Matt Fahrner a écrit :
> JF Martinez wrote:
> > There is a thing you have to consider:and that is people coming to
> > Unix are not the only Linux usersa nd also there are more than one
> > hundred million people waiting to be "libearted" from Windows.
>
> Yes, I pray for them daily.
>
> > I frankly don't want to acept a thing as standard just because it is
> > in Unix.
>
> Fair enough, but clearly POSIX and SVR4 are "Standards" with a capital
> "S".
>
> > Ptroviding tools Unixers are used to is one thing, putting Linux
> > growth in jeopardy just to please them is another.
>
> Ok, but looking at the particular case that brought this up I don't
> think it, as an example, does put Linux growth in jeopardy. Saying
> "/bin/sh" is POSIX bourne shell only doesn't stop any advancements for
> those who prefer bash. They can put "#! /bin/bash" on their shell
> scripts to get the extra functionality and not be prevented from using
> its advanced features.
>
I agree. But sometimes I tend to shoot first and ask questions later when
someone tells about Linux haviing to conform to Unix standards. Reason is
that someone kept sending me insults during over one month because I had
dared to question sendmail and VI. So now I have thin skin. The other
point is that in many aspects Linux ecological niche is a superset of Unix
niche and for users who are outside this niche we cannot blindly force Unix
solutions upon them. For instance if you think in Linux use for personal
computers (ie your own at home) then you have to remember a personal user
has to solve his problems alone from the start. In case he has to edit an
importnat config file just a couple hours after touching Linux for the
first time do you think VI is the right editor ?(we assume /usr is not
mounted so it is the onlly one left)? VI was designed the user would get
training before having to use it and get experience before moving into
sysadministration. It was not designed for people thrown into deep water
from the start so declarrng it sacred makes sense on y if you concede the
home computer scene to other systems. Unix could not go there (for price
reasons), Linux can but iit needs adapting to this environment.
>
> As it is when someone writes a script with "#! /bin/sh" at the top and
> it uses "bash" or "ksh" extensions it's a sort of lie. It's not a bourne
> shell script, it's a bash script. Its not portable, it's not compliant
> and I don't see how it would hurt to actually force these users to put
> "#! /bin/bash" to make it clear that's what the script really is. I
> definitely can't see how it would hold up "growth".
>
In this I agree, bash makes some adapting if you use /bin/sh but only for
startup files (ie not enough). Ideal would be that if you use say
/bin/posixsh then it can use more than the plain Bourne shell (ie features
accepted by ksh) but no constructs outside Posix.
>
> > And as I said we can expect proprietary Unixes will adopt more and
> > more of the Linux standards just as they dumped CDE /Motiffor
> > Gnome/GTK.
>
> And I hope they do but in the mean time I, and many others, have
> heterogeneous networks to support that require interoperability. This is
> going to take some time and in the mean time we suffer.
>
> > Another point us that many postgraduate Unixers, trained on Linux so
> > they find annoying to have to adapat to proprietary Unixes
>
> Depending on how you look at the definition, the Linux you suggest could
> also be called "proprietary". Though "proprietary" usually is though to
> me "not open" it also to some extent means, "not following standards"
> and these standards are not just defacto, they're well written and have
> gone through considerable due process.
>
But world changes; people change and you have to account for it.
>
> Anyway, I'm not saying that Linux shouldn't go beyond the standards,
> they should. Just every effort should be made (which as of current it
> has) to still be compliant to the standards while giving extended
> functionality. So, if you don't like bourne shell and want to make a
> better one, great, just don't call it "/bin/sh" `cause it isn't.
>
> > while people of the old Unix guard are dying
>
> We're not that old!!!! Please don't kill us off yet. ;-)
>
> > retiring
>
> Or even that old! I'm 34! I wish I could retire though.
I am older than you (42). I grew with mainframes and I met Unix at 33. I
found it fantastic but I was fortunate to no longer be at age you become
fetichistic.
> > or moving to higher rank so their relative numbers are dwindling even
> > on AIX., Solaris and the like. This socilogy shift is one of the
> > reasons there are hints about most vendors will linuxify their
> > proprietary systems.
>
> Ok, maybe that, but mostly I think they're making the shift because they
> see money in it. I'm glad of it though (even though I'm "old").
When Linux was only a students thing there was no money, then in 1997 a
french computer journal noticed that those students had fraduateed, got
real jobs, that they were more familiar with Linux than with normal Unix,
that they were moving to positions of influence and were lobying for Linux
adoption by their companies. One year later all big daatbase vendors
announced they were porting their products to Linux: there was money in it.
>
>
> Just wait, someday even though Linux is great stuff they'll be calling
> what you grew up with and built "crap" too. It will happen. Some
> generation will be talking about all the old "Linux squares" who prefer
> that proprietary old Linux stuff and you'll feel suddenly old at the age
> of 34 too. It's coming, it is.
>
Can happen. In fact there are youngsters who pick BSDs because those
people who are a few years older are using Linux.
JFM
_______________________________________________
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
