[PATCH] adding two new options to 'cp'
juan.fco.rodriguez at gmail.com
Mon Jul 31 15:47:25 UTC 2006
On 7/31/06, Mike Meyer <mwm-keyword-freebsdhackers2.e313df at mired.org> wrote:
> In <44CE199C.2020500 at centtech.com>, Eric Anderson <anderson at centtech.com>
> > On 07/31/06 09:11, Mike Meyer wrote:
> > > In <44CE03D2.2050803 at centtech.com>, Eric Anderson <
> anderson at centtech.com> typed:
> > >> The patch doesn't change any current behavior, nor should it be
> > >> by anyone not looking for it. However, it is useful, and it does
> > >> our cp work just like the GNU cp, which eases the migration path for
> > >> linux->FreeBSD users.
> > > Is emulating Linux behavior that good an idea? I mean, if I want
> > > Linux, I can download and install a copy. The joke about "Linux is for
> > > people who hate Windows; FreeBSD is for people who love Unix" is funny
> > > to me *because* it seems to capture the difference between the two
> > > systems so accurately. I like Unix/BSD because I feel like the
> > > developers respect the user, and are willing to let the user do pretty
> > > much anything they need to do, even if there's no obvious reason for
> > > them to want that. I detest Windows because the developers treat the
> > > the user like an idiot, and write software that does things the way
> > > they think the user should want to do them - and make it impossible to
> > > do things that the developers don't think users would ever need/want
> > > to do. Linux seems to have more of the latter attitude than the
> > > former. [And no, I don't think this patch has that attitude; I just
> > > don't think that "that's how linux does it" is a valid argument:
> > > freebsd isn't linux.]
> > The reasoning was not simply to make it like linux, that's just a side
> > effect.
> That doesn't make the "to makes it more like Linux" argument a good
> reason to change FreeBSD.
> > >> I suppose I'm just missing the reason *not* to commit such a simple
> n> >> useful set of options.
> > > Feature bloat. Or, more verbosely, this doesn't add any new
> > > functionality to the system, while adding things that we would rather
> > > minimize.
> > This is a really funny reason not to. Honestly, if you believe that,
> > that you probably don't use cp at all, since dd can do it.
> Yes, I believe that. Adding features does *not* necessarily improve a
> system. If you want it added, give us *good* reasons to add it. Lack
> of a good reason not to add a feature is *not* a good reason to add
> the feature.
> Personally, I'm neutral on this change, other than not wanting FreeBSD
> to bloat any more than it already is. Given good reasons, I'd say
> commit it. The reasons you just provided are specious.
> > > If the functionality is all that useful, then people should have
> > > already created shell code to make this functionality easily available
> > > via the tools that already have it. If nobody needs this functionality
> > > often enough to have done that, is it something that we want to
> > > enshrine in compiled code?
> > To me, I read this as saying: "If it was useful, it would have already
> > been done, and since it isn't, it must not be needed by anyone."
> How does "people would have created shell code to make this easy to
> do" equate to "someone would have already added an option for it"? You
> claim that the code provides "useful functionality". If it's useful,
> then people should be using the alternatives frequently. Command lines
> that people use frequently tend to get enshrined in shell scripts, or
> aliases, or shell functions, or whatever. Moving such things into
> commands is a standard path for Unix code, and has been since at least
> v6. So, if you want to take that step, can you show that it's really
> used frequently enough to warrant getting a dedicated option?
> Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org>
> Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.
> freebsd-hackers at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
My GNU version of "cp" has more than 18 options, the FreeBSD
version only has 9.
As I usually work with Linux machines, I'm used to "cp -a" and I have always
hated to have to look up in the FreeBSD's "cp" manual page for the right
options to get the same funtionality. I tend to think
that "-a" is option bloating because it's not really needed, but I see
"-l" as a new feature for "cp" that might be useful. I'm not a unix/linux
expert but when I have to copy something, "cp" shows up inmediately in my
mind (I almost never use "cpio" and I didn't know "pax", for example). To
sum it up, I think "cp -a" and "cp -l" are both useful, the first one
because of compatibility with the large base of Linux systems out there, and
the second one because I think it's a useful feature for the FreeBSD "cp".
This is only my personal experience, though I understand that if you want to
protect "cp" for having more than 10 options, these options shouldn't see
the sunlight :P
More information about the freebsd-hackers