[...]

> Yep, it's more like ethtool(8) or cvs(1) in its syntax.  There is big 
> difference in usability (for me anyway) between "command [options]..." 
> and an unordered list of --args.  Especially as the list of commands 
> grows longer.  It provides more structure.
>
> Each command can have options, --foo-bar=baz if you like, I suppose.


I would rather see --option=xyz than option xyz.  End users are going to 
be using it in scripts and in the event a parameter becomes "", then it 
will become --option1= --option2=def instead of option1 option2 def.  I 
would find it easier to parse, --option= is easy to ignore, option 
option has to be recognized as an empty option instead of using option 
as the first option's argument.

Just my opinion,
-david