>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jun 20 19:25:32 2002 >> This is _not_ the problem. The real problem is that there _are_ vendors who >> make GNU tar the default and lack hints for alternatives.
>If every vendor on the planet chooses not to include your software, I >would suggest you at least consider that maybe the problem is that your >software doesn't suit their needs. As in they need to make the customers >happy by conforming to the de-facto standard instead of the ANSI standard. It took 5 years of marketing for cdrecord to become part of most OS. Cdrecord is part of the Solaris install package, GNU tar is not! Star is not part of Solaris too, but I am sure that there is a higer propability for star to become part of Solaris soon that for GNU tar. The big problem is that Linux distributions do not include star. But even for Linux there is hope. I started with star marketing a year ago. Let us see where star is in 2-3 years. Star development is visible, GNU tar development stopped about a year ago... >> Star is doing a lot of things in a nice and easy way that could not or only be >> done with a lot of problems whan not using star. This is not only archiving... >> Star is e.g. the only tool on UNIX that is able to 100% compare two file trees >> in only one run. >Then you have to assume that the vast majority of people don't do that... If people would know which of their every day tasks could be done more easy by using features of star, they would not like to miss star anymore. >> >> Instead for unknown reasons, vendors put the non-standard compliant GNu tar on. >The reasons are known, you just don't accept them. > 1. star creates tar files which don't always work right with GNU tar Well GNU tar is buggy. I am not suprosed that GNU tar has problems... Please try yourself and run the Test Suite described in: ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix/star/testscripts/README.quicktest Then you will see that only star passes it and that Solaris is the only other TAR that is very close from being correct. > 2. most people use GNU tar or vendor tar and need a format they can read Star creates the archive format with the most probability for readability because it follows the standard. If people implement, they usually read thestandard as referece.... > 3. most people have zero need or even desire for the features beyond xct Then they should be more happy with star than with GNU tar! Star is compatible with the command line of tar and star is able to switch automatically to GNU tar format when reading such a beast. > 4. almost everyone has scripts which use tar and star uses different > command line syntax and won't work Ifh they have scripts that work with tar, then they will get in trouble with GNU tar. Star is cmmand line compatible with tar, but GNU tar is not. >FSF is a "vendor" for the purposes noted above, works for most users if >more important than complies with a standard people aren't currently >using. > >> I did send a long list of bugs for GNU tar to the maintainers in 1994! >> I even promised them a way to help them to migrate to be standard comforming >> without problems. >As noted, the de-facto standard is widely used, ANSI isn't. Life isn't This is what you believe. It is definitely not true! All TAR archives from commercial sites Like Sun HP, ... are ANSI Most tar archives that contain software packages are in AT&T 1978 TAR format. >fair. By default GNU should read and understand ANSI (and I have a note >from someone at FSF saying they comply with the standard as of 1998 or Wrong. They state a lot. Check yourself it it it true... ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix/star/testscripts/README.quicktest >so). It would be nice to write ANSI as an option, but few people care or >they would use cpio, star, whatever. > >> If they did listen to me in 1994, GNU tar would now be able to understand that >> there is a difference between real TAR archives and GNU tar archives. >I'm sure you used your well-known tact to say this... This is not the first time that I have to clear things up: I was very polite between 1994 and 1997 and then gave up! I lost a lot of time with being polite and noting happens.... >From thinking about the problems, I just found that I never had problems in communication with single developers. They never have been a problem, everything went smootly and relaxed. I only had problems if the programs in question have been official products of FSF or if they were related to the Linux kernel. It seems that people who have a real relationship to the software are interested in fixing bugs and enhancing. People who believe that they are reprenting a big association seem to behave arrogant. >> GNU tar >> would not assume that everything is a GNU tar file even when it clearly looks >> different. GNU tar could be able to write POSIX TAR files by request for 8 >> years. If now somebody said: let us switch create POSIX tar files by default. >By option would be good. By default I doubt. A bad idea! Again: If GNU tar would have implemented automatic format detection and switching in 1994 as star did and implemented POSIX, there would be no more NGNU tar binaries out that do not understand POSIX. If they then switch to POSIX everything works. >Why do you not say this about your favorite Solaris? Or AIX, UniCOS, etc? >They don't use star either? Solaris tar has only two minor problems with POSIX compliance: - It archives more then 12 bits in the mode field But all/most implementions just ignore these superfluous bits. - It does not extract COntigous files, But I never did see any archive before that uses them. Jörg EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) chars I am J"org Schilling URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
