Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:47:09 +0200 From: "Juan Rodriguez" <juan.fco.rodriguez@gmail.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] adding two new options to 'cp' Message-ID: <96b30c400607310847s1d2f845eo212b234d03f51e9a@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <17614.8289.134373.387558@bhuda.mired.org> References: <200607271150.k6RBoM9p031745@lurza.secnetix.de> <44C8FB65.9020102@FreeBSD.org> <44CE03D2.2050803@centtech.com> <17614.4005.407223.621637@bhuda.mired.org> <44CE199C.2020500@centtech.com> <17614.8289.134373.387558@bhuda.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7/31/06, Mike Meyer <mwm-keyword-freebsdhackers2.e313df@mired.org> wrote: > > In <44CE199C.2020500@centtech.com>, Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com> > typed: > > On 07/31/06 09:11, Mike Meyer wrote: > > > In <44CE03D2.2050803@centtech.com>, Eric Anderson < > anderson@centtech.com> typed: > > >> The patch doesn't change any current behavior, nor should it be > noticed > > >> by anyone not looking for it. However, it is useful, and it does > make > > >> our cp work just like the GNU cp, which eases the migration path for > > >> linux->FreeBSD users. > > > Is emulating Linux behavior that good an idea? I mean, if I want > > > Linux, I can download and install a copy. The joke about "Linux is for > > > people who hate Windows; FreeBSD is for people who love Unix" is funny > > > to me *because* it seems to capture the difference between the two > > > systems so accurately. I like Unix/BSD because I feel like the > > > developers respect the user, and are willing to let the user do pretty > > > much anything they need to do, even if there's no obvious reason for > > > them to want that. I detest Windows because the developers treat the > > > the user like an idiot, and write software that does things the way > > > they think the user should want to do them - and make it impossible to > > > do things that the developers don't think users would ever need/want > > > to do. Linux seems to have more of the latter attitude than the > > > former. [And no, I don't think this patch has that attitude; I just > > > don't think that "that's how linux does it" is a valid argument: > > > freebsd isn't linux.] > > The reasoning was not simply to make it like linux, that's just a side > > effect. > > That doesn't make the "to makes it more like Linux" argument a good > reason to change FreeBSD. > > > >> I suppose I'm just missing the reason *not* to commit such a simple > and > n> >> useful set of options. > > > Feature bloat. Or, more verbosely, this doesn't add any new > > > functionality to the system, while adding things that we would rather > > > minimize. > > This is a really funny reason not to. Honestly, if you believe that, > > that you probably don't use cp at all, since dd can do it. > > Yes, I believe that. Adding features does *not* necessarily improve a > system. If you want it added, give us *good* reasons to add it. Lack > of a good reason not to add a feature is *not* a good reason to add > the feature. > > Personally, I'm neutral on this change, other than not wanting FreeBSD > to bloat any more than it already is. Given good reasons, I'd say > commit it. The reasons you just provided are specious. > > > > If the functionality is all that useful, then people should have > > > already created shell code to make this functionality easily available > > > via the tools that already have it. If nobody needs this functionality > > > often enough to have done that, is it something that we want to > > > enshrine in compiled code? > > To me, I read this as saying: "If it was useful, it would have already > > been done, and since it isn't, it must not be needed by anyone." > > How does "people would have created shell code to make this easy to > do" equate to "someone would have already added an option for it"? You > claim that the code provides "useful functionality". If it's useful, > then people should be using the alternatives frequently. Command lines > that people use frequently tend to get enshrined in shell scripts, or > aliases, or shell functions, or whatever. Moving such things into > commands is a standard path for Unix code, and has been since at least > v6. So, if you want to take that step, can you show that it's really > used frequently enough to warrant getting a dedicated option? > > <mike > -- > Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> > http://www.mired.org/consulting.html > Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > Hello, My GNU version of "cp" has more than 18 options, the FreeBSD version only has 9. As I usually work with Linux machines, I'm used to "cp -a" and I have always hated to have to look up in the FreeBSD's "cp" manual page for the right options to get the same funtionality. I tend to think that "-a" is option bloating because it's not really needed, but I see "-l" as a new feature for "cp" that might be useful. I'm not a unix/linux expert but when I have to copy something, "cp" shows up inmediately in my mind (I almost never use "cpio" and I didn't know "pax", for example). To sum it up, I think "cp -a" and "cp -l" are both useful, the first one because of compatibility with the large base of Linux systems out there, and the second one because I think it's a useful feature for the FreeBSD "cp". This is only my personal experience, though I understand that if you want to protect "cp" for having more than 10 options, these options shouldn't see the sunlight :P -- JFRH
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?96b30c400607310847s1d2f845eo212b234d03f51e9a>