louiseadennis$ history|awk '{a[$2]++} END{for(i in a){printf "%5d\t%s \n",a[i],i}}'|sort -rn|head
175 cd
89 ls
47 less
38 xemacs
37 perl
19 cvs
16 exit
15 ss
12 pdflatex
12 SyntaxBNF-yl-parser-verbose
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-16 12:53 pm (UTC)5 19:30
5 10:43
4 12:05
3 21:04
3 19:31
3 15:35
3 11:50
2 14:48
2 14:40
2 14:28
Perhaps this is a bash centric meme, and tcsh history gives the command in a different column. Ah yes, this works better:
history | awk '{a[$3]++} END{for(i in a){printf "%5d\t%s \n",a[i],i}}' | sort -rn | head
20 ./amhd
13 make
9 cd
7 python
6 ssh
5 svn
3 ls
3 history
2 gdb
1 scp
Running the same thing in the other terminal window gives me:
82 python
6 svn
5 cd
3 grep
2 ssh
1 rm
1 history
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-20 08:43 am (UTC)108 ~/bin/convertCoords
65 tail
50 pico
37 ~/bin/DensEl
32 rm
31 touch
31 cp
29 edit
28 ls
28 cd
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-20 09:31 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-20 06:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-21 09:18 am (UTC)tap completion
Date: 2008-04-21 11:37 am (UTC)Not sure how you would test in general that GUI and command line are faster than each other, as one does very different things with each. No GUI way to run a tightbinding simulation, no CLI way to process STM images.
Text-file editing possibly, then you get into the realms of personal taste. For me "edit foo.txt" on the CLI then editing in Text Wrangler is more efficient than using pico, but my friend Dave, who pretty much lives in vi and emacs, would tell me that he can edit text much faster with them.
James
P.S. If you have large bibliographies, check out BibDesk.
Re: tap completion
Date: 2008-04-21 11:47 am (UTC)I'm an emacs user, partly because I use applications written in emacs and then because of familiarity, but it is quite slow to open. Hence the prominence of less in my list - if I'm just looking at a file then less is much quicker.