Stupid bash question

[Les Mikesell]

Ralf Corsepius wrote:

>> : [1] http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/gnustandards/gnustandards/standards.texi
>> : 
>>
>> Thanks, Ralf, for enlightening me.  I wrote "new coding standards",
>> above, in response to Stepan Kasal's remark that "GNU Coding Standards
>> now declare ...".  I suppose the latter is literally true even if the
>> Standard was defined in 1992.
>>
>> Of course, with this new knowledge, I will feel as free as a bird to
>> boldly ignore the Standard (in this respect) seeing how several other
>> prominent linux executables (busybox, lvm, dump/restore, halt, to name
>> a few) have been blithely ignoring it for more than a decade.  ½:-)
> Well, of cause it's everybody's freedom to ignore the "insights" others
> have accumulated over many years. But also consider, there are good
> reasons why these recommendations exist and why some people consider
> programs changing their behavior upon program name to be mal-designed.

Why is it any more/less significant as a source of error than anything 
else on the command line, and is it really worth giving up shared-text 
pages when other copies are likely to be executing (like cp/ln/mv)?

And doesn't /bin/sh have some differences with /bin/bash even though 
they are the same - and isn't that a GNU-ism?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com