On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Paul Lussier wrote:
> Csh is just the result of a good hacker smoking too much crack ...
csh is a classic example of a good idea with a poor design and a really bad
implementation. tcsh fixes the implementation but keeps the lousy design.
Just goes to show you that Unix isn't immune to that.
> I have heard of the "Posix" shell which is often times /bin/sh, but anything
> written for the one, true Bourne shell will work under the Posix sh (but not
> vice-versa).
POSIX's shell standard defines what /bin/sh should be. It is more-or-less
the classic Bourne shell, with a number of things cleared up and a few
"enhancements" to make things a little more sane (e.g., the $( ... ) construct
to replace the ` ... ` construct).
I bring up POSIX because what happened (per the norm in the 1980s Unix
world) was that each Unix vendor took the Bourne shell, and re-implemented it
and/or customized it for their Very Own Flavor Of Unix(TM). The result was a
number of /bin/sh programs, all calling themselves a Bourne shell, with subtle
variations, incompatibilities, and outright bugs.
POSIX, in my mind, is a Good Thing. Not because vendors actually follow it,
but because, when the stock /bin/sh fails to implement it properly, it gives
you a justification to install GNU bash. ;-)
--
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Net Technologies, Inc. <http://www.ntisys.com>
Voice: (800)905-3049 x18 Fax: (978)499-7839
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
