Re: Password file with over 3000 users.
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 05:44:40AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 05:39:29PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > in short, don't do unneccessary harm and don't violate the principle
> > of least surprise.
> This is *exactly* one of the things that they are trying to fix.
no, it's not. if it was, then they wouldn't be making the proposal.
> Don't you think it would be surprising to both parties if I write a
> /bin/sh script (using bashism which go unnoticed on my Debian system)
> and then give to someone running BSD, where it does not work?
no, i don't.
a person expects debian and *bsd (and solaris and aix and ......) to be
they DON'T expect one debian system to be that different to another,
depending on when it was built or when it was last upgraded.
> I would say that is a huge surprise.
i regularly have to modify scripts written on one *nix-like system so
that they will work on another. it's not in the least bit surprising. it
and it's not just bashisms, almost all of the standard utilities (incl.
awk, sed, grep, cat, tail, find, du, df, nice, ps, time, and hundreds
more) are different from system to system. that's one of the reasons i
install the GNU utilities in /usr/local on any system that doesn't have
them so i only have to change the PATH to get the good GNU versions.
IMO, the GNU versions *ARE* the standard. they're available for every
unix-like systems (whereas, say, solaris' or AIX's or HP-UX's versions
of tools are ONLY available on their respective systems).
craig sanders <email@example.com>