@avidseeker I assume dd and find were designed by two Bell Labs employees trolling each other.
dd isn't really bad I guess. Just weird. find seems like it should be more normal, but is perpetually frustrating.
@avidseeker Yes. Yes, it is.
As an alternative to find(1), a lesser-known command called locate(1) was introduced in BSD Unix in the mid-80s. It uses a prebuilt, compressed database of pathnames to locate files by name.
I got familiar with it on a network of Apollo Domain/IX workstations. I set up cron jobs to run nightly searches on each host's filesystem and merge the results into a database of all the files on the LAN. That wasn't in the man page.
https://archive.org/details/login-feb83/page/n7/mode/2up?view=theater
@submicron @avidseeker The standard `locate(1)` program in Linux distros for a long time was `mlocate`, which had some performance problems as we reached more modern volume sizes and inode-tastic tree formats such as git repositories.
Fortunately `plocate` improves the performance back to the point where it's almost free to just try running `locate(1)` first and grepping out the paths you want.
@avidseeker @alanc I miss a lot of the old jokes in “BUGS” man page sections. Looks like the FreeBSD tunefs(8) still has this one from 4.2bsd though:
“You can tune a file system, but you cannot tune a fish.”
@alanc @jbeck Oooh, tough job. Also: I had forgotten about the division of entries into “obscene” and “scene”!
https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo/tree/BSD-4_2/usr/src/games/fortune
@avidseeker man etherfind man page once used to have
BUGS
The syntax of this command resembles that of find
@avidseeker bestie, that's not the UPM (if only because it pre-dates troff), and the UPM isn't dated 1979; see actual UPM screenshot of find (I) in jpeg 1
I see this sentence attested /only/ in V7 (with a file date of 1979-01-10 21:16, so that'd match; see jpeg 2). but unless you have access to a scan the TUHS doesn't (and considering it's pixel-perfect, and so would the OCR need to be for your selection, you don't), the supposed screenshot is of a groff-print-from-source, which is, again, misleading at best