> > and because it encourages people to write non-portable scripts
> 
> Any neat feature we add to a command has this problem, e.g. the find
> -0 and xargs -0 change.  It still has value for scripts which only run
> on NetBSD, and it has value if other systems follow our lead.  (Which
> they won't do for market reasons, but which they may do for technical
> reasons.)

Yes, that's non-portable.  However, it has significant value
(it enables scripts using those tools to be secure, or at least much
more secure).

I would argue that the ability to _unreliably_ sleep for a fraction of
a second (and, regardless of the likely behaviour on certain classes
of systems, the guaranteed behaviour is _not_ reliable for any sort of
precision timing) isn't nearly as valuable as the added security which
find/xargs -O can help provide.


cgd