From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 43ee925a for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 20:34:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id D2B019BC0F; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 06:34:19 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C621947D6; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 06:34:09 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kilonet.net header.i=@kilonet.net header.b="lhIaLUsL"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 1184B947D6; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 06:34:07 +1000 (AEST) Received: from p3plsmtpa09-04.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa09-04.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [173.201.193.233]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B27B947B9 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 06:34:06 +1000 (AEST) Received: from medusa.kilonet.net ([72.69.11.97]) by :SMTPAUTH: with ESMTPA id B37tiIONP1Fl5B37tiImOV; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 13:34:06 -0700 Received: from [199.89.231.101] (ender.kilonet.net [199.89.231.101]) by medusa.kilonet.net (8.14.8/8.15.1) with ESMTP id x8JKY4JA001883 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 16:34:05 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kilonet.net; s=default; t=1568925245; bh=dh5e/y2WcE6JqaBcEAt2OPHXMua0jeIQX6xF46bTSuA=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=lhIaLUsLVn2yYEkYYUGQgC3hlss2ArsrtzpI07mlsoADTI5+gXTC/9E2wbvMitIB2 BnNZB1EIkXp+ca8kWlf0GXX3HW8gnNaxMBZLv2GEcA7Wj6pL8IRGX5LkcFYwQMNSSc LWcrRkbkzQ4gGch+5RaiCz5pbEgOqQlAf5MmshH8= To: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org References: <1568919029.18595.for-standards-violators@oclsc.org> <20190919201833.GN2046@mcvoy.com> From: Arthur Krewat Message-ID: <19f9233f-6f54-46eb-116f-990660ca2a76@kilonet.net> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 16:33:56 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190919201833.GN2046@mcvoy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfPrGHZELi9GEg9gyBKtNcoFUQfYfVJB86nfkAYZoEgznha9jFxFqix4B1AtyRui9f6Y0syg1YGRHmoIHwfgqA+LPCsXjl31Asi+Z+IF0FwO5/WRGzU2U Qar9SsESUXKaLSyatDGhRZ4SS1B/bodA0ehpnpZiqsxU09OLVRwYcwTj Subject: Re: [TUHS] [OT] Re: earliest Unix roff X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" Serious question: Which is better, creating a whole new binary to put in /usr/bin to do a single task, or add a flag to cat? Which is better, a proliferation of binaries w/standalone source code, or a single code tree that can handle slightly different tasks and save space? :) art k. PS: Using argv[0] (as in a symbolic link) to alter a program's behavior instead of using flags is cheating on the above test. On 9/19/2019 4:18 PM, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 03:00:16PM -0400, Nemo Nusquam wrote: >> On 09/19/19 14:50, Norman Wilson wrote (in part): >>> So it's true that BSD added needless (in my humble but correct >>> opinion) options, but not that it had none before they touched it. >>> Unless all those other programs were stuffed into cat in an earlier >>> Berkeley system, but I don't think they were. >> Who said "Cat came back from Berkeley waving flags."? > Rob Pike >