On 09/08/07, Keith Bierman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Aug 9, 2007, at 9:20 AM, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > > > How is printing a warning indicating that a script should specify its > > actual shell instead of assuming the shell bash "denial"? > > You are issuing the warning the poor sod running the script; not the > author of the script (99.9% of the time). That is just irritating, > unhelpful and past evidence demonstrates it only drives people away. > > > > > How is that anymore denial than the whole issue of seg faulting when a > > developer tries to print NULL instead of printing "(null")? > > It is denial in that it was a common idiom, well accepted, and > allowed programs to work harmlessly (so it wasn't Standard compliant; > the standard doesn't require failure, once you step beyond the bounds > of a standard all bets are off; while you can start WWIII that's > hardly going to win you customers). And in that case, it was accepted > by the same vendors system for the preceding many releases, so the > change was viewed as particularly irritating ... especially to poor > users trying to run existing binaries. > > The key bit of denial involved, is that Solaris is not in a position > to be arbiter of style. We are the minority. If we seek to gain > users, we need to be nice to them, not annoy them from the onset. > > Discipline the right people, at the right time and they thank you. > Discipline the wrong people, or the right people at the wrong time > and they shun you.
I think we will have to agree to disagree then. To me, if Solaris simply accepts the "Status Quo" there is no point in using Solaris when I can just use whatever set the "Status Quo" in the first place. The whole reason I started using Solaris was because it did not accept the "Status Quo" that the Linux world has currently established. The only compromise I can see here if Solaris is going to allow developers to get away with "murder" is to somehow invoke a mode whereby strict standards compliance is enforced and expected and when violated causes immediate failure or warnings. However, I can see we cannot agree on this topic, so I digress. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
