Messages in this thread | | | From | "Albert D. Cahalan" <> | Subject | Re: #!perl - alternative path to script interpreters - patch to 2.2 | Date | Sun, 21 Mar 1999 14:01:54 -0500 (EST) |
| |
Alexander Viro writes: > On Sun, 21 Mar 1999, Albert D. Cahalan wrote: >> Alexander Viro writes: >> >>> And script written under Linux and using that feature will break >>> *everywhere* else. Fun, fun... >> >> That would not be a Linux problem. > > Bullshit. Software locked on *any* platform is evil, for a lot of reasons,
It is evil to ignore standard features in favor of proprietary ones, thus forcing software developers to be locked in.
It is not at all evil to provide new features.
Your logic is warped. Was it also bad that BSD added long filename support? Any archive with long filenames would be locked in. I could go on, but this is silly. New features are just fine.
> starting from the fact that it locks the platform in question too. Recall > your own comments re inability to separate /proc/<pid>/ stuff from the > rest of /proc without *major* breakage.
As I recall it, I posted a transition plan.
>>>>> situations when different names are used for different versions of >>>>> aforementioned awk (gawk vs. mawk). >> >> One could have the kernel substitute any pathname for any other >> pathname when executing a script. > > Or you can do it with sed when you install the software.
You "forgot" this bit of my original post:
# ln -s foo bar ln: cannot create symbolic link `bar' to `foo': Read-only file system
Perhaps you think sed will work? Send me a script you like... (it is not physically possible to write to that filesystem)
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |