Well, the last part of your explanation is certainly flattering to the Monks.
And the first part is plausible. Your amplification answers my objections quite well.

Nonetheless, you would have done better to include that explanation, at least briefly, in your original post.

Your translations appear to be correct, but incomplete and a bit less than 'models of clarity.'

They might well be improved with a note that the perl portion of your commands omits retention of an un-modified backup file (which might be a 'real good idea'). And both (unless you're confident about your audience's knowledge of *nix) would benefit from a fuller explanation of the expansive character of your arguments to find.

I should probably add a disclaimer to the effect that 'no representation is made as to the fitness or validity of any expression of opinion herein. User assumes all risk....' but it's way too much trouble with draft something suitably filled with legalese and simultaneously amusing. :-{).