Re: qshell, ls, sort by size

[Scott Klement <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I can't disagree with you enough.  Standards should be chosen by a team 
of engineers who have studied the subject and understand what's best. 
They should not be decided by throwing all possibilities to the 
multitudes and letting it be decided by popularity.

If you say GNU is the de-facto standard because it's used on Linux, and 
Linux has the most installations of any type of Unix...    then you 
really have to say that Windows is the standard operating system, since 
it also has the most installations, and therefore these commands 
shouldn't mimic Unix at all, they should mimic DOS. (I'm just taking 
your argument one step further.)

There are standards in Unix -- follow them.

James Rich wrote:
> This is a case where I think the ubiquity of the GNU version of ls would 
> qualify it as the "standard".  I don't have any hard numbers for the 
> number of installations using the GNU ls vs. other versions, but I'm 
> guessing GNU has the upper hand.  Of course GNU isn't the official 
> standard, but I personally consider GNU to be "the standard way of doing 
> things" now.  I would like to see IBM adopt the GNU ls.