[ On , January 22, 1999 at 22:12:34 (-0800), Chris G. Demetriou wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: CVS commit: src
>
> Since when is "we're going to make a utility which has supported
> certain options for N years in our system continue to support them
> when we move to a new version of the utility" a "questionable
> decision," especially when it's fairly easy to do that?

Excuse me, but when does hacking crap into pax have anything to do with
supporting GNU Tar????

> People care about backward compatiblity with what they've been using
> in shell scripts and on the command line for 5 years.

So, they can use GNU tar from an add-on package.  Just give those users
enough warning that they will soon be forced to do so.

Backward compatability doesn't have to mean supporting non-standard
command-line syntax with added bloat in one single all-singing and
all-dancing binary.....

Avoiding the exponential growth of the "backwards compatability issue"
is (just) one of the reasons why I ask why pax wasn't made the default
and GNU Tar erradicated from NetBSD way back when 4.4BSD-Lite was first
introduced.  I may even have suggested it back then, and if not then I
nodded approval when someone else did.

Do you all know what the most common single complaint non-Unix users
level at unix is?  Inconsistency.  4.4BSD has made enormous strides
towards making things more consistent within reason (though not quite as
far as some standards bodies might recommend).  The mere act of
supporting and documenting redundant non-standard options will say to
these people that NetBSD developers just can't seem to make up their
minds about this issue and they'll go off to join the GNU/Linux crowd
where they know what they're getting into because it's painted all over
the front door and shouted from the roof-tops.

-- 
							Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <gwoods@acm.org>      <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>