Re: qshell, ls, sort by size

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.