# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2004-11-12 04:11:22 +0100:
The only real problem with having bash as /bin/sh is that people tend
to write scripts using bash-specific features and forget that such
scripts are not portable to systems using a less powerful /bin/sh.
Or the other way around. Bash (at
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 04:11:22AM +0100, Erik Trulsson wrote:
Personally I am of the opinion that csh (all versions) should be
removed completely from the base system and relegated entirely to the
ports system. Other than historical reasons there is not much point in
having it in the base system.
'csh' is an interactive shell, not a programming language. Anyone trying
to write portable scripts in 'csh' should know why Csh Programming
Considered Harmful http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
I vote that FreeBSD import a free version of the Windows command line,
cmd.exe. Show
On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 12:03:34AM +0100, Bernd Walter wrote:
I often missed features in FreeBSD ash that Solaris /bin/sh had, such as
using ^ sign as an | alternative (in germany one often has to search
the | key on bad configured terminals, which was not uncommon in field
service).
That
I write many scripts in sh on Solaris, and find they just don't work on
Linux because /bin/sh on Linux is really /bin/bash and is not bacwards
compatible. I HATE this.
Not to mention there is simply POSIX sh that you can have on linux, I
personally like ash as it's got the speed, and
Kevin Lyons wrote:
Presumably pure csh is the last stable release of csh before tcsh came
along. Openbsd, netbsd, sun and sgi all seem to have been able to
settle on a csh.
If you really want csh, please install ports:shells/44bsd-csh/
And if you just want to troll, please stop. Thank you.
Tim Robbins wrote:
I'm extremely happy with having tcsh instead of csh in the base
system. As others have said, if someone has an operational
requirement for plain old csh, they are free to install the port
and make the appropriate links.
As an interested (and innocent) bystander, I'm not quite
At 03:30 12/11/2004, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
Also keep in mind that ash is not POSIX sh (at least not as completely
as one might like). [etc]
Indeed. It's POSIX sh far more completely than one might like.
/duck
--
Bob Bishop +44 (0)118 940 1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED] fax
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:55:43PM -0800, Avleen Vig wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 04:11:22AM +0100, Erik Trulsson wrote:
Personally I am of the opinion that csh (all versions) should be
removed completely from the base system and relegated entirely to the
ports system. Other than
Erik Trulsson wrote:
100% compatible with WHAT?!? Remember that even 'classic' csh went
through several versions, and I very much doubt that the last version
was 100% compatible with the first version.
They added some features. Existing functionality was not broken.
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 05:05:28PM +0100, Erik Trulsson wrote:
This is to provide compatibility whn working with multiple versions of
Unix.
I write many scripts in sh on Solaris, and find they just don't work on
Linux because /bin/sh on Linux is really /bin/bash and is not bacwards
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:55:43PM -0800, Avleen Vig wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 04:11:22AM +0100, Erik Trulsson wrote:
Personally I am of the opinion that csh (all versions) should be
removed completely from the base system and relegated entirely to the
ports system. Other than
David O'Brien wrote:
What is a pure 'csh'?? Please answer in detail. Have you ever looked at
the source code for 4.3BSD 'csh'? What about 'tcsh' source code? Hint,
Christos Zoulas had at CSRG login and was maintaining and enhancing BSD
'csh'. The 4.4BSD 'csh' was Zoulas's work. 'tcsh' is
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 01:50:24PM -0600, Kevin Lyons wrote:
Presumably pure csh is the last stable release of csh before tcsh came
along. Openbsd, netbsd, sun and sgi all seem to have been able to
settle on a csh.
I'm extremely happy with having tcsh instead of csh in the base system. As
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
I'm extremely happy with having tcsh instead of csh in the base system. As
others have said, if someone has an operational requirement for plain old
csh, they are free to install the port and make the appropriate links.
As an interested (and innocent)
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 09:50:05AM -0800, Paul Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 05:05:28PM +0100, Erik Trulsson wrote:
This is to provide compatibility whn working with multiple versions of
Unix.
I write many scripts in sh on Solaris, and find they just don't work on
Linux
Hello,
Misunderstandings such as this seem to be all too common in volunteer
open source projects, sadly, and the resultant slagging match on
mailing lists is counterproductive for all concerned.
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 04:53:58PM -0500, Charles Sprickman wrote:
As an interested (and innocent)
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 04:53:58PM -0500, Charles Sprickman wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
I'm extremely happy with having tcsh instead of csh in the base system. As
others have said, if someone has an operational requirement for plain old
csh, they are free to install
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 10:47:10AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:55:43PM -0800, Avleen Vig wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 04:11:22AM +0100, Erik Trulsson wrote:
Personally I am of the opinion that csh (all versions) should be
removed completely from the base
Dan Nelson wrote:
but you're 4 years too late to affect
the outcome...
I think the problem can still be fixed. Simply put in /bin/tcsh and let
/bin/csh be what it actually is, which is to say /bin/csh. I realize
that will add all of 300kB to the system. And there would also have to
be an
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 06:49:04PM -0600, Kevin Lyons wrote:
I think the problem can still be fixed. Simply put in /bin/tcsh and let
/bin/csh be what it actually is, which is to say /bin/csh. I realize
that will add all of 300kB to the system. And there would also have to
be an entry for
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 06:30:23PM -0800, Avleen Vig wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 06:49:04PM -0600, Kevin Lyons wrote:
I think the problem can still be fixed. Simply put in /bin/tcsh and let
/bin/csh be what it actually is, which is to say /bin/csh. I realize
that will add all of
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 04:11:22AM +0100, Erik Trulsson wrote:
Keep in mind that FreeBSD's /bin/sh is a more powerful shell than was
available in, say, v7 Unix.
Also keep in mind that ash is not POSIX sh (at least not as completely
as one might like). This tends to bite me when using GNU
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 04:11:22AM +0100, Erik Trulsson wrote:
Personally I am of the opinion that csh (all versions) should be
removed completely from the base system and relegated entirely to the
ports system. Other than historical reasons there is not much point in
having it in the base
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 07:30:14PM -0800, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
Also keep in mind that ash is not POSIX sh (at least not as completely
as one might like). This tends to bite me when using GNU autotools,
which are hardcoded to prefer bash by default.
True, but the problem there is people
25 matches
Mail list logo
