext is like, and now it's hard to take that step backwards. Bill Gates knows this; do you want him to keep getting richer? Unix has never put a significant dent in the desktop market, in part because its traditional help system makes learning Unix unnecessarily difficult. --Teratornis 02:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, the current list looks ridiculous and laughable to anyone that has ever used a real Unix system. --Uriel 10:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Most people have not used a Unix system, real or otherwise, and probably would not understand your sense of humor. Wikipedia, unlike Unix, is easy for ordinary people to use. Thus we can expect many ordinary people will see the list. In any case, what exactly makes you laugh at the list? I find it to be a valuable tool for finding information about Unix commands I am likely to use, as well as recording my findings; and as the list naturally grows more comprehensive, it will become more useful still. How do you use the list? If there is a type of list you would find more useful, then by all means let's create it in addition to this list (or make this list into what you want, and start another list which you can laugh at or ignore). There's plenty of room here for everyone. I assume you use the list for something, because otherwise why would you look at it? --Teratornis 02:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this list is way to extensive, the FreeBSD Ports collection currently has about 14.000 ports, do you really want to include them all...?

The list should contain:

Programs specified in POSIX
Programs included in GNU coreutils
Programs included in *BSD base

This should cover 99% of the standard utilities you find on unix-like systems (solaris, hp-ux, linux, minix, ect)

Another option is to split the page in two, something like 'list of standard unix console commands' and 'list of common unix applications' Carpetsmoker 03:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What about the list of programs in Unix 10th Edition? I don't think one can take GNU coreutils as a reference of what is a 'unix program', but this are minnor points compared with the ridiculous list of totally non-unix-related junk we have now. --Uriel 13:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that unix means "unix-like" in this context, I know that "GNU's not UNIX", but in general linux (or to be more specific: GNU/Linux) is considered to be a "unix-like" OS.

Since it's also the most popular unix-like OS around, I think including coreutils would be appropriate...

If you only want "true" unix programs here, then this would be the output of ls /bin from a SCO system....

I agree that it's a minor issue to this list(opera?,php?,openoffice?, ect.) most of the POSIX programs don't have proper pages yet, those should be done first, worry about the exact definition of "unix tools" later. Carpetsmoker 16:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sudo

I was going to add sudo, but I could not think of a good decription. I believe that the definition for su should be changed in order to compensate for sudo. The difference (for non-Unix users) is that when you use su, the shell is put into root mode and stays that way until you do either the "exit" command or quit out. for sudo, it executes the command, and goes back to the original shell with the original user. sudo is used alot in Debian based distributions

Sudo has a more important feature. After all, the "one command" that you sudo can be a shell. The more important feature is that it allows trusted users to become root without knowing the root password. If user "fred" is given access to sudo, then the only password he needs to know to get root access is his own. --Serge 23:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have added: "sudo – execute a command as a different user (usually root)"; a more precise explanation is in the sudo article. Change this line if you don't like it. - Liberatore(T) 16:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] tree - which Unix version does it come with?

I tried the 'tree' command on 4 flavors of Unix - Solaris, AIX, HP-UX and Linux, and it was not available on any. I think tree is a Windows (or DOS) command that has been ported to Unix. As a long-time Unix Admin, I always use the du command to see the directory structure, which also includes the size of each directory.

tree – Print a depth-indented tree of a given directory

Any objections to removing this entry? Gbeeker 21:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

From gentoo portage:

*  app-text/tree
     Latest version available: 1.5.0
     Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
     Size of downloaded files: 25 kB
     Homepage:    http://mama.indstate.edu/users/ice/tree/
     Description: Lists directories recursively, and produces an indented listing of files.
     License:     GPL-2

-- Kim Bruning 23:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Just installed it. Quite handy actually. I'll keep it :-) Kim Bruning 23:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, tree never was a Unix command, one of the many pieces of random garbage in this list --Uriel 17:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] link backs to this page

This page would receive a lot more traffic and be more useful if more of the unix programs had links back to this page. At the moment very few of them do. Kevinydianita 22:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a Great Idea - I have started adding the See also section (see below) to the unix programs listed on this page. It's easy to copy the text and paste it right above the External links section, if there is one, or to paste the text at the end of the page if there isn't an External links section. I've already added the link on each program in the General user section. --Unixguy 12:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added the link to this page for all the commands up to Archivers_and_compression. --Unixguy 07:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I am up to the Other_text_processing_commands section now. --Unixguy 19:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Now, rather than adding a link in the See Also section, I am adding the Unix programs listed on this page to the category Category:Unix software
I am up to the Compilers and Programming tools sections with adding the Category:Unix software --Unixguy 19:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also

List of Unix programs

Note: The above text in this section may be copied to the programs listed on this page as explained in above secion. Unixguy 12:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I was about to suggest using the Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser; but I cannot use it, and I guess you can't as well :-). - Liberatore(T) 13:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is an encyclopedia

This page might be useful, but how does it pass WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE? Wouldn't this make more sense at Wiktionary? -- Butseriouslyfolks 02:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I find this list very useful. It should be noted that this list is extremely linkspam free which is amazing when you compare it to the many other software lists on Wikipedia. Also surprising is that each entry also has a brief informative description which again is rare for a wiki software list. If you want to clean up the wiki lists I suggest you be discriminate and go after the some of the other software lists that are in desperate need of help. (Requestion 15:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC))

Some lists appear to have obtained featured status. While List of Unix programs is not as good yet as, say, List of dinosaurs, if a list of dinosaurs is OK, why wouldn't a list of obviously related computer programs be OK? As far as I can see, List of Unix programs passes WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE because a list of related computer programs is not an example of any of the the forbidden classes of things in those sections. However, mine is not an expert opinion. Actually, since those sections give examples of disallowed lists, a better way to object to List of Unix programs would be to point out which type of disallowed list you think List of Unix programs is an instance of. If List of Unix programs has to go, a whole bunch of eminently useful "list of" articles would have to go. Speaking of useful, those "list of" articles are some of the most useful articles on Wikipedia, as far as I am concerned. In software particularly, one often hears of some (commercial) package, and one wants to know what open source alternatives there are. Or the package one has might not do everything one wants, and the search for similar packages is on. One well-written "list of" article spares potentially many people from grueling sessions of Google search. --Teratornis 02:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the remaining three programs with external links. So this is now a list of 100+ Unix programs that have a Wikipedia article. That is an impressive statement to the encyclopedic nature of this fine list. Someone should go through the External Links section and prune that down a bit. (Requestion 16:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] shutdown

where is the shutdown command, I know many single computer users usually have a shutdown button on the screen, however it is still a very useful command. I use it to restart and shutdown the machine from a remote terminal. It is a nice command prompt tool to have. Just suggesting it be added, it is an original AIX command as well not just linux specific. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.198.138.5 (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

 I agree shutdown should be part of this list.

[edit] Cleanup notice

This list badly needs a cleanup, most people seemed to agree on this in the "What is a unix program" thread above. Unless allot of people will object, I will strip this list down to the utilities specified in SUS (IEEE Std 1003.1) in a week orso, if you want to contribute to wikipedia them please write a good article for those programs that don't have one already, because many don't. Discussion on which other common unix utilities should be here (such as tar) should take place after that.

You can view the list of utilities specified in SUS here: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/

Carpetsmoker 06:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this list is a bit large and that it will never be 100% comprehensive. Maybe this list is too ambitious? Maybe it should be broken up into sub-groups? What is nice about this list from a Wikipedia perspective is that each entry has a brief description, it is 100% internal links, and there are very few red links. As far as lists of software go on Wikipedia this list is one of the best so I am reluctant to hack it all up. (Requestion 19:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

It is one of the largest lists, not the best, a list should list something specific, not something vague like "unix program", the first discussion would be on what "unix" actually is, the second would be on what a "unix program" exactly is (for example, are applications like opera, or unreal tournament unix programs?) and the third would be how large the list should be (For example, the FreeBSD ports collections contains 16.000 ports, do you really want to have a list of that on wikipedia...?)

There are allot of other related lists:

And many, many more, in my opinion we should just put link to those lists because:

It will be easier for readers to quickly find and compare applications
It will be easier for editors to maintain the lists

Take a look at List_of_DOS_commands, do you see programs like norton commander, or ehm ... actually norton commander is only DOS program I can remember :/ .. but you get my point...

Furthermore, this list should be renamed to list of unix commands (commands currently redirects to programs, it should be the other way around), it is less vague and more appropriate

Carpetsmoker 00:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If it runs on Unix then it is a Unix program, so yes, Unreal and Opera would be Unix programs. This list is big and maybe it should be deleted? But trying to repurpose it, change it's definition and charter is not the right solution. Why rename it? If you really want a List of Unix utilities then create it. It's simple to do and no one is stopping you. Heck, I'll even support you. (Requestion 03:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC))

Creating a new list and deleting this one is fine by me. Anyway, no one else has responded, can I assume no one has any objections? Carpetsmoker 00:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

~~You know that is not what I suggested.~~ (Requestion 01:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

Hmmm, maybe that is what I suggested. Now I might go for this if all the programs on this list are added to the Category:Unix software. Categories are better for this sort of thing and they are spam-proof. Then the worry is if a free software enthusiast gets the category deleted like they did with Category_talk:Linux_software. It is just a shame to see a link spam free list such as this one get deleted. (Requestion 02:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

Preview of the new list: User:Carpetsmoker, The category's need to be filled in. Any comments would be welcome. Carpetsmoker 20:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That looks very nice. Instead of "EMPTY" which is really big it might be better to leave the cell blank. I know all Unix's don't have all of these commands, so it might be really interesting to have a column that mentions which do or when/where the command originated. What do you plan on calling your new list? Something like List of Unix utilities? I'm also curious how well it matches SUS (IEEE Std 1003.1)? (Requestion 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, I was thinking about List of Unix utilities to.

EMPTY is usefull because I can search for that in vim, and see which utilities aren't in a category yet. they'll get replace with something usefull before the page is published.

I was thinking about adding where/when the commands originated, the German version of this page does that, but I wanted to fill in all the category's first (I can always add another row with a script later) Carpetsmoker 20:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean how well "my" list matches again SUS? It's a perfect match, I got the list from the SUS page Carpetsmoker 20:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well you definitely should mention SUS somewhere in the description. Next: add an external link to the opengroup.org, add a couple cats, and you are good to go. (Requestion 21:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

Now I do like your like your idea of having a list of SUS (IEEE Std 1003.1) utilites. I propose creating a List of Unix utilities or SUS (IEEE Std 1003.1) or something similar. (Requestion 19:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_Unix_programs_ca0a.html"