Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!netnews.upenn.edu!dsinc!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!udel!darwin.sura.net!ms!mo.cs.wm.edu!adrian
From: adrian@mo.cs.wm.edu (Adrian Filipi-Martin)
Subject: Re: Undocumented switches? pre-1.1 binaries executable w/ 1.1?
Message-ID: <1994Apr29.191045.27331@cs.wm.edu>
Sender: news@cs.wm.edu (News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: mo.cs.wm.edu
Organization: College of William & Mary, founded 1693
References: <CSHAKER.94Apr25150312@shaker-bsd.cisco.com> <STARK!GENE.94Apr26223518@stark.uucp> <CozLnC.C91@luva.stgt.sub.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 1994 19:10:45 GMT
Lines: 18
In article <CozLnC.C91@luva.stgt.sub.org>, migieger@luva.stgt.sub.org (Michael Giegerich) writes:
|>
|> Woah, I was sure to encounter "undocumented features (?)" only
|> in MS-DOS, but not here in *nix land :-(
Lot's of unix stuff has undocumented features. The big difference is that
they are _typically_ unsupported features to appear in later versions, not
malicious attempts to leverage a market. As a corrilary, undocumented unix stuff
generally isn't useful and often doesn't work completely. Check out something
like gcc. It's full of `em. ;-)
cheers,
Adrian
--
adrian@cs.wm.edu ---->>>>| Support you local programmer,
adrian@icase.edu --->>>| STOP Software Patent Abuses NOW!
Member: The League for -->>| membership info at prep.ai.mit.edu:/pub/lpf
Programming Freedom ->| print "join.ps" for an application