Ciaran Mac Lochlainn wrote:
>>From: ilug-admin at linux.ie [mailto:ilug-admin at linux.ie]On Behalf Of
>>Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 5:33 PM
>>To: ilug at linux.ie>>Subject: [ILUG] (un)link
>>I asked the fileutils maintainer why these are needed,
>>and he said it was done for posix compliance.
>> I'm sorry but this is just stupid and just clutters
>>up the namespace even more.
>>>>>> Not to be annoying or anything, but are you for standards or agin them?
> Until LSB becomes a reality, POSIX is pretty much all we have in the way
> of standards covering what commands should/should not be available and
> what precisely they should do. I think two new (albeit redundant)
> commands doesn't really make an assault on the namespace...
>> Flame away lads.
OK, a few points.
1. If you want to write portable scripts, then you
would use ln and rm rather than link and unlink.
Where were these ever used anyway?
2. Obviously being POSIX compliant is good. I'm not
complaining about being compliant, I'm complaining
that the standard seems stupid in this regard.
3. At least the implementation should not have created
2 new files. It just seems wrong.
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!