Subject: Re: Suggestion: inclusion of the truncate(1) utility into the tree
To: Jason R Thorpe <email@example.com>
From: Andrew Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/22/2000 01:51:48
> > it's not necessary, no, but it *is* becoming rather ubiquitous.
> > freebsd has it, linux has it (of course), and even solaris comes with
> > it now. solaris 8, that is, which is one weird beast. while far from
> > necessary for most things, it's probably one of the few things that
> > almost *anyone* will be installing.
>What do you mean? POSIX sh(1), awk(1), and sed(1) are available
>pretty much everywhere, too. And they're a lot smaller than perl,
well...since you've asked...this is one of my favorite nits.
netbsd's sh != solaris's sh != linux's sh.
sed seems (in my limited experience) to be pretty much the same all
but perl 5.004_04 is the same perl 5.004_04 *everywhere*. the only
thing i have to worry about is if i'm using modules, and since i cut
my perl teeth on perl 4, i don't that many modules. if i do, they're
usually the ones that came with the distribution.
don't get me wrong...i'm not arguing *for* putting perl in the main
distribution (or in with compilers), but i am saying it seems to make
a fair amount of sense to me.
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
email@example.com * "ah! i see you have the internet
firstname.lastname@example.org (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!"
email@example.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."