Re: GNU/Linux stance by Richard Stallman
Khimenko Victor (khim@sch57.msk.ru)
Mon, 5 Apr 1999 16:49:54 +0400 (MSD)
In <199904050013.RAA07739@cesium.transmeta.com> H. Peter Anvin (hpa@transmeta.com) wrote:
>> 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.
POSIX cite, please...
-
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/