linux-kernel - Re: Another version of cleanfile/cleanpatch

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706071634470.8762@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Date:	Thu, 7 Jun 2007 16:36:33 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
To:	Oleg Verych <olecom@...wer.upol.cz>
cc:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	kbuild-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Another version of cleanfile/cleanpatch


On Jun 6 2007 21:14, Oleg Verych wrote:
>[]
>> > Many things in XXI century still can be done by tools founded 20-30
>> > years ago. Why not try to?
>> 
>> Because your shell script is unreadable by normal human beings[*]
>> while the perl script for people with a bit of perl fu can read it
>> and fix/modify it.

And because at the end of the day, the perl script might be faster
than the shell script. Yes, UNIX was designed to handle fork-exec
efficiently, thank God. But still.

>> We want tools that can be maintained and enhanced by most people.
>> 
>> [*] Normal human beings are people with same level of shell
>> scripting/sed skills that I have just to put that straight.
>
>In many cases i think, it's limiting one's imagination and expanding
>laziness[0].
>
>In the school algebra (usually) there are many exercises with
>plain-useless equations and formulas you must solve or simplify.
>Guess why? Thus my proposition. ;)
>
>---
>[0] Now, when most UNIX tools done with good quality (courtesy of the
>    GNU project), it's time not to convert programmer's laziness[1] to
>    ordinary one. Why there's one big and slow Bourne again shell, yet
>    to have fast ([d]ash) and tiny one took more time? As result more
>    efforts to remove bashizms...

I prefer bashisms over using a shell [referring to original sh or ksh]
that can't do a sane thing.

>
>[1] Ironically connected to Perl chapter of UNIX Power Tools
>    <http://unix.org.ua/orelly/unix/upt/ch37_02.htm>


	Jan
-- 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/