On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 08:45:40PM +1100, Scott Howard wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 11:50:02AM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > I mean, why should all these companies employ someone to maintain `ls' (or
> > similiar) when a better, free version is already available.
>
> Where do I start...
> * Because they need to support it (try doing that without forking!)
all the linux support companies seem to have worked out a way to avoid
forking.. (or at least cope with it where necessary)
> * Because they need to stick to Standards (damn, there's that word again)
.. except that most of the vendor tools don't stick to standards. the
gnu tools are usually much closer to POSIX than the ancient vendor
tools.
> * Because, in more than a few cases, the non-GNU is better.
the gist of this thread would seem to suggest that even "more than a
few" may be a little too generous
i've been getting carried away with autoconf. making everything
portable to all versions of weird os's. allowing compiling on windows,
non-posix systems, non-ansi systems, etc, etc.
i'm sick of it. now i'm assuming posix (or glibc where posix isn't
particularly useful). if anyone else wants it, they/i can implement
their missing pieces. getting useful semantics out of some ancient,
barely-unix AIX system is ceasing to be that important.
--
- Gus
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
