Stupid bash question
khoa at puresynergy.com
Wed Dec 12 09:49:39 UTC 2007
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 00:01 -0800, Dean S. Messing wrote:
>> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> : On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 21:29 -0800, Dean S. Messing wrote:
>> :  http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/gnustandards/gnustandards/standards.texi
>> Thanks, Ralf, for enlightening me. I wrote "new coding standards",
>> above, in response to Stepan Kasal's remark that "GNU Coding Standards
>> now declare ...". I suppose the latter is literally true even if the
>> Standard was defined in 1992.
>> Of course, with this new knowledge, I will feel as free as a bird to
>> boldly ignore the Standard (in this respect) seeing how several other
>> prominent linux executables (busybox, lvm, dump/restore, halt, to name
>> a few) have been blithely ignoring it for more than a decade. ½:-)
> Well, of cause it's everybody's freedom to ignore the "insights" others
> have accumulated over many years. But also consider, there are good
> reasons why these recommendations exist and why some people consider
> programs changing their behavior upon program name to be mal-designed.
I would appreciate explanations or pointers to the reasons why some
people consider programs changing their behavior upon program name to be
I find busybox's use of this mechanism interesting, and can't think
of how this can be a more than a slight nuisance to the uninitiated.
For statically linked executables in disk space critical environments,
busybox's use of this mechanism is rather elegant.
More information about the users