Re: UNIX shells - Bourne and C
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 09:34:09PM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote: Miquel van Smoorenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-11-11 21:19:04 +]: Bob Proulx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The old Bourne shell is not free software. Therefore only commercial proprietary systems have it available. [...] In order to find a Real Thing copy of the Bourne shell you would need to run on a commercial proprietary system which still has the legacy executables on the system. Well, not really. Here ya go: http://ftp.gcu-squad.org/tuhs/PDP-11/Distributions/research/Henry_Spencer_v7/ [...] Anybody want to do a Debian/V7 ? ;) Sweet! Thanks for posting that. But I hate you now because I will be losing a lot of sleep staying up late to get that booted. :-) But none of those sources are free either. Just because you have access to the source code does not make the source free software. Wrong. Caldera (who now own Unix), have released the sources of old unices under a BSD-style license (the one with advertising clause) Have a look at : http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf (Also look at http://www.tuhs.org/) Frank Bob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UNIX shells - Bourne and C
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 05:32:58PM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote: The Korn shell is not free. At one time you could buy source from ATT by an anonymous uucp connection for IIRC $300 and we did that. The Korn shell *used* to not be free, now it is, as in beer. You can download it for free but not distribute it, and it is the ksh93 version rather than ksh88 which pdksh emulates. Ksh93 is a pretty good scripting language from what I hear, but outside of the propritary Unix world, where ksh is the defacto standard, its not likely to catch on as long as ATT doesn't think it should be downloaded anywhere other than its servers. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UNIX shells - Bourne and C
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bob Proulx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The old Bourne shell is not free software. Therefore only commercial proprietary systems have it available. You won't find it in a Debian system for this reason. In fact I know not of any free software based system that has the Real Thing available. Since only rewritten clones are available anyone that has taken the time to rewrite the old Bourne /bin/sh will have taken the time to make it a modern standard conforming /bin/sh. (However, perhaps someone can prove me wrong.) In order to find a Real Thing copy of the Bourne shell you would need to run on a commercial proprietary system which still has the legacy executables on the system. Well, not really. Here ya go: http://ftp.gcu-squad.org/tuhs/PDP-11/Distributions/research/Henry_Spencer_v7/ The original Unix v7 sources for the PDP11. Including 'sh' and 'cc'. There's also a binary distribution floating around on the net, and a PDP11 emulator. I've booted Unix v7 (from 1979!) and recompiled some utilities, talk about retro computing! Ah, at the same site. See http://ftp.gcu-squad.org/tuhs/PDP-11/Emulators/Supnik_2.3/ Anybody want to do a Debian/V7 ? ;) Ofcourse, all this stuff predates posix by at least a decade. Mike. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UNIX shells - Bourne and C
Miquel van Smoorenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-11-11 21:11:10 +]:
Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what is the typical bashinsm we should be really careful?
The whatever{foo,bar} syntax is very common but a bashism (and zshism).
For example diff -u file.c{.orig,}
That is originally a csh syntax. But a good example of something to
avoid when using the standard shell.
Bob
msg12428/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: UNIX shells - Bourne and C
Miquel van Smoorenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-11-11 21:19:04 +]: Bob Proulx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The old Bourne shell is not free software. Therefore only commercial proprietary systems have it available. [...] In order to find a Real Thing copy of the Bourne shell you would need to run on a commercial proprietary system which still has the legacy executables on the system. Well, not really. Here ya go: http://ftp.gcu-squad.org/tuhs/PDP-11/Distributions/research/Henry_Spencer_v7/ [...] Anybody want to do a Debian/V7 ? ;) Sweet! Thanks for posting that. But I hate you now because I will be losing a lot of sleep staying up late to get that booted. :-) But none of those sources are free either. Just because you have access to the source code does not make the source free software. Bob msg12432/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: UNIX shells - Bourne and C
Joshua Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-11-11 16:24:00 -0500]: On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 05:32:58PM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote: The Korn shell is not free. At one time you could buy source from ATT by an anonymous uucp connection for IIRC $300 and we did that. The Korn shell *used* to not be free, now it is, as in beer. You can download it for free but not distribute it, I should not have mixed free with buy for $300 as that creates a communication problem. My bad. Sorry. I meant free speech and not free beer. Ksh is still not free speech software. If I read that right free-speech software distributions still can't distribute it. and it is the ksh93 version rather than ksh88 which pdksh emulates. Ksh93 is a pretty good scripting language from what I hear, It fixes some of the problems which became apparent in ksh88 after more widespread use. $ENV comes to mind there. but outside of the propritary Unix world, where ksh is the defacto standard, its not likely to catch on as long as ATT doesn't think it should be downloaded anywhere other than its servers. Even in the proprietary unix world the use of /bin/ksh is drastically being reduced. Most vendors are moving to /bin/sh for scripts. Obviously going from /bin/ksh to /bin/sh is pretty trivial as posix sh is based on ksh88. But there are still a few vendors that cling to /bin/csh scripts. There is no explaining it. Bob msg12437/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: UNIX shells - Bourne and C
Nathan E Norman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ash is supposed to be POSIX compliant, and according to the package
description it makes a better /bin/sh because it is smaller. However
I beleive there are some Bourne shell features not present in ash (I
don't have a reference for that, it's from memory which may be
faulty).
Please don't spread FUD. I certainly am not aware of any missing
features relevant for shell scripts.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmVHI~} [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UNIX shells - Bourne and C
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By the way, dash will be the POSIX shell in testing/unstable Bashism such as export FOO=bar is no-no :) That's not a bashism, that's valid POSIX syntax and has been for at least 10 years or so. Mike. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UNIX shells - Bourne and C
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 06:19:53PM -0500, Bruce Park wrote: Hello all, Just wanted to know, does debian linux include the Bourne and C shell? In redhat, they are a symbolic link to bash and tcsh respectively. Bash is the de-facto standard shell on Linux, and it's designed to be Bourne-compatible. There's also ash, a port of the NetBSD Bourne-shell. I think zsh also intends to be Bourne-compatible. On the csh side, you have tcsh as well as (as far as I can tell) the original csh. As always, apt-cache search is your friend. -rob msg12134/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: UNIX shells - Bourne and C
On Sat, 2002-11-09 at 20:17, Rob Weir wrote: On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 06:19:53PM -0500, Bruce Park wrote: Hello all, Just wanted to know, does debian linux include the Bourne and C shell? In redhat, they are a symbolic link to bash and tcsh respectively. Bash is the de-facto standard shell on Linux, and it's designed to be Bourne-compatible. There's also ash, a port of the NetBSD Bourne-shell. I think zsh also intends to be Bourne-compatible. On the csh side, you have tcsh as well as (as far as I can tell) the original csh. As always, apt-cache search is your friend. -rob Should have tagged this onto a message that actually made the comment, but I read those when I was ready to head off to bed, and they've now wander into and through the email trash folder, but: I remember days some 20 years ago when nearly all scripting on the system I worked with was done in csh rather than Bourne shell - even the scripts I wrote up: 4.2 BSD, which only had four shells available: the original Bourne shell from ATT Bell Labs, csh, the Tenex re-implementation of the csh (tcsh, which proved to be rather buggy), and Iain! D Allen's re-write of the Tenex csh to fix the bugs and extend it to some features that he and others in the Math Faculty Computing Facility (MFCF) at the University of Waterloo wanted (itcsh) - Iain!'s office was a few doors down the hall from mine. Anyhow, in that environment of 20 years ago, csh, tcsh and itcsh were the only ways to get beyond the limitations of the original Bourne shell, and was something of a de facto standard, at least until the arrival of the Korn shell, Perl, and many other scripting systems in the times since. The attitude of the time was an anticipation that the Bourne shell would likely be superceded - it was around for those running strictly System V systems. -- Mark L. Kahnt, FLMI/M, ALHC, HIA, AIAA, ACS, MHP ML Kahnt New Markets Consulting Tel: (613) 531-8684 / (613) 539-0935 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: UNIX shells - Bourne and C
Bruce Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-11-09 21:26:51 -0500]: I plan to install bash and tcsh. I'm currently running bash under redhat(I'm waiting to for a new release for debian) and I use it all the time. The only reason why I want the original UNIX shells is to test some scripts that I'm writing. Ah! I think the light comes on for most of the readers of the list. Portability testing. And you want to test to make sure it works under the old and venerable Bourne shell. Which is wonderful. But also a problem. You might as well give up in dispair right now. The old Bourne shell is not free software. Therefore only commercial proprietary systems have it available. You won't find it in a Debian system for this reason. In fact I know not of any free software based system that has the Real Thing available. Since only rewritten clones are available anyone that has taken the time to rewrite the old Bourne /bin/sh will have taken the time to make it a modern standard conforming /bin/sh. (However, perhaps someone can prove me wrong.) In order to find a Real Thing copy of the Bourne shell you would need to run on a commercial proprietary system which still has the legacy executables on the system. And it would probably need to be an old system at that. Most commercial systems have dropped the Bourne shell and converted to the POSIX /bin/sh shell in order to confirm to the modern standards. If the system claims POSIX conformance then you have a POSIX /bin/sh and not the Bourne flavor. Although some systems ship something like /usr/old/bin/sh or similar things in a break glass in case of emergency type of situation. They are not really expected to be used. A better plan IMNHO is to target a modern standard /bin/sh. That will run on probably every system you care about. If you have a particular system which is old then include it specifically in your target group and test there. Also, more portability problems will come from things outside of the shell syntax than from within it. The real problems are assumptions about which md5sum the system uses or whether egrep is in /bin or /usr/bin and other such things that differ between systems. Stick with the standard middle of the road syntax, make as few assumptions as possible, test during development on at least three widely different systems and you should be as good at portability as anyone can possibly expect. Bob msg12177/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: UNIX shells - Bourne and C
Bob, After doing some research, I found out that ash is a clone of a bourne shell from BSD. I was using this last night and I really couldn't find anything that differs from the real shell. Now, what can I do about the C shell and the Korn shell? Are those also not free? I'm doing a lot of shell scripting and people are saying that C wasn't designed for it. I'm sure they are right because I'm reading about it and it says that bourne shell scripts are the best since they run faster than C. In reality, I problably would use Perl to do everything but right now, the focus is on learning each individual shell to see how and why they differ. bp _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UNIX shells - Bourne and C
bp writes: After doing some research, I found out that ash is a clone of a bourne shell from BSD. I was using this last night and I really couldn't find anything that differs from the real shell. What do you mean by the real shell? Do you realize that the Bourne shell has not remained compatible with itself over time? I'm sure they are right because I'm reading about it and it says that bourne shell scripts are the best since they run faster than C. Ignore whoever said that. In any case, when writing shell scripts you should use only POSIX features as only they are portable. Ash is good for testing portability of scripts as it is about as strictly POSIX as it gets. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, Wisconsin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UNIX shells - Bourne and C
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 04:33:19PM -0500, Bruce Park wrote: anything that differs from the real shell. Now, what can I do about the C shell and the Korn shell? Are those also not free? pdksh is a free Korn shell. I've heard that it's not 100% compatible, but it's close enough that IBM uses it for the scripts they include in their Linux products. zsh can run in ksh mode (if it's invoked as ksh or sh it tries to emulate the appropriate shell as closely as possible, just like bash tries to be a POSIX shell when invoked as sh). The ATT ksh is also freely available, though I think it's probably not available as a Debian package because of the licensing. I don't think anybody has bothered to reimplement the basic C shell, but the tcsh documentation does talk about the places where tcsh differs. Off the top of my head I don't remember if the BSD's use tcsh or have their own csh, if they have their own it might be usable. -- Michael Heironimus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UNIX shells - Bourne and C
Bruce Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-11-10 16:33:19 -0500]: After doing some research, I found out that ash is a clone of a bourne shell from BSD. Yes. But it is a modern clone and has all of the modern features and is very standards conforming. But it is not the old Bourne shell. I was using this last night and I really couldn't find anything that differs from the real shell. Okay, now we get into existentialism. What is real? And besides, if you are asking these questions then we both know you are just beginning. As a beginner you should not be able to tell the difference between the shells. The differences are subtle and you would need to be more expert in the shells before you ran into the differences. Now, what can I do about the C shell and the Korn shell? Are those also not free? The C-shell is free. On debian you can install either it or tcsh or both. If you only have one of them that one will be the csh. If both then the bsd-csh will be the csh. apt-cache show tcsh apt-cache show csh The Korn shell is not free. At one time you could buy source from ATT by an anonymous uucp connection for IIRC $300 and we did that. Anonymous uucp, ah, those were the days. Not! In any case there is a ksh clone called pdksh the public domain ksh. Having used ksh a lot I find that pdksh is not quite the same as the real ksh from a command line shell point of view. But I don't use it much anymore in favor of bash. apt-cache show pdksh I'm doing a lot of shell scripting and people are saying that C wasn't designed for it. Well, it [C-shell] was designed for it. But the designers failed severely and have been bearing the brunt of the frustrations of the net for problems with the design ever since. I recommend you don't use it for scripting. It will frustrate you and annoy your users. Even if you don't see the bugs your users will. Messages like toshort: out of space mean someone has an enviroment variable longer than the static buffer size and other cryptic problems. (That is from memory and I probably got it wrong but you get the idea.) [When I last used csh I thought it was the best command line shell for paper terminals that I had ever used. Specifically you had all of the command numbers there on paper ready for you to repeat whenever you wanted. That was in the late 1980's when paper terminals were still in vogue. But times have changed.] I'm sure they are right because I'm reading about it and it says that bourne shell scripts are the best since they run faster than C. They probably meant faster than C-shell, not faster than C the compiled language. They have similar names and share a small amount of syntax but are not otherwise more or less related than bash is to the C compiled language. It will only confuse people to call C-shell C, as in the compiled language. But speed of shell execution is generally not important. Pay no attention to those arguments. That is not a reason to use one shell over another. I would optimize your time of writing the program over execution time. I would avoid csh because it has frustrating limitations. In reality, I problably would use Perl to do everything but right now, the focus is on learning each individual shell to see how and why they differ. A worthy goal. Install all, play, learn. As long as you are learning you might want to look into 'ruby'. Add it to your list. It is similar to perl in many ways but with a clean syntax and it is very object oriented. Ruby is coming as a new wave to the interpreted programming language scene. Do a google search and you will find many articles and programming tutorials on the web. apt-cache show ruby Enjoy, Bob msg12223/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: UNIX shells - Bourne and C
* Bruce Park [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Now, what can I do about the C shell and the Korn shell? Are those also not free? http://www.kornshell.com/ http://web.cs.mun.ca/~michael/pdksh/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
UNIX shells - Bourne and C
Hello all, Just wanted to know, does debian linux include the Bourne and C shell? In redhat, they are a symbolic link to bash and tcsh respectively. bp _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UNIX shells - Bourne and C
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 06:19:53PM -0500, Bruce Park wrote: Just wanted to know, does debian linux include the Bourne and C shell? In redhat, they are a symbolic link to bash and tcsh respectively. You can install ash, the BSD sh, which is closer to the actual Bourne shell in behavior. I think csh is also similar. You should (and probably do) have bash also installed in a Linux system however because it's a defacto standard in the Linux world. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UNIX shells - Bourne and C
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 06:19:53PM -0500, Bruce Park wrote: Hello all, Just wanted to know, does debian linux include the Bourne and C shell? In redhat, they are a symbolic link to bash and tcsh respectively. Yes, and yes they are included as links. Earlier versions of Deebian required the tcsh package for the C shell. Since I don't use the C shell, I don't know if it is still required for the C shell. -- -- Edward Guldemond GPG Key: 0x4E505B0F Key fingerprint: 4CAC 6740 C1CD 3CE4 6CA0 34E9 B3B7 18EC 4E50 5B0F msg12040/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: UNIX shells - Bourne and C
Bruce Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Just wanted to know, does debian linux include the Bourne and C shell? In redhat, they are a symbolic link to bash and tcsh respectively. Debian includes a csh package (though most people I know who use cshish shells use tcsh, which is also in Debian). It also includes a large number of Bourne-style shells, including ash, bash, pdksh, and zsh. It sounds like you're unhappy with /bin/sh pointing to bash; some people use ash for this purpose instead, for its smaller memory footprint. Debian packages try to make an effort to be compatible with any POSIX Bourne shell when possible, and if not, to explicitly use bash. -- David Maze [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://people.debian.org/~dmaze/ Theoretical politics is interesting. Politicking should be illegal. -- Abra Mitchell -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UNIX shells - Bourne and C
Josh, I plan to install bash and tcsh. I'm currently running bash under redhat(I'm waiting to for a new release for debian) and I use it all the time. The only reason why I want the original UNIX shells is to test some scripts that I'm writing. bp _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UNIX shells - Bourne and C
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 09:26:51PM -0500, Bruce Park wrote: Josh, I plan to install bash and tcsh. I'm currently running bash under redhat(I'm waiting to for a new release for debian) and I use it all the time. The only reason why I want the original UNIX shells is to test some scripts that I'm writing. For POSIX complience, dash (from unstable, ash variant) is good. I thought csh is not for scripting... -- ~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~ + Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cupertino CA USA, GPG-key: A8061F32 .''`. Debian Reference: post-installation user's guide for non-developers : :' : http://qref.sf.net and http://people.debian.org/~osamu `. `' Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software --- Social Contract -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UNIX shells - Bourne and C
* Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I thought csh is not for scripting... http://unlser1.unl.csi.cuny.edu/tutorials/C.shell.harmful.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UNIX shells - Bourne and C
On 09/11/02 Osamu Aoki did speaketh: For POSIX complience, dash (from unstable, ash variant) is good. I thought csh is not for scripting... That's right. http://www.perl.com/lpt/a/language/versus/csh.html Speaking from personal experience, csh sucks the big one for scripting. That is, unless you like no functions and all global variables, and non-deterministic behaviour. Mike -- Michael P. Soulier [EMAIL PROTECTED], GnuPG pub key: 5BC8BE08 ...the word HACK is used as a verb to indicate a massive amount of nerd-like effort. -Harley Hahn, A Student's Guide to Unix HTML Email Considered Harmful: http://expita.com/nomime.html msg12080/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: UNIX shells - Bourne and C
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 06:39:51PM -0500, Joshua Lee wrote: On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 06:19:53PM -0500, Bruce Park wrote: Just wanted to know, does debian linux include the Bourne and C shell? In redhat, they are a symbolic link to bash and tcsh respectively. You can install ash, the BSD sh, which is closer to the actual Bourne shell in behavior. I think csh is also similar. You should (and probably do) have bash also installed in a Linux system however because it's a defacto standard in the Linux world. bash is Priority: required. Removing it would certainly make life interesting :) ash is supposed to be POSIX compliant, and according to the package description it makes a better /bin/sh because it is smaller. However I beleive there are some Bourne shell features not present in ash (I don't have a reference for that, it's from memory which may be faulty). AFAIK tcsh is the only C shell available for Debian. -- Nathan Norman - Incanus Networking mailto:nnorman;incanus.net Whenever men attempt to suppress argument and free speech, we may be sure that they know their cause to be a bad one. -- R. G. Horton -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UNIX shells - Bourne and C
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 12:26:23AM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote: On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 06:39:51PM -0500, Joshua Lee wrote: On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 06:19:53PM -0500, Bruce Park wrote: Just wanted to know, does debian linux include the Bourne and C shell? In redhat, they are a symbolic link to bash and tcsh respectively. You can install ash, the BSD sh, which is closer to the actual Bourne shell in behavior. I think csh is also similar. You should (and probably do) have bash also installed in a Linux system however because it's a defacto standard in the Linux world. bash is Priority: required. Removing it would certainly make life interesting :) By the way, dash will be the POSIX shell in testing/unstable Bashism such as export FOO=bar is no-no :) ash is supposed to be POSIX compliant, and according to the package description it makes a better /bin/sh because it is smaller. However initrd image needs it (dash is new improved ash) I beleive there are some Bourne shell features not present in ash (I don't have a reference for that, it's from memory which may be faulty). AFAIK tcsh is the only C shell available for Debian. Nope: Package: csh Priority: optional Section: shells Installed-Size: 348 Maintainer: Matej Vela [EMAIL PROTECTED] Architecture: i386 Version: 20020413-1 Provides: c-shell Depends: libc6 (= 2.2.4-4) Filename: pool/main/c/csh/csh_20020413-1_i386.deb Size: 225378 MD5sum: fe48d2f5c00a2d194124a185a46d Description: Shell with C-like syntax, standard login shell on BSD systems. The C shell was originally written at UCB to overcome limitations in the Bourne shell. Its flexibility and comfort (at that time) quickly made it the shell of choice until more advanced shells like ksh, bash, zsh or tcsh appeared. Most of the latter incorporate features original to csh. . This package is based on current OpenBSD sources. -- ~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~ + Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cupertino CA USA, GPG-key: A8061F32 .''`. Debian Reference: post-installation user's guide for non-developers : :' : http://qref.sf.net and http://people.debian.org/~osamu `. `' Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software --- Social Contract -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
