At some point, though, if you're the one complaining about a specific detail, in a way, you're the (only) one.
I've seen plenty of un-portable shell scripting, too, but my professional experience includes a time where, essentially, no software [1] could be assumed to be portable, and I did get some dollars for every time, since it was part of my job to ensure as consistent a build environment as possible.
In light of your clarification, my question becomes: isn't it actually good to have such assumption-breaking differences in that they call attention to something that is likely to have a broader pattern of non-portability, in which case a broadly effective [2] workaround can be applied?
[1] Even/especially GNU tools, where there was something of an assumption that the OS would provide at least fairly complete BSD-compatibility. The existence, and evolution, of libiberty and the autotools, among others, should be instructive.
[2] e.g. installing (all the) GNU tools and putting them first in the path on a system that otherwise uses "traditional" syntax
I've seen plenty of un-portable shell scripting, too, but my professional experience includes a time where, essentially, no software [1] could be assumed to be portable, and I did get some dollars for every time, since it was part of my job to ensure as consistent a build environment as possible.
In light of your clarification, my question becomes: isn't it actually good to have such assumption-breaking differences in that they call attention to something that is likely to have a broader pattern of non-portability, in which case a broadly effective [2] workaround can be applied?
[1] Even/especially GNU tools, where there was something of an assumption that the OS would provide at least fairly complete BSD-compatibility. The existence, and evolution, of libiberty and the autotools, among others, should be instructive.
[2] e.g. installing (all the) GNU tools and putting them first in the path on a system that otherwise uses "traditional" syntax