On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 12:12:57PM +0000, matt wrote:
> > You miss the point entirely.
>
>This might be petty but, no Kris, you missed the point.
>
>If you want further proof, see rc(1) BUGS

I never said that rc(1) was perfect. I'm all for rewriting it, and 
fixing bugs. I'm not for breaking its syntax, though. It makes far more 
sense to leave rc as rc(1) and to write a new shell which deals with the 
shortcomings of rc. This is not comprable to writing a new os, and it 
gives us far more freedom. If the Inferno people had decided to 'update' 
mash instead of writing sh(1), it would have been grossly unfortunate, 
because Inferno's shell is probably the best shell I've come across.

And if rc is to have such a massive revamping, there's no good reason to 
keep calling it rc.

-- 
Kris Maglione

The faster the plane,
the narrower the seats.