Dean Brooks dean at iglou.com
Fri Dec 17 20:53:39 UTC 2004

On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 08:41:09PM +0000, phn at icke-reklam.ipsec.nu wrote:

> > Maybe if dig didn't have the world's most convoluted and non-standard
> > options processing, more people would embrace it.
> A great number of un*x commands are "non-standard", reason is that 
> the apps themself that decodes the command line. See that as a 
> degree of freedom, most commands has,in spite of ther non-standard
> approach, a sensitive and logical way of processing arguments.

I've been using UNIX since around 1987.  I'm familiar with the concepts.

The issue isn't that dig was poorly written or violates some official
standard.  I was just making a point that a lot of people resist using
dig because of its arcane and confusing options lists.

Obviously, they are free to keep it as convoluted as they want, but
they also will continue to see resistance from long-time unix users
switching to its use.

> If you don't like it' well the source is there, just change
> according to your needs. Easier is to create a wrapper-script 
> that processes arguments in your favorute way.

Indeed, I do just that.  I just feel badly for those who are
getting introduced to the dig interface for the first time.

Dean Brooks
dean at iglou.com

More information about the bind-users mailing list