Chambers wrote:

> So what you're really saying, is that we need a modern implementation of 
> traditional Unix style tools, distributed as a package.  It wouldn't 
> need a ton of that backwards-compatibility stuff, because all of the 
> included tools are fresh implementations that we know work together.

What I'm saying is that "Unix" isn't a single coherant design. It's 
50,000 random people all doing their own seperate thing, and expecting 
the result to actually function. Which, almost unbelievably, it does. 
But *damn* is it messy...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message