Re: GNU/Linux stance by Richard Stallman
H. Peter Anvin (hpa@transmeta.com)
Sun, 4 Apr 1999 17:13:07 -0700 (PDT)
> On Sun, Apr 04, 1999 at 11:10:57PM +0000, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Followup to: <19990404155740.A4657@hazel.buici.com>
> > By author: Oscar Levi <elf@buici.com>
> > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> > >
> > > Just did. A ok.
> > >
> > > %^)
> > >
> > > Who's to say what's in a binary executable? The overhead of
> > > implementing a usage message is negligible. In fact, the only excuse
> > > for *not* putting them into small binaries is...code size?
> > > nope...complexity? nope...efficiency? nope...laziness? Bingo.
> > >
> > > Think again Mr T.
> > >
> >
> > It's BROKEN -- it breaks the semantics of true(1) and false(1), which
> > among other things is that they ignore any arguments. Hence it is a
> > BUG.
>
> well, not according to GNU. At least it's documented:
>
> `true' does nothing except return an exit status of 0, meaning
> "success". It can be used as a place holder in shell scripts where a
> successful command is needed, although the shell built-in command `:'
> (colon) may be faster.
>
> Any arguments are ignored, except for a lone `--help' or `--version'
> (*note Common options::.).
>
> -- arvind
>
GNU is broken.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/