Re: qshell, ls, sort by size

[Scott Klement <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hans Boldt wrote:
> Should the fact that qshell isn't quite compatible with Linux be
> considered a bug by IBM? IBM would have to consider what benefit there
> is to changing the ls command. That is, are there hordes of Linux
> applications waiting to be  ported to qshell?

Shrug... I wouldn't mind them adding the -S as an extension, but I'm 
pretty sure they won't, since it would break any existing scripts that 
rely on the current behavior of -S.  IBM has always been committed to 
preserving backward compatibility (as you know.)

My point is that -S isn't "standard."   It's a popular (and, arguably 
useful) extension to -S.  But it's not a standard, and therefore not a 
bug.  A poor design decision?  Absolutely, I'll accept that.  But I 
can't see IBM considering it a bug.

> Alternatively, you suggest that there's an easy way to code shell
> commands in a manner that's compatible amongst all Unix and i systems.

I did no such thing.  I suggested that there's a way to sort by size 
that's compatible amongst Unix and i systems.  I did not say it in the 
generic sense that it would apply to every possible shell command.


> Shall you be the one to try to convince Linux programmers to limit
> themselves to the Posix command switches in order to facilitate porting
> to qshell? Do you want to be asked by your Unix programmer friends
> "What's an iSeries?"

I know a lot of Unix programmers, indeed, I'm one myself.  Perhaps 
15-20% of the work I do is on FreeBSD.  The best programmers, the 
experienced ones who are the best paid of the lot, are the ones who have 
learned how to write portable code.

Every Unix system is a little different from others.  Unix programmers 
get good at writing code that's easy to port to other systems.  They 
take pride in it.