[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: why aren't gnu utils normalized?
From: |
Rui Maciel |
Subject: |
Re: why aren't gnu utils normalized? |
Date: |
Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:51:04 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KNode/4.3.0 |
Bob Fry wrote:
> As a former user of Solaris and sometimes user of Linux or cygwin, I'm
> puzzled by the continued lack of consistency in the options and
> features of commands. As an example, "join" does not understand a
> numeric field sort. Surely it would not be difficult to add this as
> an option, but it remains much the way it was decades ago.
Could you present a concrete example of that lack of consistency?
> I understand the desire for continuity but couldn't a new set of
> commands be employed with a flag to use a modern, normalized set of
> options? Gnu commands already have the long version but they seem to
> mostly do the same thing as the old short version.
What do you consider to be a "modern, normalized set of options"? Are you
talking about the POSIX standard or some other way some program in Solaris
accepts options?
Rui Maciel