Re: find -lname and -ilname implemented

On Tuesday 26 February 2008 01:06, Alex Zbyslaw wrote:
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2008-02-23 16:48, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This knee-jerk reaction against gnu find functionality baffles me.
The changes are trivial and make FreeBSD more compatible. It is such
an obvious no-brainer that I frankly didn't expect anybody to bat an
eye.

So should I expect similar knee-jerk reactions to the just committed
`finger compatibility' option to implement du -l for hardlinks?

FWIW, a vote in favour of compatibility shims.

It's just a shame that this won't cut both ways - it would be nice, for
example, if Linux find would implement proper units to -atime etc. The
FreeBSD syntax of -atime +12h is so much nicer than -amin +720. Ah
well, can but dream...

I replied to Giorgos and Warner off-list, but (and this is the last time I'll
say it as I'm starting to get boring):

I don't have a problem with compatibility shims. I would hope that the
requirement for them, and also the amount of utility they add, are balanced
against the extra complexity and obfuscation they cause. In the case of find,
already a fearsomely complicated command, I wasn't sure the balance had been
struck - although it turns out that I had misunderstood the purpose
of -lname/-ilname, and I now see that as a useful (pair of) option(s).

What I wasn't thrilled about, and hoped to trigger a discussion of, was the
apparent suggestion that FreeBSD must be Linux-compatible at all costs
because weight of numbers makes Linux and GNU a de-facto standard. That's the
argument which has allowed Microsoft to dictate some really bad software
choices to the rest of the world - and if you doubt the problems caused by
Microsoft software, try adminning a mail server and watching the zombie spam
attacks from compromised Windows PCs.

I do think that where we are having problems because Linux developers are
stuck in their bubble and don't understand the concept of portability, adding
compatibility shims to FreeBSD should go hand-in-hand with filing bug reports
and hoping they realise the world is more than just Linux (possibly a vain
hope) - because there will always be some differences: and after all, it was
the GNU project that came up with autoconf, wasn't it?

Jonathan
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
    ... > By compatibility I mean that different "flavors" are reasonably ... This is not true in Linux. ... like Dances with Crows I found the installation process primitive. ... importantly I couldn't determine if the FreeBSD file system installation ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
    ... while FreeBSD seems to be very popular as a server ... >>> Having used Linux but not FreeBSD, this seems to be the opposite ... >> compatibility is a major goal, ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Is FreeBSD suitable for my thinkpad T61 ?
    ... I found FreeBSD more stable and I want to try FreeBSD. ... another linux distributionon my notebook. ... Can FreeBSD work well with my hardware? ... Compatibility, it seems that FreeBSD lacks support of many commercial ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
    ... while FreeBSD seems to be very popular as a server ... >> Having used Linux but not FreeBSD, this seems to be the opposite ... > compatibility is a major goal, ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Cross platform building best practices (building 6 on 7)
    ... on a 7.x due to gcc4/binutils compatibility issues (please correct me ... No dice (and I'm still debugging why since this binutils ... need to bootstrap my dev environment for 6.x development on 7.x. ... One thing we always strive for in FreeBSD is an upgrade path. ...
    (freebsd-hackers)