Try tail:

tail -n +2 "$FILE"

-n x: Just print the last x lines. tail -n 5 would give you the last 5 lines of the input. The + sign kind of inverts the argument and make tail print anything but the first x-1 lines. tail -n +1 would print the whole file, tail -n +2 everything but the first line, etc.

GNU tail is much faster than sed. tail is also available on BSD and the -n +2 flag is consistent across both tools. Check the FreeBSD or OS X man pages for more.

The BSD version can be much slower than sed, though. I wonder how they managed that; tail should just read a file line by line while sed does pretty complex operations involving interpreting a script, applying regular expressions and the like.

Note: You may be tempted to use

# THIS WILL GIVE YOU AN EMPTY FILE!
tail -n +2 "$FILE" > "$FILE"

but this will give you an empty file. The reason is that the redirection (>) happens before tail is invoked by the shell:

1. Shell truncates file $FILE
2. Shell creates a new process for tail
3. Shell redirects stdout of the tail process to $FILE
4. tail reads from the now empty $FILE

If you want to remove the first line inside the file, you should use:

tail -n +2 "$FILE" > "$FILE.tmp" && mv "$FILE.tmp" "$FILE"

The && will make sure that the file doesn't get overwritten when there is a problem.

Because that’s how the POSIX standard defines a line:

3.206 Line

A sequence of zero or more non- <newline> characters plus a terminating <newline> character.

Therefore, lines not ending in a newline character aren't considered actual lines. That's why some programs have problems processing the last line of a file if it isn't newline terminated.

There's at least one hard advantage to this guideline when working on a terminal emulator: All Unix tools expect this convention and work with it. For instance, when concatenating files with cat, a file terminated by newline will have a different effect than one without:

$ more a.txt
foo
$ more b.txt
bar$ more c.txt
baz
$ cat {a,b,c}.txt
foo
barbaz

And, as the previous example also demonstrates, when displaying the file on the command line (e.g. via more), a newline-terminated file results in a correct display. An improperly terminated file might be garbled (second line).

For consistency, it’s very helpful to follow this rule – doing otherwise will incur extra work when dealing with the default Unix tools.

Think about it differently: If lines aren’t terminated by newline, making commands such as cat useful is much harder: how do you make a command to concatenate files such that

1. it puts each file’s start on a new line, which is what you want 95% of the time; but
2. it allows merging the last and first line of two files, as in the example above between b.txt and c.txt?

Of course this is solvable but you need to make the usage of cat more complex (by adding positional command line arguments, e.g. cat a.txt --no-newline b.txt c.txt), and now the command rather than each individual file controls how it is pasted together with other files. This is almost certainly not convenient.

… Or you need to introduce a special sentinel character to mark a line that is supposed to be continued rather than terminated. Well, now you’re stuck with the same situation as on POSIX, except inverted (line continuation rather than line termination character).

_{Now, on non POSIX compliant systems (nowadays that’s mostly Windows), the point is moot: files don’t generally end with a newline, and the (informal) definition of a line might for instance be “text that is separated by newlines” (note the emphasis). This is entirely valid. However, for structured data (e.g. programming code) it makes parsing minimally more complicated: it generally means that parsers have to be rewritten. If a parser was originally written with the POSIX definition in mind, then it might be easier to modify the token stream rather than the parser — in other words, add an “artificial newline” token to the end of the input.}