Spyke
Lucy :3
feddit.org

This version of 'false' is implemented as a C program, and is thus more secure and faster than a shell script implementation

I bet there is a way to exploit

int main(int, char**) {
    return 1;
}
32
xigoireply
lemmy.sdf.org

If you run it on a machine with 0-bit integers, it will cause an overflow

30
PastaRhythm
lemmy.world

Just tried "false && echo wee" in my terminal, then "true && echo wee". Learn something new every day.

22
namingthingsiseasy
programming.dev

If you ever feel useless, don't forget that both true and false have manpages in Linux.

They even have --help and --version flags in case you need them.

18
renzevreply
lemmy.world

Huh, TIL

~ $ /bin/true --help
Usage: /bin/true [ignored command line arguments]
  or:  /bin/true OPTION
Exit with a status code indicating success.

      --help        display this help and exit
      --version     output version information and exit

NOTE: your shell may have its own version of true, which usually supersedes
the version described here.  Please refer to your shell's documentation
for details about the options it supports.

GNU coreutils online help: <https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/>
Full documentation <https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/true>
or available locally via: info '(coreutils) true invocation'

I honestly don't know what I prefer more, the overengineered GNU true, or the true that shipped with some older system that was literally just an empty file with the executable bit set.

14
Matombo
feddit.org

not to be consufes with:

true: Do nothing, successfully

17
stetechreply
lemmy.world

I only learned that this was a thing like literally two days ago!

1

You reached the end

My forté | Spyke