Stupid bash question

Khoa Ton 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:
> 
>> : [1] 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.
> 
> Ralf

I would appreciate explanations or pointers to the reasons why some
people consider programs changing their behavior upon program name to be
mal-designed.

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.

Regards,
Khoa








More information about the users mailing list