From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 5 23:13:26 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4745B16A4E1; Tue, 5 Sep 2006 23:13:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F25A243D4C; Tue, 5 Sep 2006 23:13:25 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 36362F93; Tue, 5 Sep 2006 18:13:25 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 18:13:25 -0500 To: Garance A Drosehn Message-ID: <20060905231325.GA17591@soaustin.net> References: <200608281545.k7SFjn6l063922@lurza.secnetix.de> <200609020956.54008.Lucas.James@ldjcs.com.au> <20060902031247.GE749@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20060904192006.GA3292@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <44FD994C.70104@errno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:27:49 +0000 Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Adding a '-D date' option to `cat' X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:13:26 -0000 On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:56:16PM -0400, Garance A Drosehn wrote: > There may already be a dozen ports which do this, but I'm not going to > read through 12,500 port descriptions to find such a trivial tool. I > doubt anyone else does. 15661, but who's counting (OK, maybe I am). Your point about our 'port browse' situation being suboptimal is a valid one, though. > It would be less work to write my own crappy script. And that's the glory of Unix: your "neccessity" is my "crappy script". And that's why we fight against bloat. This may seem trivial to you, but the idea of "add options to basic programs" is part of the mindset that leads to bewildering things like gcc and OpenOffice.org. I am not using hyperbole: the ability to say "we are not going to add Feature X" is what distinguishes good engineering from bloatware. > And given the features *already* in `cat', which even the purists > know they can not remove Because of POLA: once a feature is added, you have to assume that some script, somewhere, uses it. Even with multi-year deprecation warnings for things that turn out to be bad ideas, people still howl when you turn that functionality off. > I remain convinced that this is the most-helpful course of action for > our freebsd users, even if it isn't Pure1980sUnix(TM). Reasonable people disagree here. My interpretation of the original Unix philosophy (often forgotten in the morass of bloatware floating around on the 'net) is "small tools which are easily understood and can be combined and extended". That philosophy is what keeps me interested in Unix rather than one of the more "popular" approaches. mcl