Re: why aren't gnu utils normalized?

[Rui Maciel]

Bob Fry wrote:

> As a former user of Solaris and sometimes user of Linux or cygwin, I'm
> puzzled by the continued lack of consistency in the options and
> features of commands.  As an example, "join" does not understand a
> numeric field sort.  Surely it would not be difficult to add this as
> an option, but it remains much the way it was decades ago.

Could you present a concrete example of that lack of consistency?


> I understand the desire for continuity but couldn't a new set of
> commands be employed with a flag to use a modern, normalized set of
> options? Gnu commands already have the long version but they seem to
> mostly do the same thing as the old short version.

What do you consider to be a "modern, normalized set of options"? Are you 
talking about the POSIX standard or some other way some program in Solaris 
accepts options?


Rui Maciel