Shakespeare wrote plays and sonnets which will last an eternity, but on Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 22:33 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote these truly forgetable lines:
> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:10:08 +0000 > From: "Frank Shute" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful. > To: Mike Jeays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: FreeBSD Questions <firstname.lastname@example.org> > 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: [much deleted - wjv] > > <flamebait>Bash 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> > > Standard shell for what? Linux maybe but not FreeBSD or any of the > other BSDs for that matter. It being GPL guarantees that quite apart > from it general suckiness. > > 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. > > I tried replacing /bin/bash with /bin/ksh on a Linux system and it > almost completely broke it. Suggests the Linux folks can't write > boot scripts without bashisms. > > I'm tempted to try doing the same on FreeBSD (replace sh with pdksh) > just for the hell of it and see what happens. I tried the pdksh once and didn't like it. I went back to the genuine ksh [from AT&T] that I had been using for years, and I have it on all the *n*x systems I mainatain. Even though it's bigger then the pdksh [and I always compile my shells statically just in case] I'd be lost without it. Bill -- Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"