Seek the difference

Question

Not trying to start a dispute here, but I need clarity:

I ran into this question: How to record bash terminal output without suppressing the terminal output?, in which OP asks how to save terminal output into a file. I therefore marked it as a dupe of: How do I save terminal output to a file?.

Also the accepted answer totally confirms the fact that these questions are pretty much exact dupes, and OP was looking for exactly the same answer(s).

OP however claims that his question: "is more specific to his requirments than that question in that link" because:

the anwsers in that post will fullfill my requirments but is anywhere there mentioned that the hacks will work for bash scripts or any other scripts as well?

I admit that I have no clue what that should mean.

The community seems to understand what he means however, and to agree with him. Literally hundreds of people have passed by, but no one added a close vote. So I have been wondering what is exactly the difference between:

How to record bash terminal output?

and

How do I save the output of a command to a file?

If someone can give me a good one, I will remove my close vote instantly. If not, please vote to close.

For the record

As one would expect with a quite generic question like this, there are more excellent dupe candidates, like:

• Is it possible to show the output on terminal while writing the output of a command to a file?
• How do I log all input and output in a terminal session?

Answer 1

I'll try to give my reasons for not voting the question as duplicate here.

The difference I see between these two questions is -

• The newer question is an specific case of the older question.

To clarify on this topic,

• An answer with either tee or > operator approach was valid for the older question. however for the new question an answer with > is not valid. In fact, if you check the timeline of that question, you'd see that the question was answered first with > approach and wasn't accepted. Instead it was edited to clear the requirement. However, for the older question, the answer with > was accepted way before tee based answer appeared. Check here

Now, A more philosophical question will arise from this,

If a broader scoped question has answers to satisfy a question with narrower scope, Should we close the narrower scoped question as a duplicate?

From my understanding of StackExchange model, I'd say no. That's why we aren't shown the answers in the close votes review queue. We're only shown the questions. For example, If a find a substring question has answers with different programming languages, that's fine. But that would not make a question specifically asking a python solution a duplicate of the prior question.

Because, if you remove all answers from the older question leaving only the accepted Java solution, that would not satisfy the requirement of the newer question and you can't dupe to it.

Hope I made the difference a little clearer here.

Answer 2

I agree that it's a duplicate and see that it's now tagged as such since the only output I expect to see on a bash terminal is output of a command.

Answer 3

Yours truly posted a "potential" duplicate question on Intel Microcode today. But there was "wiggle room" because it also referenced "Unknown:Unknown" which Ubuntu displays on the Additional Drivers screen.

With 2 close votes on file someone posted an answer that is better than all the answers on the dups (IMO). Although I hate to see my question closed I'd love to see the great answer migrated to the accepted original "unique" question. Is it possible to merge answers from duplicate questions into the original?

I like @Zanna comment above for "a better signpost" and I offered that olive branch to @Kerel today to change the question's title.

PS I just checked and there are now 3 votes to close.

PPS I think I figured out "Unknown:Unknown" means "Manufacturer:Model Name/Number"

What are pitfalls of Intel proprietary microcode in Additional Drivers tab?