Messages in this thread | | | From | "Khimenko Victor" <> | Date | Mon, 5 Apr 1999 16:49:54 +0400 (MSD) | Subject | Re: GNU/Linux stance by Richard Stallman |
| |
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/
| |