Hacker News Reader

Comment by vips7L | Hacker News Reader

Is it easier? Because I would expect man free to go to the C stdlib.h definition.

You’re just familiar with the former and not the latter currently.

Your assumption is wrong. Why would you double down on a bad argument? Don't you have a linux environment to type man free in before making that claim?

It's just an overall bad argument. I don't see how `Get-CimInstance -Class Win32_OperatingSystem` is in any way memorable

https://www.google.com/search?q=man+free

man free for me shows the BSD library functions manual, maybe it's different in Linux

It's the same on Linux, depending on what manpages you have installed. free(1) is the binary. free(3) and free(3p) are the C function.

If you have more than one installed, `man` might decide to show the first one or it may interactively ask you to pick one, depending on whether it's been configured to be "posixly correct" or not.

procps may not be installed by default on BSDs or VMS or whatever other *nix flavour the person has. But then again quite a few of those systems also don't use bash as default shell(or at least didn't use to), so when the person above asks about "writing a bash script to just do" it's safe to make some assumptions about the target audience.

How is expecting man free to point to the stdlib function a bad argument? man malloc goes to the function so why shouldn't man free? How would anyone just know that the command free exists _without already being familiar with a linux environment_ ?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com