Stupid bash question

[Karl Larsen]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> 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.  œ:-)
>> 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?
>
    I ran into yesterday a bash blog. It appears to be of the form 
<dsp>=/dev/dsp and I was not aware this is a blog. But then I am not a 
bash user much.



-- 

	Karl F. Larsen, AKA K5DI
	Linux User
	#450462   http://counter.li.org.
GPG DF28 8F18 94F8 D5C6 9E44  163F 7FD1 3D06 C325 DA40