4 ms·
Because the functionality in this case is a strict superset, regardless of what you're accustomed to. I didn't grow up on GNU either, but the GNU yes does ever
by throwaway09223 5y ago
Because the functionality in this case is a strict superset, regardless of what you're accustomed to.
I didn't grow up on GNU either, but the GNU yes does everything I expect having used other unix systems.
> This isn't something you can quantify and say 'strictly superior' it's all just taste and opinions.
For a complicated tool, sure. But this tool is very simple. The GNU yes(1) accepts 100% of inputs that work on the BSD tool. It does a few additional things too.
- chrisseaton 5y ago> Because the functionality in this case is a strict superset Extra functionality is always better? Then I can fork GNU, add extra junk options, and give you a strictly superior tool? Nonsense. The GNU tools are the Homer Cars of UNIX. Not everyone wants that.
- throwaway09223 5y agoHey, look. As a systems guy myself I understand the aesthetic around clean and simple software. That's a totally reasonable preference. Here's the thing: GNU userland isn't some poorly designed aberration. It's by far the most popular unix userland in the world and is very commonly ported to systems which may do things differently. Almost every other unix has a distro to supply GNU userland tools on it -- no other unix userland can make the same claim. Not everyone wants it, sure. Especially people with perspectives broader than the typical user. Of course. But it's the most popular system in the world -- not some weird never-used prototype. And in the case of yes(1), I think you would have to try very hard to find a reason for a user of the tool to have a negative preference.
- ben0x539 5y ago> Then I can fork GNU, add extra junk options You likely can't, all the possible option flags already have some meaning. <:)