From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from harvard.harvard.edu ([128.103.1.1]) by archone.tamu.edu with SMTP id <45341>; Fri, 14 Feb 1992 11:50:53 -0600
Received: by harvard.harvard.edu (5.54/a0.25)
	(for rc@archone.tamu.edu) id AA27453; Fri, 14 Feb 92 12:45:43 EST
Received: from gatech.UUCP (uucp.gatech.edu) by gatech.edu (4.1/Gatech-9.1)
	id AA16568 for archone.tamu.edu!rc; Fri, 14 Feb 92 12:44:54 EST
Received: from skeeve.UUCP by gatech.UUCP (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA00913; Fri, 14 Feb 92 12:43:32 EST
Received: by skeeve.ATL.GA.US (smail2.5)
	id AA02617; 14 Feb 92 12:37:14 EST (Fri)
From: gatech!skeeve!arnold@harvard.harvard.edu (Arnold D. Robbins)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1992 11:37:12 -0600
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (6.5.6 6/30/89)
To: Byron Rakitzis <byron@archone.tamu.edu>
Subject: gnu bashing - not!
Cc: rc@archone.tamu.edu
Message-Id: <9202141237.AA02617@skeeve.ATL.GA.US>

> From: Byron Rakitzis <byron@archone.tamu.edu>
> To: rc@archone.tamu.edu
> Subject: GNU test
> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1992 11:15:56 -0600
> 
> Rather than bash GNU for no good reason, why not get the facts straight?
> They may write ugly code, but they write it all the same, and it's out
> there just for the asking.

I apologize for giving people the wrong impression --- I was not bashing GNU
at all (I'm one of the people doing GNU Awk, for heaven's sake).  I *was*
bashing on bash, but this is the rc mailing list, where small is beautiful,
and bash is neither.

There are, or course, some excellent GNU programs, and I use many of them.

And I probably should have looked at shellutils, but my poor home machine
doesn't have an internet connection (yet :-).  Apologies again; last word
on the subject from me.

Arnold