Re: cli options

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Dexter Filmore wrote:

> > 
> > No, but it helps explain why things are the wayy they are. If you want
> > consistent command line options, you're more likely to find them in OSs that
> > have been developer "all under one roof" - e.g. BSD or Solaris. I don't
> 
> by the way: i always here "one BSD" - OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD. Sure,
> FreeBSD seems to have attracted the largest croud, but how about the other
> two?

>From what I gather, they have more in common than the various Linux distros.
Open is focussed on security, Net on portability, and Free on being
competitive with Linux on x86 PCs.

> > think it would possible to achieve the same, with Linux, from where it is
> > now without a single distro vendor putting a lot of tedious work (which
> > needs to be paid for, somehow), forking packages that won't accept their
> > changes, and accepting they'll be incompatible in numerous ways with "every
> > other Linux".
> > 
> > I can't see it happening.
> 
> The Linux Standard Base might me a good approach if the definitions are sane.
> And here is where it might profit from the open src idea: everybody can
> contribute and have a look at it.
> No matter how loud the geeks are yelling at me, Linux *does* need some
> standards.
> (And more GUIs :) )

I think you'll find it impossible to force/convince such a disparate group
of developers to agree on how to handle command line argument parsing, which
was why I suggested a distro vendor doing it. That /could/ happen, but you
probably won't get it (easily) for free.

> dxf

Best Regards,
Alex.
-- 
Alex Butcher      Brainbench MVP for Internet Security: www.brainbench.com
Bristol, UK                      Need reliable and secure network systems?
PGP/GnuPG ID:0x271fd950                         <http://www.assursys.com/>