From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jul 12 14:04:47 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA12823 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 14:04:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from pobox.com (jaresh-112.mdm.mke.execpc.com [169.207.81.240]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA12805 for ; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 14:04:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hamilton@pobox.com) Message-Id: <199807122104.OAA12805@hub.freebsd.org> Received: (qmail 21306 invoked from network); 12 Jul 1998 15:40:08 -0500 Received: from localhost (HELO pobox.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 Jul 1998 15:40:08 -0500 To: joelh@gnu.org cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Improvemnet of ln(1). In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 12 Jul 1998 03:21:40 CDT." <199807120821.DAA01163@detlev.UUCP> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 15:40:08 -0500 From: Jon Hamilton Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <199807120821.DAA01163@detlev.UUCP>, Joel Ray Holveck wrote: [ ... ] } I trust Unix to do what I tell it to. But I don't mind it reminding } me if I may have had one too many as it's doing what I told it to. Ok, but your sample size of one isn't much of a consensus. } > I wouldn't object too strongly to a "-w", as has been suggested elsewhere, } > so long as the alias was not there by default. I would still object a } > little, on the principle that a future version of POSIX might define } > a "-w" argument, causing a namespace collision with the FreeBSD version } > of the command (and thus breaking scripts, .login's, .cshrc's, etc.). } } I generally prefer a 'no-warnings' option over a 'enable-warnings' } option if the warnings don't change the effects of the command. That } is because a user at the keyboard is lazy, and will not, generally, } type the extra options. Yes, we can make aliases, and so on, and so } forth. On the other hand, those who are scared of breaking something } can do the same with the -q (quiet) option I proposed. This is clearly a religious argument, and your religion seems to operate from the premise that people should be protected from themselves. While that's not what you're explicitly proposing in this case, I think that *is* the kind of philosophy that underpins your suggestion, and I suspect that's what some people are objecting to - once we do this, what's the next "little step" we undertake to protect J. Random Luser? } It comes back to my earlier question: Are there going to be more } lossages if we add the warnings, or if we don't? I know for a fact } that I've done the same thing that rminnich described in his original } post. I also know that I've never written a script that this change } would break. Well, from a slightly different perspective, you're arguing for a change. If things are left as they currently stand, there is no POLA factor to consider. You can get what you want without forcing a change upon everyone else, so the bar your argument has to clear in order to make the change goes up by that much more. -- Jon Hamilton hamilton@pobox.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message