Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 21:55:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mutiny <mutiny AT hardlink DOT com>
To: -= ArkanoiD =- <ark AT mpak DOT convey DOT ru>
cc: mjs AT prg DOT hannover DOT sgh-net DOT de, opendos AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: tail dos implementation?
In-Reply-To: <ABUMEAqeV7@mpak.convey.ru>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95.970924215348.18060A-100000@hornet>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, -= ArkanoiD =- wrote:

> nuqneH,
> 
> > Date: 24 Sep 1997 04:05:00 +0200
> > From: mjs AT prg DOT hannover DOT sgh-net DOT de (Mark Junker)
> > To: opendos AT delorie DOT com
> > Subject: Re: tail dos implementation?
> 
> [dd]
> 
> > > Does anybody know a tail program for DOS that does handle -f flag correctly?
> > I am not sure what you mean ... what do you mean with flag "-f" ?
> 
> Do not exit at EOF and wait for new data forever.
> 
> --- 
>                                        _     _  _  _  _      _  _
>    Must be a visit from the dead..     _| o |_ | | _|| |   / _||_|   |_ |_ |_
>    CU in Hell ..........  Arkan#iD    |_  o  _||_| _||_| /   _|  | o |_||_||_|
> 

What he probably wants to do is monitor a file (ala /var/syslog in linux)
for changes but I doubt they would because DOS doesn't multitask like
Linux does, and never will.
	Craig
	- My 2 cents.

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2

mQBtAzQONsIAAAEDAMvQK81eIGOQCcRiNdTBsT80bfnmZCBC8tskIXihXYE3aZC4
rB2C4XrN5Qbgrr28mrziN623QOFW4Q1kzIPPpzvjqiWMNWtz/ievFOUuTPs6/CAg
QPCsx22ukjgErWf0eQAFEbQhQ3JhaWcgQ2FsZWYgPG11dGlueUBoYXJkbGluay5j
b20+
=c6X+
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----