small bug in who(1) of SVR3

[Greg A. Woods]

In article <18899 at rpp386.cactus.org> jfh at rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes:
> In article <1991Jan13.004843.18650 at zoo.toronto.edu> henry at zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> >In article <18896 at rpp386.cactus.org> jfh at rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes:
> >>... Why should I be forced to... use pipes (ala "who | 
> >>cut -d' ' -f1 | pr -6 -l1) to get the same results as "who -q"?
> >
> >Because they are the simplest and cheapest way to get the desired results?
> 
> How can you possibly say that?  The amount of machine overhead in the
> above case is several times greater than "who -q".  In which sense is
> it "the simplest and cheapest way"?

To follow up on what Geoff already said, one should also note the cost
of a C programmer far exceeds even the accumulated cost of the few
seconds it takes every user to get the exact output he or she wants
each time by typing a short script, and the extra milliseconds
required to execute the script.  BTW, the original script was somewhat
simpler than the ugly SysV example given above.  Besides, the user who
learns to use tools will save ever so much more time in the future.

Yes, lots of thought, or should I say experience, needs to go into
defining the set of available tools and their options.  One thing
which makes me mad is the way vendors blindly grab the source from
AT&T, compile it, and sell it.  What ever happened to the feedback
channel to AT&T?  Why aren't the good things in Research UNIX getting
out?  Maybe this is why people blindly fall in love with BSD.

However, don't, especially in this day and age, equate "simple and
cheap" with "the least amount of memory and CPU".  We have to have a
reasonable balance, sure.
-- 
							Greg A. Woods
woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft}.UUCP		ECI and UniForum Canada
+1-416-443-1734 [h]  +1-416-595-5425 [w]  VE3TCP	Toronto, Ontario CANADA
Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible-ORWELL