Unix & Linux Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of Linux, FreeBSD and other Un*x-like operating systems. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is there any case or reason to use "more" unix command instead of "less". As far as I see "less" is "better" in all senses, so does it mean that "more" is a command which has no reason to be used when there's "less"?

share|improve this question
There's also most, which may or may not be installed your local Linux machine. It includes a nice status bar and will decompress gzip'd files automatically. – new123456 Apr 4 '12 at 16:28
up vote 9 down vote accepted

The more command is considerably older than the less command (1978 vs 1983ish). The less command was introduced as a 'backwards more' (because you could scroll up). The more command is part of the OS binaries with most modern unix/linux OSs, while less is maintained externally as an open source project.

I'll often use more on systems with the bare minimum OS installed because less isn't available or installed yet.

share|improve this answer
And back when "minimum" meant a one- or two-floppy rescue system, of course you used a plain more because it was smaller than less. – dmckee Apr 4 '12 at 14:37
I don't trust those newfangled 1983 commands – JoelFan Apr 4 '12 at 16:52
I just looked at what less was linked against on my linux system, and saw libpcre, so I guess less also has fancier searching methods too. – jsbillings Apr 4 '12 at 19:32

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.