======Part 3====== =====Entries===== ====Entry 9: April 4, 2012==== As an aid, feel free to use the following questions to help you generate content for your entries: * What action or concept of significance, as related to the course, did you experience on this date? >> On this date I learned how to use the **dd(1)**, //data dump// utility. * Why was this significant? >> This is significant because with the usage of the **dd(1)** utility I can take data from a source file then deposite it in a destination file. * What concepts are you dealing with that may not make perfect sense? >> Concepts of this utility that do not make perfect sense is the syntax involved. The "if" and "of" that need to be implemented do not make a lot of sense to me. * What challenges are you facing with respect to the course? >> When to use this utility as opposed to using the pipe ( | ) utility. ====Entry 10: April 6, 2012==== As an aid, feel free to use the following questions to help you generate content for your entries: * What action or concept of significance, as related to the course, did you experience on this date? >> In the VI editor I learned how to change some certain syntax on a larger scale. * Why was this significant? >> This is significant because if you are trying to change multiple of the same words it be hassle just to find each showing of that word, while you could use ":/word" to change an existing word. * What concepts are you dealing with that may not make perfect sense? >> The syntax involved the cat | grep | sed | sed command. * What challenges are you facing with respect to the course? >> Writing proper scripts to complement the right criteria asked in the question. ====Entry 11: April 16, 2012==== As an aid, feel free to use the following questions to help you generate content for your entries: * What action or concept of significance, as related to the course, did you experience on this date? >> On this day I learned how to use the **cut(1)** utility productively to my uses. * Why was this significant? >> This is significant because this utility will help me cut out unnecessary information that I do not wish to look at, when viewing a string of data. * What concepts are you dealing with that may not make perfect sense? >> A concept that I am dealing with that does not make perfect sense is the **sed(1)** utility, more or less the syntax involved with the command. * What challenges are you facing with respect to the course? >> Some challenges that I am facing is using the the **grep(1)** **head(1)** and **tail(1)** all at once, but in useful manner. ====Entry 12: April 16, 2012==== As an aid, feel free to use the following questions to help you generate content for your entries: * What action or concept of significance, as related to the course, did you experience on this date? >> Learned how to change a file into something that is viewable upon different operating systems. Using the **tr(1)** utility helped me do this. * Why was this significant? >> This is significant reading a different operating systems file, such as mac o.s., is not possible upon a Unix system. Thus, we must change the file ending to do so. * What concepts are you dealing with that may not make perfect sense? >> Concepts that do not make perfect sense to me is the syntax involved with the **tr(1)** utility. * What challenges are you facing with respect to the course? >> Analyzing shell script logic. {{page>unixpart3&nofooter}} =====Experiments===== ====Experiment 7==== ===Question=== Is there a command to search through all the one-line command descriptions, while looking for those that contain the same string of characters you specified. ===Resources=== Harley Hahn's Guide to Unix and Linux. Chapter 9: Documentation : The Unix Manual and Info. ===Hypothesis=== If there is a way to search through all the one-line command descriptions, while looking for those that contain the same string of characters you specified, then there is a command to do such things. **State your rationale.** My curiosity to search through a line of string of characters blindly for a desired result. ===Experiment=== How are you going to test your hypothesis? What is the structure of your experiment? >> I am going to test my hypothesis by running the command with a certain file. The structure of this will be used within the syntax lines of apropos. ===Data=== Perform your experiment, and collect/document the results here. >> Apropos's syntax is: //apropos keywords// lab46:~$ apropos pstree pstree (1) - display a tree of processes pstree.x11 (1) - display a tree of processes ===Analysis=== Based on the data collected: * Was your hypothesis correct? >> Yes my hypothesis was correct * Was your hypothesis not applicable? My hypothesis was applicable * Is there more going on than you originally thought? (shortcomings in hypothesis) >> The command gives a larger listing than I once thought. * What shortcomings might there be in your experiment? >> In need to use different keywords. * What shortcomings might there be in your data? >> Only the use of one keyword, pstree. ===Conclusions=== What can you ascertain based on the experiment performed and data collected? Document your findings here; make a statement as to any discoveries you've made. >>Based on the data collected, and the experiment, the command **apropos(1)** can be used to find a listing of commands based upon a certain keyword. This command produced a longer listing of commands, based on the certain keyword, than I thought before the conducted experiment had happened. ====Experiment 8==== ===Question=== Is there a way to show a process diagram that shows the connections between the files and the folders? ===Resources=== Harley Hahn's Guide to Unix and Linux. Chapter 26: Processes and Job Control. ===Hypothesis=== If there is a way to show a process diagram that shows the connections between the files and the folders then there must be a command to do so. **State your rationale.** A visual diagram to show the connections can be very helpful when trying to locate a certain item that can be linked. ===Experiment=== How are you going to test your hypothesis? What is the structure of your experiment? >> I am going to test my hypothesis by running the command. The structure of my experiment will be just run the command and assess the result. ===Data=== Perform your experiment, and collect/document the results here. **pstree** (process tree): useful when you want to understand the relationships between processes. lab46:~$ pstree init-+-atd |-avahi-daemon---avahi-daemon |-cron-+-cron---sh---launchbot.sh---python---python---{python} | |-cron---sh---sh---python---python---2*[{python}] | |-cron---sh---botscript.sh---python---python---{python} | |-cron---sh---sh---python---python---29*[{python}] | `-cron---botstart.sh---python---python---{python} |-dbus-daemon |-dhclient |-3*[eggdrop] |-getty |-inetd |-links |-nscd---7*[{nscd}] |-ntpd |-nullmailer-send |-portmap |-python---python---{python} |-python---{python} |-rpc.idmapd |-rpc.statd |-36*[screen---bash---irssi] |-2*[screen---irssi] |-screen---bash---screen |-screen-+-bash | `-bash---screen |-3*[screen-+-bash] | `-bash---irssi] |-3*[screen---bash] |-screen-+-3*[bash] | `-2*[bash---irssi] |-screen-+-bash---tar---tar---gzip | `-bash---vim---{vim} |-screen---2*[bash] |-screen-+-bash---irssi | `-bash |-screen-+-2*[bash---irssi] | |-3*[bash] | `-4*[bash---ssh] |-screen---5*[bash] |-screen---4*[bash---vi---{vi}] |-screen-+-bash---bash---ssh | |-3*[bash] | |-bash---vi---{vi} | `-bash---irssi |-sshd-+-5*[sshd---sshd---bash] | |-sshd---sshd---bash---pstree | |-sshd---sshd---bash---screen | `-sshd---sshd---bash---vim---{vim} |-syslog-ng---syslog-ng |-tfe---daemon `-udevd---2*[udevd] ===Analysis=== Based on the data collected: * Was your hypothesis correct? >> Yes, my hypothesis was correct. * Was your hypothesis not applicable? My hypothesis was applicable. * Is there more going on than you originally thought? (shortcomings in hypothesis) >> The command produced a longer hierarchy list than I once thought. * What shortcomings might there be in your experiment? >> Only the production of a process tree in a single directory. * What shortcomings might there be in your data? >> Only the production of a process tree in a single directory. ===Conclusions=== What can you ascertain based on the experiment performed and data collected? Document your findings here; make a statement as to any discoveries you've made. >> Based upon my experiment and data collected **pstree** can be a very helpful utility if trying to understand relationships between processes. Something that had surprised me was that there were a lot more processes going on that I thought would be. ====Retest 3==== Perform the following steps: ===State Experiment=== Reid Hensen Part 1: Experiment 2 http://lab46.corning-cc.edu/opus/spring2012/rhensen/start#experiment_1 "Can output redirection be used with aliases in order to easily create a log file from the output of a certain command?" ===Resources=== Evaluate their resources and commentary. Answer the following questions: * Do you feel the given resources are adequate in providing sufficient background information? >> No, since it was just one web page of information. * Are there additional resources you've found that you can add to the resources list? >> Harley Hahn's Guide to Unix and Linux. Chapter 24: Working with Directories. * Does the original experimenter appear to have obtained a necessary fundamental understanding of the concepts leading up to their stated experiment? >> Yes, he does. ===Hypothesis=== State their experiment's hypothesis. Answer the following questions: >> "A log file is sometimes useful to keep a record of the output generated by the output of a command. However, this is really only useful when the output is added to the log file automatically, which is why I believe the use of the alias will be helpful. I think that setting an alias for the ls command that will redirect the output to a file will effectively keep a record of each output that command generates. This is not to say that the ls command is the most useful command to have a log file associated with, but the method can hopefully be used with other command that better lend themselves to having a log." * Do you feel their hypothesis is adequate in capturing the essence of what they're trying to discover? >> Yes, I do. * What improvements could you make to their hypothesis, if any? >> Make it shorter and to the point. ===Experiment=== Follow the steps given to recreate the original experiment. Answer the following questions: * Are the instructions correct in successfully achieving the results? >> Yes, I got a similar results. User name changes. * Is there room for improvement in the experiment instructions/description? What suggestions would you make? >> No, this is a pretty straightforward experiment, no needs for change. * Would you make any alterations to the structure of the experiment to yield better results? What, and why? >> No alterations to be needed to yield better results. ===Data=== Publish the data you have gained from your performing of the experiment here. lab46:~$ alias ls="ls | tee -a /home/tedmist1/log" ===Analysis=== Answer the following: * Does the data seem in-line with the published data from the original author? >> Yes. * Can you explain any deviations? >>No deviations appeared. * How about any sources of error? >> No sources of error. * Is the stated hypothesis adequate? >> The stated hypothesis is adequate. ===Conclusions=== Answer the following: * What conclusions can you make based on performing the experiment? >> By conducting such an experiment my knowledge towards the **ls** command has increased. With the help of redirection of a file, such a task became that much easier. * Do you feel the experiment was adequate in obtaining a further understanding of a concept? >> I obtained a further understanding of the concept by conducting the experiment. * Does the original author appear to have gotten some value out of performing the experiment? >> Yes, they did seem to get some value out of performing the experiment. * Any suggestions or observations that could improve this particular process (in general, or specifically you, or specifically for the original author). >> No improvements to be made upon such an experiment.