Xref: utzoo alt.sources:146 comp.os.minix:2534
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!mejac!decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!rutgers!iuvax!bsu-cs!dhesi
From: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi)
Newsgroups: alt.sources,comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Public Domain version of: yes(1)
Summary: Very useful for some people
Keywords: Free Software
Message-ID: <2561@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Date: 5 Apr 88 02:47:48 GMT
References: <Apr.1.21.15.54.1988.3010@eagles.rutgers.edu> <26369@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
Reply-To: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi)
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana
Lines: 31

As you all know, some UNIX users alias "rm" to "rm -i", even though
this is unwise.

Once you alias "rm" to "rm -i", deleting files becomes a hassle.  So
you can now do

     rm < yes

to delete specified files without having to type y for each file.

Thus for some people yes(1) serves a valuable purpose.  We should not
make fun of them.  No doubt the Berkeley programmers had such uses in
mind when they thoughtfully decided to include yes(1) as part of the
standard 4.xBSd distribution, so that we would not have to depend on
unsupported, possibly unreliable public domain versions.

We should not make fun of the fact that the source for yes(1) as
supplied with 4.xBSD is proprietary.  AT&T has spent many millions of
dollars developing UNIX, and Berkeley has used this source code to
create 4.xBSD.  Thus it is only fair that if you want Berkeley's
version of yes(1), then AT&T should get its royalty for the UNIX source
that it is based on.  This is why you need an AT&T source license in
order to get the source for yes(1).

We should also not forget that the public domain version of yes(1) is a
clone of the original, and certainly look-and-feel issues apply.
Certainly I see nothing in the public domain version that distinguishes
its behavior from the original.  Come now folks, if you must copy
somebody else's concept, at least throw in a few original features!
-- 
Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi