I spoke too harshly anyway. At the start, it looked like just an alias, and I
couldn't figure out why the code needed to be changed, when we could have a script
called ssync, containing (after the interpreter line)
exec rsync $@
. The only reason I could see to put the change into the code would be to change
what's seen in the process table, so some idiot who judges programs by their name
won't kill it.
I personally would rather see spare brain ticks spent on a speeding the construction
of file lists. I wish I had the skills to help.
Tim Conway
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
303.682.4917
Philips Semiconductor - Colorado TC
1880 Industrial Circle
Suite D
Longmont, CO 80501
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 03/01/2001 02:56:02 PM
To: Tim Conway/LMT/SC/PHILIPS@AMEC
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]@SMTP
Subject: Re: should rsync also be called ssync?
Classification:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 01:54:04PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We're having a debate in which some are advocating changing a
> long-established and respected utility name, with the sole purpose of
> placating ignorant, inflexible-minded fools. Did anybody notice this?
Not changing. Just adding an alias.
- Dave
