Re: GNU/Linux stance by Richard Stallman
Oscar Levi (elf@buici.com)
Sat, 10 Apr 1999 10:43:02 -0700
On Sun, Apr 04, 1999 at 05:13:07PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin 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.
Does POSIX state that true and false must consume all arguments
without affecting their function? I recognize the utility of having
programs that do this. However, what I'm reading on this thread is
more emotion than reason.
-
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/