Re: POSIX shell; bash ash pdksh & /bin/sh
>>"Alex" == <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Alex> The argument of backward compatibility is a strong
Alex> one. Backward compatibility is a good thing. But we already
Alex> have an example of an OS which tries to be backward compatible
Alex> at all cost - including all its bugs and "excess baggage" of
Alex> this OS is enormous. While we probably all agree that size of
Alex> the installed operating environment with all bells and whistles
Alex> will grow with time, it is very important to retain ability to
Alex> boot the system with only minimal (and small) configuration.
Yes, very true. We should then make sure that the essential
flag is given very, very seldom. The resona is that once given, the
essential flag is very hard to get rid off -- and certainly should
not be removed on a whim. I do not think we are very bloated with
essential packages at the moment; but Alex ir correct: we should be
very strict about essentiality.
I certainly do not think we are in the same situation that
Alex alludes to (bug-for-bug compatibility).
__> egrep ^Package /var/lib/dpkg/available | wc -l
__> perl ~/find_pkg.pl '^Essential:' | grep ^Package | wc -l
__> perl -e 'print 26.0/2324.0, "\n"'
__> perl ~/find_pkg.pl '^Essential:' | grep ^Package
HOW TO PROVE IT, PART 3 proof by obfuscation: A long plotless
sequence of true and/or meaningless syntactically related statements.
proof by wishful citation: The author cites the negation, converse,
or generalization of a theorem from the literature to support his
claims. proof by funding: How could three different government
agencies be wrong? proof by eminent authority: 'I saw Karp in the
elevator and he said it was probably NP- complete.'
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com