Re^3: Execute by order

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Execute by order by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Aug 13, 2009 at 13:43 UTC
On NIX, I submit it is easy to modify the command strings to run a command in parallel ... which, IIRC, isn't possible on Windoze.* How would you do it on *nix? Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. RIP PCW It is as I've been saying!(Audio until 20090817)	[reply]
Re^5: Execute by order by Bloodnok (Vicar) on Aug 13, 2009 at 13:54 UTC
...at its simplest, by changing `command` to `command &`. However, by just doing the above, the backgrounded command will suspend if it needs to write to either device 1 or device 2 (STDOUT/STDERR in perl parlance), or read from device 0 (STDIN), so `command` is usually rewritten as `command >file 2>&1 &` to send all output from stdout and stderr to `file`. If you don't care about output from either stdout or stderr, the frequently seen idiom - `command >/dev/null 2>&1 &` - is used. A user level that continues to overstate my experience :-))	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^6: Execute by order by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Aug 13, 2009 at 14:06 UTC
...at its simplest, by changing `command>/c> to <c>command &` The equivalents on Win* are: `start command` `start command > file 2>&1` `start command > nul 2>&1` Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. RIP PCW It is as I've been saying!(Audio until 20090817)	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^7: Execute by order by Bloodnok (Vicar) on Aug 13, 2009 at 14:11 UTC
Re^8: Execute by order by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Aug 13, 2009 at 14:47 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^4: Execute by order by way (Sexton) on Aug 13, 2009 at 14:58 UTC
I took it to mean using while to iterate thro' a list of simple commands i.e. no parallelism And that is correct, no parallelism	[reply]
Re^5: Execute by order by Bloodnok (Vicar) on Aug 13, 2009 at 15:19 UTC
...but ...someone of those at same time..., to me at least, implies parallelism i.e. two, or more, commands running in parallel. A user level that continues to overstate my experience :-))	[reply]