Bernhard Voelker wrote:
On 08/25/2014 03:24 PM, Dirk Gently wrote:
I'm talking about adding significant algorithms, not minor tweaks to system calls to take advantage of new services and efficiencies added to the kernel.
And your cite... 1992.. the year is now 2014... that's 22 YEARS without even a tweak.
For a tool whose task [1] is to "Convert and copy a file" (among all implementations), what would you suggest it to do more than today (without bloating the code with functionality already possible with or in combination with other tools)?
[1] http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/dd.html
Regarding the strange synopsis: as you said dd(1) is very old, and
There's nothing "strange" about the truth
all implementations follow the given rule. Therefore, it's simply
Show me one that doesn't.
too late to change how options and operands are specified.
Since shellscripts from Unix systems which call dd are interchangeable with Linux systems which call dd, yes, they are the same.
It's hard enough to kill obsolete uses like e.g. "tail -5" (correctly nowadays: "tail -n 5") which took almost a decade, so changing all
The syntax tail -5 was never removed. Doing so would NEEDLESSLY break a LOT of shellscripts. akulkis@linux-86ja:~/code/class> cat > numbers 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 akulkis@linux-86ja:~/code/class> tail -5 numbers 5 4 3 2 1 akulkis@linux-86ja:~/code/class> which tail /usr/bin/tail akulkis@linux-86ja:~/code/class> tail --version tail (GNU coreutils) 8.21 Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc. License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html. This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Written by Paul Rubin, David MacKenzie, Ian Lance Taylor, and Jim Meyering. akulkis@linux-86ja:~/code/class> Do you have an more fact-free pronouncements to make?
of the options in dd.c is impossible.
Take from last's syntax, and you screw up literally millions of shell scripts. Likewise, dd's command line structure has not been appreciably changed for the course of its existance...because doing so WOULD BREAK THINGS and I have never once, since when I first began working on Unix systems in 1983 *EVER* heard of dd being modified to any extent, let alone to the point of breaking working shell scripts which use it. If you want to claim otherwise, then the burden of proof is on you. Read the man page for dd for Version 7 Unix (circa 1977). dd is not substantially changed. The ENTIRE Version 7 manual (both Volume 1 and Volume 2) is available here. The "man' command looks up things in volume 1, and you will find the dd command in this document http://cm.bell-labs.com/7thEdMan/v7vol1.pdf Volume 2 is tutorials for various programs (such as programming techniques for AWK). http://cm.bell-labs.com/7thEdMan/v7vol2a.pdf http://cm.bell-labs.com/7thEdMan/v7vol2b.pdf The command line syntax for dd is very much UNLIKE typical Unix commands command -a [arg] -b [arg2] .... where 'a' and 'b' stand for single letters and instead in the form of command param=arg param2=arg2 ... because dd was written to implement the IBM mainframe DD command, which functions the same way AND IS CALLED ON THE COMMAND LINE THE SAME WAY. Apparently, you've never worked on any IBM mainframes. I have. DD comes from IBM mainframes. Nobody disputes this except for you.
Have a nice day, Berny
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org