On 2011-06-22 13.49, Tobias Ulmer wrote: > OpenBSD specifically and old BSD in general is not true to Unix. From > ksh to billions of options to find and other tools to the entire > networking framework (bolted on with additional syscalls, pseudo devices > etc), nothing of that is Unix (or even -like).
I respectfully disagree. They are most definitely true to the unix spirit. Sure, there are some things that are inconsistently implemented, but it's hard to be stringent at all times. Some tradeoffs may also need to be made over time for performance, usability or other practical reasons. > Here is something to read: http://harmful.cat-v.org/cat-v/ Yes, I remember that debate from back in the day. But it's hardly relevant to this discussion. I've never said that unix can't evolve, that the original "ten command(ment)s" should be set in stone and never change or be expanded. > BSD went through a similar phase as GNU: adding every feature known to > man to the original Unix commands. Have a look at lpr(1) for GNUism in > action. After some time we got a little wiser and stopped adding flags > for everything that was convenient. Sure, lpr is no fun. SysV:s lp is no fun either, for similar reasons. But look at ls or ps, they've "always" had a large number of options, most with perfectly reasonable reasons to exist. There is a difference between the "base" set of utilities, that in essence are extensions to the shell scripting language and more "application"-like system features such as the printer spooler and so on. > Linux, especially with the constant influx of new developers and > commercial interests, hasn't yet cooled down enough to stop messing > around with their "base" system. Very true. But the unix/linux community at large would have been even better off if the two "camps" had had more in common. It's just a pity that didn't happen, that's all I'm saying. I'm not saying there's no talent in the Linux corner, I know there's plenty of good minds there. > However if I got my history right, the improvements of BSD are why people > bought a Unix license and then installed BSD. It was better, it had more > features, networking, usable error messages, better language support > etc. etc. Sure. Not to mention it came with source code, which you only got from AT&T if you had a source license, and those were *expensive*. I was fortunate enough to work for a company that had exactly that source license during the 1980:s, and I learned a *lot* just by reading the code. Wish I still had a copy of it today, for nostalgia. :-) > Are you ready to test my patch where I'm going to remove -exec from > find(1) so you can have your real Unix back? And -r from grep? And... Bullshit, as you so eloquently put it below. :-) find(1) has had -exec since very very near the beginning. I've actually still got an old system alive and running an SVR3 derivative from the early 1980:s, and its find definitely has -exec. (I had to log on to it just to double-check, and sure enough, there it was. :-) ) And grep... I never actually use either the deprecated -r or -R. My fingers are perpetually locked into typing something like "find . -type f -exec grep foobar {} \; -print" so I don't need it. (That is probably because -r didn't exist back in the day, so it never found its way into my autonomous nervous system... And it sort of makes my point - when I first started to learn unix around 1982, what stuck then is still valid today. Unless I'm on a Linux system. There I get around by having a general idea of what to do. (And the lousy state of Linux man pages doesn't help either.)) > Bullshit, you use BSD because just like Linux, it added lots of handy > features while keeping it simple. Linux may overdo it from your and my > point of view, but so does OpenBSD from the POV of some old unix guys. No actually, quite the opposite. I use OpenBSD for two reasons: because of its developers' non-compromising stance on code quality and simply because I'm an old fart and OpenBSD is - by far - the most familiar OS around for me today. In fact I'm just such an old unix guy you're referring to. No beard though. And OpenBSD gets the mix Just Right imo. :-) > The getopt(3) function is inconsistent amongst operating systems and > could use some polish in my opinion. Maybe there are technical reasons > why this feature can't be implemented, but this discussion has certainly > extinguished my curiosity about it. I'm not sure what you mean, but if you refer to the "feature" the OP mentioned of tacking on switches after other arguments in ls, in my mind that's a bug in the gnu implementation. ls semantics have never been like that. Here's a snippet from my old steam computer: ds90$ ls .profile .profile ds90$ ls -l .profile -rwxr-xr-x 1 root sys 252 May 23 1992 .profile ds90$ ls .profile -l ls: -l not found .profile ds90$ _ > Backwards threads like this one prevent people from trying to improve > things, which is the real damage done. > Once they get "discussed" in this manner on misc@, it's difficult to > get even very sensible patches committed. Some developers may have > formed a strong "anti" stance and it takes years to convince them. I really don't think there's any risk of that. First of all, I don't see this thread as particularly "backward", whatever ranting has taken place (from me and others) I feel is well-informed. And I think you give our esteemed developers far to little credit if you think they are going to be negatively influenced by this, at least without adding their own knowledge and experience to the mix. > I'm not specifically interested in the thread starters problem, it's > reasonable to suggest more portable approaches. What got me was the > (imo) baseless anti Linux (and Linus) sentiment. Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I don't feel that my opinions on the matter is baseless, but sure, there are always a different viewpoint to consider. > I love good rants, but every now and then... Anyway, here's my novel, > now I have work to do. >> (Ok, this will be my last novel in this thread, I promise... I just >> seem genetically unable to say things in just a few words.) Sorry. Turned out there was another one in there... :-/ NOW I'll stop. Regards, /Benny -- internetlabbet.se / work: +46 8 551 124 80 / "Words must Benny LC6fgren / mobile: +46 70 718 11 90 / be weighed, / fax: +46 8 551 124 89 / not counted." / email: benny -at- internetlabbet.se
