If you think that that does not, similarly, generate long "But it breaks my scripts!" "Your scripts were wrong." "You should have named the right shell interpreter." "BSD commands are insane." "GNU commands are non-standard." "Are you going to fix all of the scripts that currently rely upon this?" "But this is the de facto standard!" "Have you forgotten about this large userbase over there?" "I don't care what you say, as far as I am concerned this is bash." "I don't care what you say, it's Terminal because I use a terminal to type." "It should be tar." "It should be cpio." "Now it's pax." "What exactly are the options to the 'ps' command?" "Why did you think that you had a command named 'll'?" "No, the superuser's login shell is intentionally the same as it has been for 30 years." "Why does the user manual have a (sometimes little more than a placeholder) note telling me to read something else for the user manual?" "We're settling on info documentation." "No, we're not." "Hey people, I've had a bright idea of documenting everything in HTML and I'm calling it http://cr.yp.to/slashdoc.html ." "The compatibility mechanism is of course to put /usr/xpg4/bin in your PATH." "No, that's gmake." "No, that's gawk." "Ah, actually it's mawk." "No, I think it's nawk." "I'm the real ksh!" "I am the real ksh!" "That's because it's the -I option, not the -i option." "We've actually had a non-interactively-usable general-purpose in-place text editor since Bill Joy wrote ex." "But ed is the Unix standard." discussions ...

... then you have not read enough of Usenet, WWW discussion fora, mailing lists, and others. (-: