Re: GNU/Linux stance by Richard Stallman
Khimenko Victor (khim@sch57.msk.ru)
Mon, 5 Apr 1999 16:47:40 +0400 (MSD)
In <7e8ri1$1v0$1@palladium.transmeta.com> H. Peter Anvin (hpa@transmeta.com) 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.
It can be called BUG ONLY if you can show some POSIX specification where
said that true(1) and false(1) must ignore any arguments. Till not shown
otherwise it's FEATURE. You can like or dislike this FEATURE but you can
not clain that it's BUG !
-
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/