>From: Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>So sprach [EMAIL PROTECTED] am Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 12:27:24PM +0200:
>> What a shame for Linux: You don't need it!=20
>What a shame for you: You don't get it!
Wrong: _you_ did not get it:
>The mktemp binary is nothing more than a wrapper to the C function mktemp,
>which conforms to BSD 4.3, at least according to mktemp(3).
But mktemp does not do anything different from the method I proposed.
>> The main UNIX design goal is not to add useless gicks....
>Define useless... I find it quite useful to have a at least somewhat hard
>to predict filename, instead of just /tmp/xxx.1, /tmp/xxx.2, /tmp/xxx.3...
You did not get it:
1) UNIX security is not done by obscurity but by permissions
2) The difference between my probopsal and mktemp is that it uses
hex (or any different number base) numbers.
mktemp has been designed for a OS with a 14 byte filename limit,
current OS have 255, so thee is no need to use a program that
has only one improvement compared to the shell method: a shorter
filename.
...
>> And it is nice to see how development done on Linux yields in nonportable
>> results without reason.
>And it's nice to see that no progress should be made just because some sh's
>are still in the stoneage.
It is nice to see that people without enough background information tend to
believe cannot distinguish between real progress and a nice but not needed gick.
J�rg
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
