Messages in this thread | | | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: GNU/Linux stance by Richard Stallman | Date | 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/
| |