Skip to main content
explained meaning of CR and LF
Source Link

Windows and MS-DOS use the control characters CR+LF (carriage return, ASCII 13 followed by line feed ASCII 10) for new lines, while Unix uses just LF.

As far as I know CR+LF made sense for systems controlling a real teletypewriter, which has an actual carriage. LF only may make sense for teletypewriter with automatic carriage return, or just as simplification on systems which do not need the physical interpretation of these characters anymore.

Now I wonder why MS-DOS, being a rather recent OS, is using CR+LF while Unix, which was one of the OSes operated from teletypewriters, only uses LF. It seems like it should be the other way around.

Windows and MS-DOS use the control characters CR+LF (carriage return, line feed) for new lines, while Unix uses just LF.

As far as I know CR+LF made sense for systems controlling a real teletypewriter, which has an actual carriage. LF only may make sense for teletypewriter with automatic carriage return, or just as simplification on systems which do not need the physical interpretation of these characters anymore.

Now I wonder why MS-DOS, being a rather recent OS, is using CR+LF while Unix, which was one of the OSes operated from teletypewriters, only uses LF. It seems like it should be the other way around.

Windows and MS-DOS use the control characters CR+LF (carriage return ASCII 13 followed by line feed ASCII 10) for new lines, while Unix uses just LF.

As far as I know CR+LF made sense for systems controlling a real teletypewriter, which has an actual carriage. LF only may make sense for teletypewriter with automatic carriage return, or just as simplification on systems which do not need the physical interpretation of these characters anymore.

Now I wonder why MS-DOS, being a rather recent OS, is using CR+LF while Unix, which was one of the OSes operated from teletypewriters, only uses LF. It seems like it should be the other way around.

Grammar.
Source Link
Stephen Kitt
  • 131k
  • 19
  • 543
  • 502

Windows and MS-DOS use the control characters CR+LF (carriage return, line feed) for new lines, while Unix uses just LF.

As far as I know CR+LF made sense for systems controlling a real teletypewriter, which has an actual carriage. LF only may makesmake sense for teletypewriter with automatic carriage return, or just as simplification on systems which do not need the physical interpretation of these characters anymore.

Now I wonder why MS-DOS, being a rather recent OS, is using CR+LF while Unix, which was one of the OSes operated from teletypewriters, only uses LF. It seems like it should be the other way around.

Windows and MS-DOS use the control characters CR+LF (carriage return, line feed) for new lines, while Unix uses just LF.

As far as I know CR+LF made sense for systems controlling a real teletypewriter, which has an actual carriage. LF only may makes sense for teletypewriter with automatic carriage return, or just as simplification on systems which do not need the physical interpretation of these characters anymore.

Now I wonder why MS-DOS, being a rather recent OS, is using CR+LF while Unix, which was one of the OSes operated from teletypewriters, only uses LF. It seems like it should be the other way around.

Windows and MS-DOS use the control characters CR+LF (carriage return, line feed) for new lines, while Unix uses just LF.

As far as I know CR+LF made sense for systems controlling a real teletypewriter, which has an actual carriage. LF only may make sense for teletypewriter with automatic carriage return, or just as simplification on systems which do not need the physical interpretation of these characters anymore.

Now I wonder why MS-DOS, being a rather recent OS, is using CR+LF while Unix, which was one of the OSes operated from teletypewriters, only uses LF. It seems like it should be the other way around.

might have as well put it in the title
Link
user3840170
  • 25.2k
  • 4
  • 100
  • 160

Why is Windows using CRLFCR+LF and Unix just LF when Unix is the older system?

speling; edited tags
Source Link
user3840170
  • 25.2k
  • 4
  • 100
  • 160
Loading
changed title
Link
allo
  • 1.1k
  • 1
  • 8
  • 11
Loading
Source Link
allo
  • 1.1k
  • 1
  • 8
  • 11
Loading