+Date: Tue, 13 Apr 93 10:47:25 PDT
+To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Don Doering)
+Subject: PAG Instructions, Please
+And finally, in the AFS User's Guide on page A-48, the pagsh "man" page
+finally states that pagsh creates a new command shell. It doesn't state
+that it creates a Bourne shell, whether you like it or not. To get to a C
+shell, you have to run csh after the pagsh.
Do `exec csh' instead of simply doing `csh'.
+All this leaves you with a C shell, child of a Bourne shell (pagsh), child
+of your .login.
+ ----------
+ | .login |
+ |--------| ----------
+ | pagsh |--->| sh |
+ | echo ..|<-+ |--------| ---------
+ | klog | | | csh |--->| csh |
+ | cmds ..| +-| exit |<-+ |-------|
+ | . | ---------- | | cmds |
+ | . | | | . |
+ | . | | | . |
+ ---------- | | . |
+ +-| exit |
+ ---------
+Don Doering
Doing `exec csh' should result in this relationship.
----------
| .login |
|--------| ----------
| pagsh |--->| csh |
| echo ..|<-+ |--------|
| klog | | | cmds |
| cmds ..| +-| exit |
| . | ----------
| . |
| . |
----------
1/2 :-) I do not understand why one would want to replace a fairly good
(sh) with a poor shell (csh). But, there is no disputing tastes.
Now I do understand replacing sh with ksh.
Another thing I do not understand is why AFS did not implement full Unix file
semantics and instead implemented ``ACL''s. This makes AFS very unusable in
an UNIX environment.
Randolph J. Herber, [EMAIL PROTECTED], +1 708 840 2966, CD/DCD/SPG
(Speaking for myself and not for US, US DOE, FNAL nor URA.)
(Product, trade, or service marks herein belong to their respective owners.)
