Run another command when previous command completes [duplicate]

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP












11
















This question already has an answer here:



  • Is there a difference between the '&&' and ';' symbols in a standard BASH terminal?

    6 answers



Today I opened gnome-terminal and I wrote



ls && sleep 4 && gnome-terminal


to open another terminal after the completion of ls command and waiting for 4 seconds.
So it successfully opened a new terminal after previous commands completely ran (including sleep 4).



After that, next time I typed a new command



ls -lR && sleep 4 && gnome-terminal


The command ls -lR completed after 3 seconds, but after that none of the commands sleep 4 and gnome-terminal ran successfully.



What is the problem?










share|improve this question















marked as duplicate by karel, Charles Green, Dan, dessert command-line
Users with the  command-line badge can single-handedly close command-line questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();

);
);
);
Jan 29 at 18:33


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.






















    11
















    This question already has an answer here:



    • Is there a difference between the '&&' and ';' symbols in a standard BASH terminal?

      6 answers



    Today I opened gnome-terminal and I wrote



    ls && sleep 4 && gnome-terminal


    to open another terminal after the completion of ls command and waiting for 4 seconds.
    So it successfully opened a new terminal after previous commands completely ran (including sleep 4).



    After that, next time I typed a new command



    ls -lR && sleep 4 && gnome-terminal


    The command ls -lR completed after 3 seconds, but after that none of the commands sleep 4 and gnome-terminal ran successfully.



    What is the problem?










    share|improve this question















    marked as duplicate by karel, Charles Green, Dan, dessert command-line
    Users with the  command-line badge can single-handedly close command-line questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

    $('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
    var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
    $msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

    $hover.hover(
    function()
    $hover.showInfoMessage('',
    messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
    transient: false,
    position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
    dismissable: false,
    relativeToBody: true
    );
    ,
    function()
    StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();

    );
    );
    );
    Jan 29 at 18:33


    This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.




















      11












      11








      11


      3







      This question already has an answer here:



      • Is there a difference between the '&&' and ';' symbols in a standard BASH terminal?

        6 answers



      Today I opened gnome-terminal and I wrote



      ls && sleep 4 && gnome-terminal


      to open another terminal after the completion of ls command and waiting for 4 seconds.
      So it successfully opened a new terminal after previous commands completely ran (including sleep 4).



      After that, next time I typed a new command



      ls -lR && sleep 4 && gnome-terminal


      The command ls -lR completed after 3 seconds, but after that none of the commands sleep 4 and gnome-terminal ran successfully.



      What is the problem?










      share|improve this question

















      This question already has an answer here:



      • Is there a difference between the '&&' and ';' symbols in a standard BASH terminal?

        6 answers



      Today I opened gnome-terminal and I wrote



      ls && sleep 4 && gnome-terminal


      to open another terminal after the completion of ls command and waiting for 4 seconds.
      So it successfully opened a new terminal after previous commands completely ran (including sleep 4).



      After that, next time I typed a new command



      ls -lR && sleep 4 && gnome-terminal


      The command ls -lR completed after 3 seconds, but after that none of the commands sleep 4 and gnome-terminal ran successfully.



      What is the problem?





      This question already has an answer here:



      • Is there a difference between the '&&' and ';' symbols in a standard BASH terminal?

        6 answers







      command-line bash syntax






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Jan 28 at 19:46









      wjandrea

      9,20442363




      9,20442363










      asked Jan 28 at 16:34









      Abhishek KamalAbhishek Kamal

      13910




      13910




      marked as duplicate by karel, Charles Green, Dan, dessert command-line
      Users with the  command-line badge can single-handedly close command-line questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

      $('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
      var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
      $msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

      $hover.hover(
      function()
      $hover.showInfoMessage('',
      messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
      transient: false,
      position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
      dismissable: false,
      relativeToBody: true
      );
      ,
      function()
      StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();

      );
      );
      );
      Jan 29 at 18:33


      This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.









      marked as duplicate by karel, Charles Green, Dan, dessert command-line
      Users with the  command-line badge can single-handedly close command-line questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

      $('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
      var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
      $msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

      $hover.hover(
      function()
      $hover.showInfoMessage('',
      messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
      transient: false,
      position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
      dismissable: false,
      relativeToBody: true
      );
      ,
      function()
      StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();

      );
      );
      );
      Jan 29 at 18:33


      This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          24














          && means to run it if the previous command was successful. In Unix that generally means exit status 0.



          $ ls barfoofba && echo "This will not be echo'd"
          ls: cannot access 'barfoofba': No such file or directory
          $ ls bar && echo "This will be echo'd"
          This will be echo'd


          In the first instance, ls did not succeed, so it exited with a non-zero exit status, and bash did not run the second command.



          In the second example, I ls'd a existing file, so ls exited with 0 as exit status, and the command was executed.



          If you want to run commands unconditionally, e.g. not dependent on the result of the first, you may separate them with ; like this



           command1; command2; command3 


          and so forth.



          Thus you may do



          ls -lR ; sleep 4 ; gnome-terminal


          In addition to && and ; you have || which is the opposite of &&: Only run the command if the previous command failed with a non-zero exit status. If the first command succeeds, the next will not be executed. If it fails, the next will be executed.



          So in short:




          • &&: Run if preceding command exited with 0


          • ;: Run unconditionally


          • ||: Run if preceding command exited with a non-zero exit status.


          • &: Run both commands in paralell, the first in background and second in foreground.





          share|improve this answer




















          • 6





            I think of it like 0 means SUCCESS which is like true.

            – Jason Goemaat
            Jan 29 at 0:00






          • 4





            @KodosJohnson In the C world, 0 means success because non-zero means an error, and there could be hundreds of error codes (see error.h). Happy return codes are all alike...

            – chrylis
            Jan 29 at 2:48






          • 3





            @AbhishekKamal No, I can't try on my machine. ls -lR should work, but it might fail if it for instance hits one directory it doesn't have permissions to look in. For instance will ls -lR / always fail...

            – vidarlo
            Jan 29 at 5:53






          • 2





            @JonBentley The "echo" in "echo'd" is the name of a command, not an English verb, even if it happens to be spelled the same, so it's somewhat open to question how it should be conjugated. This is more obvious if you pick other commands: what would the past tense of ls be, for instance?

            – IMSoP
            Jan 29 at 15:29






          • 2





            @chrylis: No, the point is exactly that "0 for true" is not how it is "in the C world". In the C programming language, conditionals (and the logical operators) consider 0 to be false and everything else to be true. The convention for process exit codes in the shell is exactly the opposite. -- Even though both C and the shell are both parts of a larger Unix tradition.

            – Henning Makholm
            Jan 29 at 16:55


















          12














          The command ls -lR exited with an exit-status different than zero, so the following commands have not been executed. Most probably ls was unable to open a subdirectory. It didn't happen in your first command because you didn't use the -R-option.



          From man bash:



           command1 && command2
          command2 is executed if, and only if, command1 returns an exit status
          of zero.


          From man ls:



          Exit status:
          0 if OK,
          1 if minor problems (e.g., cannot access subdirectory)
          2 if serious trouble (e.g., cannot access command-line argument).





          share|improve this answer























          • Thanks @mook765, Your answer is perfect according to my question.. I cleared my confusion

            – Abhishek Kamal
            Jan 29 at 1:50











          • According to your answer, when i run ls -lR && sleep 4 && gnome-terminal with sudo, it successfully runs.

            – Abhishek Kamal
            Jan 29 at 1:52


















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          24














          && means to run it if the previous command was successful. In Unix that generally means exit status 0.



          $ ls barfoofba && echo "This will not be echo'd"
          ls: cannot access 'barfoofba': No such file or directory
          $ ls bar && echo "This will be echo'd"
          This will be echo'd


          In the first instance, ls did not succeed, so it exited with a non-zero exit status, and bash did not run the second command.



          In the second example, I ls'd a existing file, so ls exited with 0 as exit status, and the command was executed.



          If you want to run commands unconditionally, e.g. not dependent on the result of the first, you may separate them with ; like this



           command1; command2; command3 


          and so forth.



          Thus you may do



          ls -lR ; sleep 4 ; gnome-terminal


          In addition to && and ; you have || which is the opposite of &&: Only run the command if the previous command failed with a non-zero exit status. If the first command succeeds, the next will not be executed. If it fails, the next will be executed.



          So in short:




          • &&: Run if preceding command exited with 0


          • ;: Run unconditionally


          • ||: Run if preceding command exited with a non-zero exit status.


          • &: Run both commands in paralell, the first in background and second in foreground.





          share|improve this answer




















          • 6





            I think of it like 0 means SUCCESS which is like true.

            – Jason Goemaat
            Jan 29 at 0:00






          • 4





            @KodosJohnson In the C world, 0 means success because non-zero means an error, and there could be hundreds of error codes (see error.h). Happy return codes are all alike...

            – chrylis
            Jan 29 at 2:48






          • 3





            @AbhishekKamal No, I can't try on my machine. ls -lR should work, but it might fail if it for instance hits one directory it doesn't have permissions to look in. For instance will ls -lR / always fail...

            – vidarlo
            Jan 29 at 5:53






          • 2





            @JonBentley The "echo" in "echo'd" is the name of a command, not an English verb, even if it happens to be spelled the same, so it's somewhat open to question how it should be conjugated. This is more obvious if you pick other commands: what would the past tense of ls be, for instance?

            – IMSoP
            Jan 29 at 15:29






          • 2





            @chrylis: No, the point is exactly that "0 for true" is not how it is "in the C world". In the C programming language, conditionals (and the logical operators) consider 0 to be false and everything else to be true. The convention for process exit codes in the shell is exactly the opposite. -- Even though both C and the shell are both parts of a larger Unix tradition.

            – Henning Makholm
            Jan 29 at 16:55















          24














          && means to run it if the previous command was successful. In Unix that generally means exit status 0.



          $ ls barfoofba && echo "This will not be echo'd"
          ls: cannot access 'barfoofba': No such file or directory
          $ ls bar && echo "This will be echo'd"
          This will be echo'd


          In the first instance, ls did not succeed, so it exited with a non-zero exit status, and bash did not run the second command.



          In the second example, I ls'd a existing file, so ls exited with 0 as exit status, and the command was executed.



          If you want to run commands unconditionally, e.g. not dependent on the result of the first, you may separate them with ; like this



           command1; command2; command3 


          and so forth.



          Thus you may do



          ls -lR ; sleep 4 ; gnome-terminal


          In addition to && and ; you have || which is the opposite of &&: Only run the command if the previous command failed with a non-zero exit status. If the first command succeeds, the next will not be executed. If it fails, the next will be executed.



          So in short:




          • &&: Run if preceding command exited with 0


          • ;: Run unconditionally


          • ||: Run if preceding command exited with a non-zero exit status.


          • &: Run both commands in paralell, the first in background and second in foreground.





          share|improve this answer




















          • 6





            I think of it like 0 means SUCCESS which is like true.

            – Jason Goemaat
            Jan 29 at 0:00






          • 4





            @KodosJohnson In the C world, 0 means success because non-zero means an error, and there could be hundreds of error codes (see error.h). Happy return codes are all alike...

            – chrylis
            Jan 29 at 2:48






          • 3





            @AbhishekKamal No, I can't try on my machine. ls -lR should work, but it might fail if it for instance hits one directory it doesn't have permissions to look in. For instance will ls -lR / always fail...

            – vidarlo
            Jan 29 at 5:53






          • 2





            @JonBentley The "echo" in "echo'd" is the name of a command, not an English verb, even if it happens to be spelled the same, so it's somewhat open to question how it should be conjugated. This is more obvious if you pick other commands: what would the past tense of ls be, for instance?

            – IMSoP
            Jan 29 at 15:29






          • 2





            @chrylis: No, the point is exactly that "0 for true" is not how it is "in the C world". In the C programming language, conditionals (and the logical operators) consider 0 to be false and everything else to be true. The convention for process exit codes in the shell is exactly the opposite. -- Even though both C and the shell are both parts of a larger Unix tradition.

            – Henning Makholm
            Jan 29 at 16:55













          24












          24








          24







          && means to run it if the previous command was successful. In Unix that generally means exit status 0.



          $ ls barfoofba && echo "This will not be echo'd"
          ls: cannot access 'barfoofba': No such file or directory
          $ ls bar && echo "This will be echo'd"
          This will be echo'd


          In the first instance, ls did not succeed, so it exited with a non-zero exit status, and bash did not run the second command.



          In the second example, I ls'd a existing file, so ls exited with 0 as exit status, and the command was executed.



          If you want to run commands unconditionally, e.g. not dependent on the result of the first, you may separate them with ; like this



           command1; command2; command3 


          and so forth.



          Thus you may do



          ls -lR ; sleep 4 ; gnome-terminal


          In addition to && and ; you have || which is the opposite of &&: Only run the command if the previous command failed with a non-zero exit status. If the first command succeeds, the next will not be executed. If it fails, the next will be executed.



          So in short:




          • &&: Run if preceding command exited with 0


          • ;: Run unconditionally


          • ||: Run if preceding command exited with a non-zero exit status.


          • &: Run both commands in paralell, the first in background and second in foreground.





          share|improve this answer















          && means to run it if the previous command was successful. In Unix that generally means exit status 0.



          $ ls barfoofba && echo "This will not be echo'd"
          ls: cannot access 'barfoofba': No such file or directory
          $ ls bar && echo "This will be echo'd"
          This will be echo'd


          In the first instance, ls did not succeed, so it exited with a non-zero exit status, and bash did not run the second command.



          In the second example, I ls'd a existing file, so ls exited with 0 as exit status, and the command was executed.



          If you want to run commands unconditionally, e.g. not dependent on the result of the first, you may separate them with ; like this



           command1; command2; command3 


          and so forth.



          Thus you may do



          ls -lR ; sleep 4 ; gnome-terminal


          In addition to && and ; you have || which is the opposite of &&: Only run the command if the previous command failed with a non-zero exit status. If the first command succeeds, the next will not be executed. If it fails, the next will be executed.



          So in short:




          • &&: Run if preceding command exited with 0


          • ;: Run unconditionally


          • ||: Run if preceding command exited with a non-zero exit status.


          • &: Run both commands in paralell, the first in background and second in foreground.






          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Jan 29 at 16:58

























          answered Jan 28 at 16:46









          vidarlovidarlo

          10.5k52547




          10.5k52547







          • 6





            I think of it like 0 means SUCCESS which is like true.

            – Jason Goemaat
            Jan 29 at 0:00






          • 4





            @KodosJohnson In the C world, 0 means success because non-zero means an error, and there could be hundreds of error codes (see error.h). Happy return codes are all alike...

            – chrylis
            Jan 29 at 2:48






          • 3





            @AbhishekKamal No, I can't try on my machine. ls -lR should work, but it might fail if it for instance hits one directory it doesn't have permissions to look in. For instance will ls -lR / always fail...

            – vidarlo
            Jan 29 at 5:53






          • 2





            @JonBentley The "echo" in "echo'd" is the name of a command, not an English verb, even if it happens to be spelled the same, so it's somewhat open to question how it should be conjugated. This is more obvious if you pick other commands: what would the past tense of ls be, for instance?

            – IMSoP
            Jan 29 at 15:29






          • 2





            @chrylis: No, the point is exactly that "0 for true" is not how it is "in the C world". In the C programming language, conditionals (and the logical operators) consider 0 to be false and everything else to be true. The convention for process exit codes in the shell is exactly the opposite. -- Even though both C and the shell are both parts of a larger Unix tradition.

            – Henning Makholm
            Jan 29 at 16:55












          • 6





            I think of it like 0 means SUCCESS which is like true.

            – Jason Goemaat
            Jan 29 at 0:00






          • 4





            @KodosJohnson In the C world, 0 means success because non-zero means an error, and there could be hundreds of error codes (see error.h). Happy return codes are all alike...

            – chrylis
            Jan 29 at 2:48






          • 3





            @AbhishekKamal No, I can't try on my machine. ls -lR should work, but it might fail if it for instance hits one directory it doesn't have permissions to look in. For instance will ls -lR / always fail...

            – vidarlo
            Jan 29 at 5:53






          • 2





            @JonBentley The "echo" in "echo'd" is the name of a command, not an English verb, even if it happens to be spelled the same, so it's somewhat open to question how it should be conjugated. This is more obvious if you pick other commands: what would the past tense of ls be, for instance?

            – IMSoP
            Jan 29 at 15:29






          • 2





            @chrylis: No, the point is exactly that "0 for true" is not how it is "in the C world". In the C programming language, conditionals (and the logical operators) consider 0 to be false and everything else to be true. The convention for process exit codes in the shell is exactly the opposite. -- Even though both C and the shell are both parts of a larger Unix tradition.

            – Henning Makholm
            Jan 29 at 16:55







          6




          6





          I think of it like 0 means SUCCESS which is like true.

          – Jason Goemaat
          Jan 29 at 0:00





          I think of it like 0 means SUCCESS which is like true.

          – Jason Goemaat
          Jan 29 at 0:00




          4




          4





          @KodosJohnson In the C world, 0 means success because non-zero means an error, and there could be hundreds of error codes (see error.h). Happy return codes are all alike...

          – chrylis
          Jan 29 at 2:48





          @KodosJohnson In the C world, 0 means success because non-zero means an error, and there could be hundreds of error codes (see error.h). Happy return codes are all alike...

          – chrylis
          Jan 29 at 2:48




          3




          3





          @AbhishekKamal No, I can't try on my machine. ls -lR should work, but it might fail if it for instance hits one directory it doesn't have permissions to look in. For instance will ls -lR / always fail...

          – vidarlo
          Jan 29 at 5:53





          @AbhishekKamal No, I can't try on my machine. ls -lR should work, but it might fail if it for instance hits one directory it doesn't have permissions to look in. For instance will ls -lR / always fail...

          – vidarlo
          Jan 29 at 5:53




          2




          2





          @JonBentley The "echo" in "echo'd" is the name of a command, not an English verb, even if it happens to be spelled the same, so it's somewhat open to question how it should be conjugated. This is more obvious if you pick other commands: what would the past tense of ls be, for instance?

          – IMSoP
          Jan 29 at 15:29





          @JonBentley The "echo" in "echo'd" is the name of a command, not an English verb, even if it happens to be spelled the same, so it's somewhat open to question how it should be conjugated. This is more obvious if you pick other commands: what would the past tense of ls be, for instance?

          – IMSoP
          Jan 29 at 15:29




          2




          2





          @chrylis: No, the point is exactly that "0 for true" is not how it is "in the C world". In the C programming language, conditionals (and the logical operators) consider 0 to be false and everything else to be true. The convention for process exit codes in the shell is exactly the opposite. -- Even though both C and the shell are both parts of a larger Unix tradition.

          – Henning Makholm
          Jan 29 at 16:55





          @chrylis: No, the point is exactly that "0 for true" is not how it is "in the C world". In the C programming language, conditionals (and the logical operators) consider 0 to be false and everything else to be true. The convention for process exit codes in the shell is exactly the opposite. -- Even though both C and the shell are both parts of a larger Unix tradition.

          – Henning Makholm
          Jan 29 at 16:55













          12














          The command ls -lR exited with an exit-status different than zero, so the following commands have not been executed. Most probably ls was unable to open a subdirectory. It didn't happen in your first command because you didn't use the -R-option.



          From man bash:



           command1 && command2
          command2 is executed if, and only if, command1 returns an exit status
          of zero.


          From man ls:



          Exit status:
          0 if OK,
          1 if minor problems (e.g., cannot access subdirectory)
          2 if serious trouble (e.g., cannot access command-line argument).





          share|improve this answer























          • Thanks @mook765, Your answer is perfect according to my question.. I cleared my confusion

            – Abhishek Kamal
            Jan 29 at 1:50











          • According to your answer, when i run ls -lR && sleep 4 && gnome-terminal with sudo, it successfully runs.

            – Abhishek Kamal
            Jan 29 at 1:52
















          12














          The command ls -lR exited with an exit-status different than zero, so the following commands have not been executed. Most probably ls was unable to open a subdirectory. It didn't happen in your first command because you didn't use the -R-option.



          From man bash:



           command1 && command2
          command2 is executed if, and only if, command1 returns an exit status
          of zero.


          From man ls:



          Exit status:
          0 if OK,
          1 if minor problems (e.g., cannot access subdirectory)
          2 if serious trouble (e.g., cannot access command-line argument).





          share|improve this answer























          • Thanks @mook765, Your answer is perfect according to my question.. I cleared my confusion

            – Abhishek Kamal
            Jan 29 at 1:50











          • According to your answer, when i run ls -lR && sleep 4 && gnome-terminal with sudo, it successfully runs.

            – Abhishek Kamal
            Jan 29 at 1:52














          12












          12








          12







          The command ls -lR exited with an exit-status different than zero, so the following commands have not been executed. Most probably ls was unable to open a subdirectory. It didn't happen in your first command because you didn't use the -R-option.



          From man bash:



           command1 && command2
          command2 is executed if, and only if, command1 returns an exit status
          of zero.


          From man ls:



          Exit status:
          0 if OK,
          1 if minor problems (e.g., cannot access subdirectory)
          2 if serious trouble (e.g., cannot access command-line argument).





          share|improve this answer













          The command ls -lR exited with an exit-status different than zero, so the following commands have not been executed. Most probably ls was unable to open a subdirectory. It didn't happen in your first command because you didn't use the -R-option.



          From man bash:



           command1 && command2
          command2 is executed if, and only if, command1 returns an exit status
          of zero.


          From man ls:



          Exit status:
          0 if OK,
          1 if minor problems (e.g., cannot access subdirectory)
          2 if serious trouble (e.g., cannot access command-line argument).






          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Jan 28 at 16:51









          mook765mook765

          4,16421332




          4,16421332












          • Thanks @mook765, Your answer is perfect according to my question.. I cleared my confusion

            – Abhishek Kamal
            Jan 29 at 1:50











          • According to your answer, when i run ls -lR && sleep 4 && gnome-terminal with sudo, it successfully runs.

            – Abhishek Kamal
            Jan 29 at 1:52


















          • Thanks @mook765, Your answer is perfect according to my question.. I cleared my confusion

            – Abhishek Kamal
            Jan 29 at 1:50











          • According to your answer, when i run ls -lR && sleep 4 && gnome-terminal with sudo, it successfully runs.

            – Abhishek Kamal
            Jan 29 at 1:52

















          Thanks @mook765, Your answer is perfect according to my question.. I cleared my confusion

          – Abhishek Kamal
          Jan 29 at 1:50





          Thanks @mook765, Your answer is perfect according to my question.. I cleared my confusion

          – Abhishek Kamal
          Jan 29 at 1:50













          According to your answer, when i run ls -lR && sleep 4 && gnome-terminal with sudo, it successfully runs.

          – Abhishek Kamal
          Jan 29 at 1:52






          According to your answer, when i run ls -lR && sleep 4 && gnome-terminal with sudo, it successfully runs.

          – Abhishek Kamal
          Jan 29 at 1:52



          Popular posts from this blog

          How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

          Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

          How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?