On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 03:32:38PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
Jurjen Middendorp wrote:
If you're familiar with pdksh, are you also familiar with ksh93, which
is (I believe) Mr. Korn's own shell? If you are, I would be interessted
in your opinion of the two, any comparisons you might give.
I've
other BSDs for that matter. It being GPL guarantees that quite apart
from it general suckiness.
Can someone please explain why bash sucks?
Everyone keep's saying this but I have never heard anyone explain why, other
than the GPL issue. I really want to know.
(This is not because I'm a bash
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 07:33:22PM +0100, Peter Schuller wrote:
other BSDs for that matter. It being GPL guarantees that quite apart
from it general suckiness.
Can someone please explain why bash sucks?
Everyone keep's saying this but I have never heard anyone explain why, other
than
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 07:21:23PM -0500, Tom McLaughlin wrote:
On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 04:13 +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
Hi Frank,
Now that you mention pdksh, have you tried mksh (in Ports too)?
I've installed it and successfully run moderately large ksh scripts
(like the
Michaël Grünewald wrote:
Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As long as folks don't stop me from running whatever I want, I don't
care if you use bash, but it really irks me, that most Linux systems
are broken in that respect: Most of them break badly in random ways,
if you don't run bash as
Jurjen Middendorp wrote:
If you're familiar with pdksh, are you also familiar with ksh93, which
is (I believe) Mr. Korn's own shell? If you are, I would be interessted
in your opinion of the two, any comparisons you might give.
I've never used ksh93 so I really can't say. There is a NOTES
On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 19:38 +, Frank Shute wrote:
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 07:21:23PM -0500, Tom McLaughlin wrote:
On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 04:13 +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
Hi Frank,
Now that you mention pdksh, have you tried mksh (in Ports too)?
I've installed it
Frank Shute wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 06:57:09AM -0500, Gerard Seibert wrote:
On December 14, 2007 at 08:03PM Frank Shute wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 06:00:14PM -0500, Gerard Seibert wrote:
On December 14, 2007 at 04:10PM Frank Shute wrote:
[ snip ]
I'm happy with sh as the system
On 14/12/07 Giorgos Keramidas said:
Tcsh is a fine shell. I'm using it all the time (that's how I found out
that a buglet reported by Kris Kennaway a few months ago was indeed a
bug which I could reproduce too).
I always found csh/tcsh aliases annoying, since there are no shell functions.
I
On 14/12/07 Giorgos Keramidas said:
Do you have any _particular_ parts of the csh-whynot article that you
would like to discuss, or this is a free for all flame? :)
It's the lack of shell functions that gets me.
Once a script reaches a certain size, I just move to Perl, Python, Tcl, Ruby,
On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 04:13 +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2007-12-14 21:10, Frank Shute [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I used bash for an interactive shell for about 5 years until I
discovered the goodness of pdksh. About half the size, statically
linked, not full of bugs and better editing
Michael P. Soulier wrote:
On 14/12/07 Giorgos Keramidas said:
Tcsh is a fine shell. I'm using it all the time (that's how I found out
that a buglet reported by Kris Kennaway a few months ago was indeed a
bug which I could reproduce too).
I always found csh/tcsh aliases annoying, since there
On 16/12/07 Chuck Robey said:
There;s one item that is much more easily done in csh/tcsh than in the
sh based ones that's redirecting the stderr along with the stdout.
with tcsh, when I do a make, I commonly do a:
make | tee makeout
which causes both the stdout and stderr files
Tom McLaughlin wrote:
Now that you mention pdksh, have you tried mksh (in Ports too)?
I've installed it and successfully run moderately large ksh scripts
(like the webrev(1) utility of OpenSolaris), and it is about an order of
magnitude smaller than pdksh here:
% [EMAIL
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 22:26 -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
Tom McLaughlin wrote:
Now that you mention pdksh, have you tried mksh (in Ports too)?
I've installed it and successfully run moderately large ksh scripts
(like the webrev(1) utility of OpenSolaris), and it is about an order of
Michael P. Soulier wrote:
On 16/12/07 Chuck Robey said:
There;s one item that is much more easily done in csh/tcsh than in the
sh based ones that's redirecting the stderr along with the stdout.
with tcsh, when I do a make, I commonly do a:
make | tee makeout
which causes both the
Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As long as folks don't stop me from running whatever I want, I don't
care if you use bash, but it really irks me, that most Linux systems
are broken in that respect: Most of them break badly in random ways,
if you don't run bash as your shell.
A friend
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 11:34:50PM -0500, Tom McLaughlin wrote:
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 22:26 -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
Tom McLaughlin wrote:
Now that you mention pdksh, have you tried mksh (in Ports too)?
I've installed it and successfully run moderately large ksh scripts
(like the
On 2007-12-16 19:36, Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael P. Soulier wrote:
On 14/12/07 Giorgos Keramidas said:
Tcsh is a fine shell. I'm using it all the time (that's how I found out
that a buglet reported by Kris Kennaway a few months ago was indeed a
bug which I could reproduce
On December 14, 2007 at 08:03PM Frank Shute wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 06:00:14PM -0500, Gerard Seibert wrote:
On December 14, 2007 at 04:10PM Frank Shute wrote:
[ snip ]
I'm happy with sh as the system shell though; it's light weight:
$ ls -l /bin/sh
-r-xr-xr-x 1
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:13:49AM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2007-12-14 21:10, Frank Shute [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I used bash for an interactive shell for about 5 years until I
discovered the goodness of pdksh. About half the size, statically
linked, not full of bugs and better
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 06:57:09AM -0500, Gerard Seibert wrote:
On December 14, 2007 at 08:03PM Frank Shute wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 06:00:14PM -0500, Gerard Seibert wrote:
On December 14, 2007 at 04:10PM Frank Shute wrote:
[ snip ]
I'm happy with sh as the
On 2007-12-15 13:54, Frank Shute [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
% [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/bin$ ls -ld mksh bash ksh
% -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel - 684699 Dec 9 19:51 bash
% -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel - 2390645 Aug 31 17:07 ksh
% -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel - 236202 Dec 9 18:34 mksh
Wow.
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:09:41 -0700
Chad Perrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm -- fair answer. I was kind of thinking that on FreeBSD I should
maybe do such work in csh as the standard shell, but it occurs to me
that I'd probably be pretty hard-pressed to find a FreeBSD system
without sh on it.
Matt LaPlante wrote:
On Dec 13, 2007 9:59 PM, Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2007-12-13 18:05, Chad Perrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I ran across this today:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
Title:
Csh Programming Considered Harmful
Jerry McAllister wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 08:12:32PM -0500, Mike Jeays wrote:
On December 13, 2007 08:05:42 pm Chad Perrin wrote:
I ran across this today:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
Title:
Csh Programming Considered Harmful
I wonder what responses I might
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 02:26:28PM +, RW wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:09:41 -0700
Chad Perrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm -- fair answer. I was kind of thinking that on FreeBSD I should
maybe do such work in csh as the standard shell, but it occurs to me
that I'd probably be
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 08:12:32PM -0500, Mike Jeays wrote:
On December 13, 2007 08:05:42 pm Chad Perrin wrote:
I ran across this today:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
Title:
Csh Programming Considered Harmful
I wonder what responses I might get here, and
On December 14, 2007 at 04:10PM Frank Shute wrote:
[ snip ]
I'm happy with sh as the system shell though; it's light weight:
$ ls -l /bin/sh
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 111028 Nov 30 00:10 /bin/sh
$ ls -l /bin/ksh
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 681584 Oct 6 12:33 /bin/ksh
How about
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 06:00:14PM -0500, Gerard Seibert wrote:
On December 14, 2007 at 04:10PM Frank Shute wrote:
[ snip ]
I'm happy with sh as the system shell though; it's light weight:
$ ls -l /bin/sh
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 111028 Nov 30 00:10 /bin/sh
$ ls -l /bin/ksh
On 2007-12-14 21:10, Frank Shute [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I used bash for an interactive shell for about 5 years until I
discovered the goodness of pdksh. About half the size, statically
linked, not full of bugs and better editing features. Plus it's not
GPL.
Hi Frank,
Now that you mention
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 08:12:32PM -0500, Mike Jeays wrote:
On December 13, 2007 08:05:42 pm Chad Perrin wrote:
I ran across this today:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
Title:
Csh Programming Considered Harmful
I wonder what responses I might get here, and
Chad Perrin wrote:
I ran across this today:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
Title: Csh Programming Considered Harmful
I wonder what responses I might get here, and how much of this applies to
tcsh as well (I'm still not exactly a tcsh expert).
If you really want to
Jerry McAllister wrote:
flamebaitBash has all the features one is likely to need for interactive use
as well, and one could make a good case for it being the 'standard' shell
now./flamebait
Yeah, right... when Penguins Fly (hahahaha) [that was intended as a
joke and dumb linux reference]
I ran across this today:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
Title:
Csh Programming Considered Harmful
I wonder what responses I might get here, and how much of this applies to
tcsh as well (I'm still not exactly a tcsh expert).
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [
On December 13, 2007 08:05:42 pm Chad Perrin wrote:
I ran across this today:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
Title:
Csh Programming Considered Harmful
I wonder what responses I might get here, and how much of this applies to
tcsh as well (I'm still not exactly a
On 2007-12-13 18:05, Chad Perrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I ran across this today:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
Title:
Csh Programming Considered Harmful
I wonder what responses I might get here, and how much of this applies
to tcsh as well (I'm still not
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Chad Perrin wrote:
I ran across this today:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
Title:
Csh Programming Considered Harmful
I wonder what responses I might get here, and how much of this applies to
tcsh as well (I'm still not exactly a tcsh expert).
I
On Dec 13, 2007 9:59 PM, Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2007-12-13 18:05, Chad Perrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I ran across this today:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
Title:
Csh Programming Considered Harmful
That was
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2007-12-13 18:05, Chad Perrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I ran across this today:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
Title:
Csh Programming Considered Harmful
That was written sometime last millenium, I mean, it's REALLY old. The
question is
On 2007-12-13 21:59, Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2007-12-13 18:05, Chad Perrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I ran across this today:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
Title:
Csh Programming Considered Harmful
That was written sometime
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mike Jeays
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:13 PM
To: FreeBSD Questions
Subject: Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.
flamebaitBash has all the features one is likely to need
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 04:25:30AM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2007-12-13 18:05, Chad Perrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I ran across this today:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
Title:
Csh Programming Considered Harmful
I wonder what responses I
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 07:42:35PM -0700, Warren Block wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Chad Perrin wrote:
I ran across this today:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
Title:
Csh Programming Considered Harmful
I wonder what responses I might get here, and how much of
44 matches
Mail list logo
