> From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:35:35 +0800
> Importance: Normal
>
> What's wrong with "head -n 1"?
Nothing's wrong with it from a standards-compliance point of view.
But I worry that "head -n 1" may not work on some older (pre-POSIX)
hosts, as it did not work on Unix Version 7 hosts. In contrast, "sed
q" did work on those ancient hosts, so I figure "sed q" should be
safer. "sed 1q" should be equally good from a portability viewpoint,
if you prefer.
