Re:The growth of command line options, 1979-Present (2020)
by Athas on Wednesday December 15, 2021 @04:18PM
(#29571756)
While I agree that there's much of the UHHB that is still valid (and what's not valid is still funny), I don't think that's a good example. Modern kill allows you to provide the signal name if you wish. I don't think it's a particularly good criticism of kill that it also allows you to use a numeric shorthand if you wish (even if that shorthand is very popular).
I think the UUHB is mostly worth reading to understand the absolutely dismal state of proprietary Unix in the 90s. It explains why technical reasons contributed to the growth of both Windows NT and GNU.
Re:The growth of command line options, 1979-Present (2020)
by monroeclinton on Wednesday December 15, 2021 @04:03PM
(#29571601)
I don't find the argument about kill convincing. You can use `kill pid` and it will send a SIGTERM signal to the process. The -9 option is only necessary when you want to send a SIGKILL signal. I don't think it is a bad thing that kill gives users the option to choose which signal to send. I only use the -9 option when I want to terminate a process without it being handled.
I disagree. Yes, nobody uses sendmail anymore, filesystems vastly improved and X isn't a resource hog any more. I've reread it some months ago and the main points still hold.
For example the part about `kill`: