Re: pdksh vs. mksh info [was: Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.]

2007-12-20 Thread Jurjen Middendorp
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 03:32:38PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
Jurjen Middendorp wrote:
  If you're familiar with pdksh, are you also familiar with ksh93, which
is (I believe) Mr. Korn's own shell?  If you are, I would be interessted
  in your opinion of the two, any comparisons you might give.
I've never used ksh93 so I really can't say.  There is a NOTES file
included with pdksh which gives a starter.  I created this port a few
years ago because of some random issue I've long since forgotten with
pdksh on my FreeBSD box which didn't happen on my OpenBSD box.

tom

I never used pdksh, but am using ksh93 for quite a while now and have used
bash, too. For some reason i like it better than bash, the vi mode is a bit
better somehow, it feels alot sturdier. It doesn't have those special
variables like $! and !! i believe, but it has alot of neat features like

-^ i ment !$ offcourse :)

basic network programming, lots of parameter expansion stuff and is just a
very nice shell :)

I havre installed it, and played with it a bit, I admit it's nicer than 
sh (and I *think*, bash) but the reason I haven't tried using it 
regularly is because I can't find a nicely set up .kshrc ... if you have 
one, I'd appreciate a copy.  Might be nice, if it's not terribly long, 
to post it to the list, too.

Basically it's just like any other shell .*rc. It sets some environment
variables for stuff, a bunch of aliases and some functions i find useful
myself, or am too lazy to throw away. Nothing really ksh-specific, except
maybe some of the functions i wrote use ksh-stuff like arrays, but that's
not really ksh-specific as well.  You could use google to find any .*rc for
sh-like shells and copy those (or get a copy of unix power tools, it's a
nice book to make you feel at home in a shell)

-jurjen

ps. these functions i probably use the most :)

alias d=do_in_bg dillo
alias x=do_in_bg xpdf
alias ff=do_in_bg firefox
#do a program in the background:
do_in_bg() {
$@  /dev/null 21 
}

#open a webpage from disk, like: $cd /usr/share/doc/en  htm 
#to look at all the (english) freebsd-docs :)
htm() {
set -A stuff $(find -L . -name index.htm* -print)
(for ((i=0; i  ${#stuff[*]}; i++)); do print $i \t: ${stuff[i]}; done) | 
$PAGER
read x  d ${stuff[$x]}
}
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-17 Thread Peter Schuller
 other BSDs for that matter. It being GPL guarantees that quite apart
 from it general suckiness.

Can someone please explain why bash sucks?

Everyone keep's saying this but I have never heard anyone explain why, other 
than the GPL issue. I really want to know.

(This is not because I'm a bash fan. My personal favorite happens to be zsh.)

 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.

If this is a poke at the use of #!/bin/sh when the script actually requires 
bash, I 100% agree.

However, if your intent (and the intent of Chuck Robey in that earlier) post 
is to imply that it's bad programming practice to write anything than POSIX 
compatible scripts, then I have to ask again - why?

This is kind of a pet peeve of mine, so here goes somewhat of a rant. Please 
enlighten me as to why I am wrong:

I don't understand why everyone insists on POSIX compliance for portability 
with shell scripting. The POSIX common demoniator seems to suck. Seriously. 

One keeps seeing things like:

   if [ x$var = xvalue ]

When the intent is:

   if [ $var = value ]

Because there is presumably some wonky script out there that breaks on the 
former (or perhaps its POSIX, dunno). I have recently began to appreciate 
that all this madness that would normally be considered unforgivable code 
obfuscation in anything but shell scripting, is all an attempt to somehow be 
portable.

In any number of situations I would consider it much preferable to juse choose 
one particular shell and stick to it, rather than having to do battle with 
all these minor incompatibilities. Many major shells are very portable to 
begin with, and in many situation you *REALLY* don't care about some exotic 
Unix platform that 10 people in the world run, but where bash/zsh/whatever 
doesn't.

Another example of the madness is:

   http://www.netbsd.org/docs/pkgsrc/makefile.html

Check out section 12.3.3. Can anyone claim that it is sensible for it to be 
this fricking difficult *to print the value of a variable*?

Although that last bit has to do with more than the choice of a shell, it 
highlights perfectly the type of trouble you run into when you try to be 
portable with the least common denominator.

-- 
/ Peter Schuller

PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Key retrieval: Send an E-Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.scode.org



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-17 Thread Frank Shute
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 07:33:22PM +0100, Peter Schuller wrote:

  other BSDs for that matter. It being GPL guarantees that quite apart
  from it general suckiness.
 
 Can someone please explain why bash sucks?
 
 Everyone keep's saying this but I have never heard anyone explain why, other 
 than the GPL issue. I really want to know.
 
 (This is not because I'm a bash fan. My personal favorite happens to be zsh.)
 

Disclaimer: I haven't used bash for 5 years or so, so things might
have improved.

It used to suck then because it's vi-mode wasn't as good as other
shells e.g pdksh, as someone else in this thread mentioned.

It also had bugs in how it handled terminal escapes.

The tragic thing was that these went on for years without a fix.

It was also tremendously bloated at the time.

Basically though, I bash bash out of habit :) although I seriously
think that there are better shells out there and more people should
use them. People seem to use bash and never try anything else.

  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.
 
 If this is a poke at the use of #!/bin/sh when the script actually requires 
 bash, I 100% agree.

Yeah, it was :) The scripts are lies. They say they use /bin/sh but
actually use bash extensions. They only work because /bin/sh is a
symlink to /bin/bash on Linux.

 However, if your intent (and the intent of Chuck Robey in that earlier) post 
 is to imply that it's bad programming practice to write anything than POSIX 
 compatible scripts, then I have to ask again - why?

Every unix machine has sh, so if you write your scripts using that,
you can transport your scripts between machines with a good idea that
they will work without having your shell of choice installed with
it's oddities  extensions. This might be important where you've got
a machine that you can't install your shell of choice, for whatever
reason.

It might be a rare circumstance but it's for similar reasons I also
write all my letters  documents in LaTeX. (No lock-in too).

 
 This is kind of a pet peeve of mine, so here goes somewhat of a rant. Please 
 enlighten me as to why I am wrong:
 
 I don't understand why everyone insists on POSIX compliance for portability 
 with shell scripting. The POSIX common demoniator seems to suck. Seriously. 

[snip]

It's just for portability that I write to sh. If I'm doing anything
vaguely complicated then I use perl instead, which is also pretty
portable.

And of course Bash primarily sucks because it's GPL which also sucks ;)

My basic position: the license is too complicated and open to
(mis)interpretation and it's not as free as BSD.

Regards,

-- 

 Frank 


 Contact info: http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/misc/contact.html 

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: pdksh vs. mksh info [was: Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.]

2007-12-17 Thread Frank Shute
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 07:21:23PM -0500, Tom McLaughlin wrote:

 On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 04:13 +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: 
  
  Hi Frank,
  
  Now that you mention pdksh, have you tried mksh (in Ports too)?
  
  I've installed it and successfully run moderately large ksh scripts
  (like the webrev(1) utility of OpenSolaris), and it is about an order of
  magnitude smaller than pdksh here:
  
  % [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/bin$ ls -ld mksh bash ksh
  % -rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  -  684699 Dec  9 19:51 bash
  % -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  - 2390645 Aug 31 17:07 ksh
  % -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  -  236202 Dec  9 18:34 mksh
  % [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/bin$ ldd mksh bash ksh
  % mksh:
  % libc.so.7 = /lib/libc.so.7 (0x280ae000)
  % bash:
  % libncurses.so.7 = /lib/libncurses.so.7 (0x28101000)
  % libintl.so.8 = /usr/local/lib/libintl.so.8 (0x28144000)
  % libiconv.so.3 = /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so.3 (0x28156000)
  % libc.so.7 = /lib/libc.so.7 (0x2824b000)
  % ldd: ksh: not a dynamic executable
  % [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/bin$
  
 
 I've maintained a port of OpenBSD's pdksh for some time but I've never
 committed it.  Think of pdksh but still actively maintained.  
 
 http://people.freebsd.org/~tmclaugh/files/openksh/openksh-4.2.shar
 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] tom]$ ls -al /usr/local/bin/ksh  
 -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  192032 Dec 16 18:22 /usr/local/bin/ksh*
 
 tom

I always assumed that the pdksh in ports had the OpenBSD patches in
it.

I've downloaded the shell archive and I'll build it.

Any chance that you will commit this in the future? I'd almost
certainly use it.

Thanks for your work  time, it's much appreciated!

Regards,

-- 

 Frank 


 Contact info: http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/misc/contact.html 

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-17 Thread Chuck Robey

Michaël Grünewald wrote:

Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


As long as folks don't stop me from running whatever I want, I don't
care if you use bash, but it really irks me, that most Linux systems
are broken in that respect: Most of them break badly in random ways,
if you don't run bash as your shell.


A friend of mine who worked with debian was once in mood to disinstall
BASH. Quite a trip to hell! (The story is 8 years old now.)


From my own experiences merely trying to runit as a user shell, and not 
de-installing bash, I believe you ... I finally had to give it up as a 
bad job, and I'm known as a somewhat stubborn person, so that should 
tell you the level of problems I faced.  Linux works only if you make 
their choices, just like their license.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: pdksh vs. mksh info [was: Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.]

2007-12-17 Thread Chuck Robey

Jurjen Middendorp wrote:

  If you're familiar with pdksh, are you also familiar with ksh93, which
is (I believe) Mr. Korn's own shell?  If you are, I would be interessted
  in your opinion of the two, any comparisons you might give.

I've never used ksh93 so I really can't say.  There is a NOTES file
included with pdksh which gives a starter.  I created this port a few
years ago because of some random issue I've long since forgotten with
pdksh on my FreeBSD box which didn't happen on my OpenBSD box.

tom


I never used pdksh, but am using ksh93 for quite a while now and have used
bash, too. For some reason i like it better than bash, the vi mode is a bit
better somehow, it feels alot sturdier. It doesn't have those special
variables like $! and !! i believe, but it has alot of neat features like
basic network programming, lots of parameter expansion stuff and is just a
very nice shell :)


I havre installed it, and played with it a bit, I admit it's nicer than 
sh (and I *think*, bash) but the reason I haven't tried using it 
regularly is because I can't find a nicely set up .kshrc ... if you have 
one, I'd appreciate a copy.  Might be nice, if it's not terribly long, 
to post it to the list, too.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: pdksh vs. mksh info [was: Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.]

2007-12-17 Thread Tom McLaughlin
On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 19:38 +, Frank Shute wrote:
 On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 07:21:23PM -0500, Tom McLaughlin wrote:
 
  On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 04:13 +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: 
   
   Hi Frank,
   
   Now that you mention pdksh, have you tried mksh (in Ports too)?
   
   I've installed it and successfully run moderately large ksh scripts
   (like the webrev(1) utility of OpenSolaris), and it is about an order of
   magnitude smaller than pdksh here:
   
   % [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/bin$ ls -ld mksh bash ksh
   % -rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  -  684699 Dec  9 19:51 bash
   % -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  - 2390645 Aug 31 17:07 ksh
   % -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  -  236202 Dec  9 18:34 mksh
   % [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/bin$ ldd mksh bash ksh
   % mksh:
   % libc.so.7 = /lib/libc.so.7 (0x280ae000)
   % bash:
   % libncurses.so.7 = /lib/libncurses.so.7 (0x28101000)
   % libintl.so.8 = /usr/local/lib/libintl.so.8 (0x28144000)
   % libiconv.so.3 = /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so.3 (0x28156000)
   % libc.so.7 = /lib/libc.so.7 (0x2824b000)
   % ldd: ksh: not a dynamic executable
   % [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/bin$
   
  
  I've maintained a port of OpenBSD's pdksh for some time but I've never
  committed it.  Think of pdksh but still actively maintained.  
  
  http://people.freebsd.org/~tmclaugh/files/openksh/openksh-4.2.shar
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] tom]$ ls -al /usr/local/bin/ksh  
  -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  192032 Dec 16 18:22 /usr/local/bin/ksh*
  
  tom
 
 I always assumed that the pdksh in ports had the OpenBSD patches in
 it.
 
 I've downloaded the shell archive and I'll build it.
 
 Any chance that you will commit this in the future? I'd almost
 certainly use it.
 
 Thanks for your work  time, it's much appreciated!
 
 Regards,
 

Its always been a personal use thing but I'll look at adding it.  I
already checked on the name over on an OpenBSD list and no one cared.
If anyone wants to autoconf it that would be really sweet.  There's a
patch version that works on Linux but both that release and this one
require bmake.

tom

-- 
| tmclaugh at sdf.lonestar.org tmclaugh at FreeBSD.org |
| FreeBSD   http://www.FreeBSD.org |

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-16 Thread Dominic Fandrey
Frank Shute wrote:
 On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 06:57:09AM -0500, Gerard Seibert wrote:
 On December 14, 2007 at 08:03PM Frank Shute wrote:
 On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 06:00:14PM -0500, Gerard Seibert wrote:
 On December 14, 2007 at 04:10PM Frank Shute wrote:
 [ snip ]

 I'm happy with sh as the system shell though; it's light weight:

 $ ls -l /bin/sh
 -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  111028 Nov 30 00:10 /bin/sh
 ~ $ ls -l /bin/sh
 -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  111788 Oct  5 13:55 /bin/sh*
 
 I can understand why the size of sh might be different. Different
 patch levels. (Built almost 2 months apart).
 

 $ ls -l /bin/ksh
 -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  681584 Oct  6 12:33 /bin/ksh

 How about giving us all a laugh and posting the results for bash ;)
 ~ $ ls -l /usr/local/bin/bash
 -rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  643984 Sep 12 15:51 /usr/local/bin/bash*

 pdksh has put on weight. Used to be ~300k in the 4.* days and bash
 about 500k IIRC. On my machine bash is bigger than yours (newer version?):
 ~ $ bash --version
 bash --version
 GNU bash, version 3.2.25(0)-release (i386-portbld-freebsd6.2)
 Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
 
 Same as mine:
 
 $ bash --version
 GNU bash, version 3.2.25(0)-release (i386-portbld-freebsd6.2)
 Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
 
 I'm not too sure why my bash is different in size. I guess it sucked
 in slightly different code when built due to our base systems being the
 2 months apart.
 
 [snip]
 

Such differences can as well happen due to different CPUTYPE settings.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-16 Thread Michael P. Soulier
On 14/12/07 Giorgos Keramidas said:

 Tcsh is a fine shell.  I'm using it all the time (that's how I found out
 that a buglet reported by Kris Kennaway a few months ago was indeed a
 bug which I could reproduce too).

I always found csh/tcsh aliases annoying, since there are no shell functions.
I also found the shell redirection awkward. 

It's ok otherwise, but I've since become addicted to bash. Mind you, I'm sure
some tcsh users could point out some features that bash doesn't have. 

Mike
-- 
Michael P. Soulier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It
takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite
direction. --Albert Einstein


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-16 Thread Michael P. Soulier
On 14/12/07 Giorgos Keramidas said:

 Do you have any _particular_ parts of the csh-whynot article that you
 would like to discuss, or this is a free for all flame? :)

It's the lack of shell functions that gets me. 

Once a script reaches a certain size, I just move to Perl, Python, Tcl, Ruby,
etc. 

Mike
-- 
Michael P. Soulier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It
takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite
direction. --Albert Einstein


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: pdksh vs. mksh info [was: Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.]

2007-12-16 Thread Tom McLaughlin
On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 04:13 +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: 
 On 2007-12-14 21:10, Frank Shute [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  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.
 
 Hi Frank,
 
 Now that you mention pdksh, have you tried mksh (in Ports too)?
 
 I've installed it and successfully run moderately large ksh scripts
 (like the webrev(1) utility of OpenSolaris), and it is about an order of
 magnitude smaller than pdksh here:
 
 % [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/bin$ ls -ld mksh bash ksh
 % -rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  -  684699 Dec  9 19:51 bash
 % -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  - 2390645 Aug 31 17:07 ksh
 % -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  -  236202 Dec  9 18:34 mksh
 % [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/bin$ ldd mksh bash ksh
 % mksh:
 % libc.so.7 = /lib/libc.so.7 (0x280ae000)
 % bash:
 % libncurses.so.7 = /lib/libncurses.so.7 (0x28101000)
 % libintl.so.8 = /usr/local/lib/libintl.so.8 (0x28144000)
 % libiconv.so.3 = /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so.3 (0x28156000)
 % libc.so.7 = /lib/libc.so.7 (0x2824b000)
 % ldd: ksh: not a dynamic executable
 % [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/bin$
 

I've maintained a port of OpenBSD's pdksh for some time but I've never
committed it.  Think of pdksh but still actively maintained.  

http://people.freebsd.org/~tmclaugh/files/openksh/openksh-4.2.shar

[EMAIL PROTECTED] tom]$ ls -al /usr/local/bin/ksh  
-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  192032 Dec 16 18:22 /usr/local/bin/ksh*

tom

-- 
| tmclaugh at sdf.lonestar.org tmclaugh at FreeBSD.org |
| FreeBSD   http://www.FreeBSD.org |

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-16 Thread Chuck Robey

Michael P. Soulier wrote:

On 14/12/07 Giorgos Keramidas said:


Tcsh is a fine shell.  I'm using it all the time (that's how I found out
that a buglet reported by Kris Kennaway a few months ago was indeed a
bug which I could reproduce too).


I always found csh/tcsh aliases annoying, since there are no shell functions.
I also found the shell redirection awkward. 


There;s one item that is much more easily done in csh/tcsh than in the 
sh based ones  that's redirecting the stderr along with the stdout. 
 with tcsh, when I do a make, I commonly do a:


make | tee makeout

which causes both the stdout and stderr files to be redirected to the 
makeout make listing file.  I;'ve never figured out any reasonably 
simple way to do that in any sh-like shell.  Is there any simble way 
that you know of?




It's ok otherwise, but I've since become addicted to bash. Mind you, I'm sure
some tcsh users could point out some features that bash doesn't have. 


Mike


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-16 Thread Michael P. Soulier
On 16/12/07 Chuck Robey said:

 There;s one item that is much more easily done in csh/tcsh than in the 
 sh based ones  that's redirecting the stderr along with the stdout. 
  with tcsh, when I do a make, I commonly do a:
 
 make | tee makeout
 
 which causes both the stdout and stderr files to be redirected to the 
 makeout make listing file.  I;'ve never figured out any reasonably 
 simple way to do that in any sh-like shell.  Is there any simble way 
 that you know of?

Yup. 

make 21 | tee makeout

Now show me a simple way to redirect them to different files in csh.

foo 1stdout.log 2stderr.log

Mike
-- 
Michael P. Soulier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It
takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite
direction. --Albert Einstein


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: pdksh vs. mksh info [was: Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.]

2007-12-16 Thread Chuck Robey

Tom McLaughlin wrote:

Now that you mention pdksh, have you tried mksh (in Ports too)?

I've installed it and successfully run moderately large ksh scripts
(like the webrev(1) utility of OpenSolaris), and it is about an order of
magnitude smaller than pdksh here:

% [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/bin$ ls -ld mksh bash ksh
% -rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  -  684699 Dec  9 19:51 bash
% -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  - 2390645 Aug 31 17:07 ksh
% -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  -  236202 Dec  9 18:34 mksh
% [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/bin$ ldd mksh bash ksh
% mksh:
% libc.so.7 = /lib/libc.so.7 (0x280ae000)
% bash:
% libncurses.so.7 = /lib/libncurses.so.7 (0x28101000)
% libintl.so.8 = /usr/local/lib/libintl.so.8 (0x28144000)
% libiconv.so.3 = /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so.3 (0x28156000)
% libc.so.7 = /lib/libc.so.7 (0x2824b000)
% ldd: ksh: not a dynamic executable
% [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/bin$



I've maintained a port of OpenBSD's pdksh for some time but I've never
committed it.  Think of pdksh but still actively maintained.  


http://people.freebsd.org/~tmclaugh/files/openksh/openksh-4.2.shar

[EMAIL PROTECTED] tom]$ ls -al /usr/local/bin/ksh  
-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  192032 Dec 16 18:22 /usr/local/bin/ksh*


 If you're familiar with pdksh, are you also familiar with ksh93, which 
is (I believe) Mr. Korn's own shell?  If you are, I would be interessted 
 in your opinion of the two, any comparisons you might give.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: pdksh vs. mksh info [was: Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.]

2007-12-16 Thread Tom McLaughlin
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 22:26 -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
 Tom McLaughlin wrote:
  Now that you mention pdksh, have you tried mksh (in Ports too)?
 
  I've installed it and successfully run moderately large ksh scripts
  (like the webrev(1) utility of OpenSolaris), and it is about an order of
  magnitude smaller than pdksh here:
 
  % [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/bin$ ls -ld mksh bash ksh
  % -rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  -  684699 Dec  9 19:51 bash
  % -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  - 2390645 Aug 31 17:07 ksh
  % -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  -  236202 Dec  9 18:34 mksh
  % [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/bin$ ldd mksh bash ksh
  % mksh:
  % libc.so.7 = /lib/libc.so.7 (0x280ae000)
  % bash:
  % libncurses.so.7 = /lib/libncurses.so.7 (0x28101000)
  % libintl.so.8 = /usr/local/lib/libintl.so.8 (0x28144000)
  % libiconv.so.3 = /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so.3 (0x28156000)
  % libc.so.7 = /lib/libc.so.7 (0x2824b000)
  % ldd: ksh: not a dynamic executable
  % [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/bin$
 
  
  I've maintained a port of OpenBSD's pdksh for some time but I've never
  committed it.  Think of pdksh but still actively maintained.  
  
  http://people.freebsd.org/~tmclaugh/files/openksh/openksh-4.2.shar
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] tom]$ ls -al /usr/local/bin/ksh  
  -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  192032 Dec 16 18:22 /usr/local/bin/ksh*
 
   If you're familiar with pdksh, are you also familiar with ksh93, which 
 is (I believe) Mr. Korn's own shell?  If you are, I would be interessted 
   in your opinion of the two, any comparisons you might give.

I've never used ksh93 so I really can't say.  There is a NOTES file
included with pdksh which gives a starter.  I created this port a few
years ago because of some random issue I've long since forgotten with
pdksh on my FreeBSD box which didn't happen on my OpenBSD box.

tom

-- 
| tmclaugh at sdf.lonestar.org tmclaugh at FreeBSD.org |
| FreeBSD   http://www.FreeBSD.org |

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-16 Thread Chuck Robey

Michael P. Soulier wrote:

On 16/12/07 Chuck Robey said:

There;s one item that is much more easily done in csh/tcsh than in the 
sh based ones  that's redirecting the stderr along with the stdout. 
 with tcsh, when I do a make, I commonly do a:


make | tee makeout

which causes both the stdout and stderr files to be redirected to the 
makeout make listing file.  I;'ve never figured out any reasonably 
simple way to do that in any sh-like shell.  Is there any simble way 
that you know of?


Yup. 


make 21 | tee makeout

Now show me a simple way to redirect them to different files in csh.

foo 1stdout.log 2stderr.log

Mike


Believe it or not, I was actually trying to get information, not trying 
to make a point illustrating things.  I wasn't aware that you could mix 
the redirection modes  but I just tested this, it does actually 
work, in both bash and sh.  Keen, I'll stow that guy away, because I've 
been asking that on occaison for years now..


Your question sounded to me like a back-handed way to illustrate 
something, but I'm  not all that deep.  I've never run into the need to 
do that redirect in tcsh, so I don't know how to do it.  I'm maybe justr 
a bit curious where you needed it, but I haven't an answer.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-16 Thread Michaël Grünewald
Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 As long as folks don't stop me from running whatever I want, I don't
 care if you use bash, but it really irks me, that most Linux systems
 are broken in that respect: Most of them break badly in random ways,
 if you don't run bash as your shell.

A friend of mine who worked with debian was once in mood to disinstall
BASH. Quite a trip to hell! (The story is 8 years old now.)
-- 
Cheers,
Michaël
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: pdksh vs. mksh info [was: Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.]

2007-12-16 Thread Jurjen Middendorp
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 11:34:50PM -0500, Tom McLaughlin wrote:
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 22:26 -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
 Tom McLaughlin wrote:
  Now that you mention pdksh, have you tried mksh (in Ports too)?
 
  I've installed it and successfully run moderately large ksh scripts
  (like the webrev(1) utility of OpenSolaris), and it is about an order of
  magnitude smaller than pdksh here:
 
  % [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/bin$ ls -ld mksh bash ksh
  % -rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  -  684699 Dec  9 19:51 bash
  % -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  - 2390645 Aug 31 17:07 ksh
  % -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  -  236202 Dec  9 18:34 mksh
  % [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/bin$ ldd mksh bash ksh
  % mksh:
  % libc.so.7 = /lib/libc.so.7 (0x280ae000)
  % bash:
  % libncurses.so.7 = /lib/libncurses.so.7 (0x28101000)
  % libintl.so.8 = /usr/local/lib/libintl.so.8 (0x28144000)
  % libiconv.so.3 = /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so.3 (0x28156000)
  % libc.so.7 = /lib/libc.so.7 (0x2824b000)
  % ldd: ksh: not a dynamic executable
  % [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/bin$
 
 
  I've maintained a port of OpenBSD's pdksh for some time but I've never
  committed it.  Think of pdksh but still actively maintained.
 
  http://people.freebsd.org/~tmclaugh/files/openksh/openksh-4.2.shar
 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] tom]$ ls -al /usr/local/bin/ksh
  -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  192032 Dec 16 18:22 /usr/local/bin/ksh*

   If you're familiar with pdksh, are you also familiar with ksh93, which
 is (I believe) Mr. Korn's own shell?  If you are, I would be interessted
   in your opinion of the two, any comparisons you might give.

I've never used ksh93 so I really can't say.  There is a NOTES file
included with pdksh which gives a starter.  I created this port a few
years ago because of some random issue I've long since forgotten with
pdksh on my FreeBSD box which didn't happen on my OpenBSD box.

tom

I never used pdksh, but am using ksh93 for quite a while now and have used
bash, too. For some reason i like it better than bash, the vi mode is a bit
better somehow, it feels alot sturdier. It doesn't have those special
variables like $! and !! i believe, but it has alot of neat features like
basic network programming, lots of parameter expansion stuff and is just a
very nice shell :)

-jurjen
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-16 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On 2007-12-16 19:36, Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Michael P. Soulier wrote:
 On 14/12/07 Giorgos Keramidas said:
 Tcsh is a fine shell.  I'm using it all the time (that's how I found out
 that a buglet reported by Kris Kennaway a few months ago was indeed a
 bug which I could reproduce too).
 I always found csh/tcsh aliases annoying, since there are no shell 
 functions.
 I also found the shell redirection awkward. 
 
 There;s one item that is much more easily done in csh/tcsh than in the sh 
 based ones  that's redirecting the stderr along with the stdout.  with 
 tcsh, when I do a make, I commonly do a:
 
 make | tee makeout
 
 which causes both the stdout and stderr files to be redirected to the
 makeout make listing file.  I;'ve never figured out any reasonably
 simple way to do that in any sh-like shell.  Is there any simble way
 that you know of?

Yep, there is a simple way in sh too:

make 21 | tee makeout

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-15 Thread Gerard Seibert
 On December 14, 2007 at 08:03PM Frank Shute wrote:

 On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 06:00:14PM -0500, Gerard Seibert wrote:
 
   On December 14, 2007 at 04:10PM Frank Shute wrote:
  
  [ snip ]
  
   I'm happy with sh as the system shell though; it's light weight:
   
   $ ls -l /bin/sh
   -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  111028 Nov 30 00:10 /bin/sh

~ $ ls -l /bin/sh
-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  111788 Oct  5 13:55 /bin/sh*


   $ ls -l /bin/ksh
   -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  681584 Oct  6 12:33 /bin/ksh
   
   How about giving us all a laugh and posting the results for bash ;)
  
  ~ $ ls -l /usr/local/bin/bash
  -rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  643984 Sep 12 15:51 /usr/local/bin/bash*
  
 
 pdksh has put on weight. Used to be ~300k in the 4.* days and bash
 about 500k IIRC. On my machine bash is bigger than yours (newer version?):

~ $ bash --version
bash --version
GNU bash, version 3.2.25(0)-release (i386-portbld-freebsd6.2)
Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

 
 $ ls -l /usr/local/bin/bash
 -rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  676752 Nov  9 11:57 /usr/local/bin/bash
 
 Don't know why bash is writable by root but sh  ksh aren't. 
 
 Seems like I've ended up with bash installed whether I like it or not:
 
 $ pkg_info -R bash-3.2.25
 Information for bash-3.2.25:
 
 Required by:
 gnome-doc-utils-0.12.0
 libgnome-2.20.1.1_1
 rarian-0.6.0_1

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: pdksh vs. mksh info [was: Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.]

2007-12-15 Thread Frank Shute
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:13:49AM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:

 On 2007-12-14 21:10, Frank Shute [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  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.
 
 Hi Frank,
 
 Now that you mention pdksh, have you tried mksh (in Ports too)?

No I haven't but I'll certainly give it a look. I've just upgraded my
window manager: blackbox - fluxbox, so I might aswell upgrade my
shell ;)

 
 I've installed it and successfully run moderately large ksh scripts
 (like the webrev(1) utility of OpenSolaris), and it is about an order of
 magnitude smaller than pdksh here:

Sounds good, thanks for the tip Giorgos.

 
 % [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/bin$ ls -ld mksh bash ksh
 % -rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  -  684699 Dec  9 19:51 bash
 % -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  - 2390645 Aug 31 17:07 ksh
 % -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  -  236202 Dec  9 18:34 mksh

Wow. My pdksh is much smaller:

$ ls -ld /usr/local/bin/ksh
-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  681584 Jan 23  2007 /usr/local/bin/ksh

$ pkg_info -W /usr/local/bin/ksh
/usr/local/bin/ksh was installed by package pdksh-5.2.14p2_2

It's also statically compiled. I wonder what is bloating yours so
much. Was it built with debugging code or something?

 % [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/bin$ ldd mksh bash ksh
 % mksh:
 % libc.so.7 = /lib/libc.so.7 (0x280ae000)
 % bash:
 % libncurses.so.7 = /lib/libncurses.so.7 (0x28101000)
 % libintl.so.8 = /usr/local/lib/libintl.so.8 (0x28144000)
 % libiconv.so.3 = /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so.3 (0x28156000)
 % libc.so.7 = /lib/libc.so.7 (0x2824b000)
 % ldd: ksh: not a dynamic executable
 % [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/bin$


-- 

 Frank 


 Contact info: http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/misc/contact.html 

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-15 Thread Frank Shute
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 06:57:09AM -0500, Gerard Seibert wrote:

  On December 14, 2007 at 08:03PM Frank Shute wrote:
 
  On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 06:00:14PM -0500, Gerard Seibert wrote:
  
On December 14, 2007 at 04:10PM Frank Shute wrote:
   
   [ snip ]
   
I'm happy with sh as the system shell though; it's light weight:

$ ls -l /bin/sh
-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  111028 Nov 30 00:10 /bin/sh
 
 ~ $ ls -l /bin/sh
 -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  111788 Oct  5 13:55 /bin/sh*

I can understand why the size of sh might be different. Different
patch levels. (Built almost 2 months apart).

 
 
$ ls -l /bin/ksh
-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  681584 Oct  6 12:33 /bin/ksh

How about giving us all a laugh and posting the results for bash ;)
   
   ~ $ ls -l /usr/local/bin/bash
   -rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  643984 Sep 12 15:51 /usr/local/bin/bash*
   
  
  pdksh has put on weight. Used to be ~300k in the 4.* days and bash
  about 500k IIRC. On my machine bash is bigger than yours (newer version?):
 
 ~ $ bash --version
 bash --version
 GNU bash, version 3.2.25(0)-release (i386-portbld-freebsd6.2)
 Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Same as mine:

$ bash --version
GNU bash, version 3.2.25(0)-release (i386-portbld-freebsd6.2)
Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

I'm not too sure why my bash is different in size. I guess it sucked
in slightly different code when built due to our base systems being the
2 months apart.

[snip]

-- 

 Frank 


 Contact info: http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/misc/contact.html 

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: pdksh vs. mksh info [was: Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.]

2007-12-15 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On 2007-12-15 13:54, Frank Shute [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 % [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/bin$ ls -ld mksh bash ksh
 % -rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  -  684699 Dec  9 19:51 bash
 % -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  - 2390645 Aug 31 17:07 ksh
 % -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  -  236202 Dec  9 18:34 mksh
 
 Wow. My pdksh is much smaller:
 
 $ ls -ld /usr/local/bin/ksh
 -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  681584 Jan 23  2007 /usr/local/bin/ksh
 
 $ pkg_info -W /usr/local/bin/ksh
 /usr/local/bin/ksh was installed by package pdksh-5.2.14p2_2
 
 It's also statically compiled. I wonder what is bloating yours so
 much. Was it built with debugging code or something?

Yes.  All my ports are build with DEBUG_FLAGS='-g' this time, so it may
be the cause of the pdksh bloat.

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-14 Thread RW
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:09:41 -0700
Chad Perrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Hmm -- fair answer.  I was kind of thinking that on FreeBSD I should
 maybe do such work in csh as the standard shell, but it occurs to me
 that I'd probably be pretty hard-pressed to find a FreeBSD system
 without sh on it.

csh isn't the standard shell, it's just the default login shell for
root. All of the installed shell scripts are for sh, and the
sysinstall default for ordinary users is sh.

I think it's just the case that sysinstall doesn't have normal user
setup page for the root account, so it's sets a sensible default shell
for interactive use.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-14 Thread Kevin Kinsey

Matt LaPlante wrote:

On Dec 13, 2007 9:59 PM, Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Giorgos Keramidas wrote:

On 2007-12-13 18:05, Chad Perrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I ran across this today:

  http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/

Title:
  Csh Programming Considered Harmful

That was written sometime last millenium, I mean, it's REALLY old.  The
question is sort of flamebait (you ought to go ask it on, say, the Linux
IRC channel, for well-reasoned, adult discussion (NOT!)


One could argue that making irrelevant, potentially insulting
statements about alternative operating systems is:
- not adult
- not well-reasoned
- flamebait


And you took it ;-) --- don't read too much into his words.

IRC is the hottest flame war protocol on the planet, and
you're more likely to have large numbers of $any_type_person
on a channel with a large number of users anyway; since Linux
has more users than BSD, it makes sense to me.  Chuck said,
Go to a Linux IRC channel with this question and watch for
something that rivals the Great Chicago Fire happen in 2 seconds.

He could have easily said ##freebsd on Freenode, but it'd
have been a smaller and cooler flame war.  He didn't say Tux
Sucks.

Kevin Kinsey

--
There are really not many jobs that actually require a penis or a
vagina, and all other occupations should be open to everyone.
-- Gloria Steinem
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-14 Thread Chuck Robey

Jerry McAllister wrote:

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:

  http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/

Title:
  Csh Programming Considered Harmful

I wonder what responses I might get here, and how much of this applies to
tcsh as well (I'm still not exactly a tcsh expert).
As you can see, it is 11 years old, but still good advice.  For interactive 
use, tcsh is not too bad, but for writing scripts of any length, sh or bash 
are considered better tools.   For code that will run anywhere, stick to the 
sh subset. 

flamebaitBash 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


Here it is.
I find bash to be ugly and hate it for interactive use.
I would rather just use /bin/sh.


As long as folks don't stop me from running whatever I want, I don't 
care if you use bash, but it really irks me, that most Linux systems are 
broken in that respect: Most of them break badly in random ways, if you 
don't run bash as your shell.  That's poor programming practice, but the 
Linux programmers, since they all run bash themselves, they don't see 
the results of their errors, and they all claim its not a problem.  Try 
running tcsh there, you'll see what I mean reasonably soon, when you 
begin to get random weirdnesses...

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-14 Thread Chad Perrin
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 02:26:28PM +, RW wrote:
 On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:09:41 -0700
 Chad Perrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Hmm -- fair answer.  I was kind of thinking that on FreeBSD I should
  maybe do such work in csh as the standard shell, but it occurs to me
  that I'd probably be pretty hard-pressed to find a FreeBSD system
  without sh on it.
 
 csh isn't the standard shell, it's just the default login shell for
 root. All of the installed shell scripts are for sh, and the
 sysinstall default for ordinary users is sh.
 
 I think it's just the case that sysinstall doesn't have normal user
 setup page for the root account, so it's sets a sensible default shell
 for interactive use.

Thanks for clarifying that point.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Kent Beck: I always knew that one day Smalltalk would replace Java.  I
just didn't know it would be called Ruby.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-14 Thread Frank Shute
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:
 
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
 
  Title:
Csh Programming Considered Harmful
 
  I wonder what responses I might get here, and how much of this applies to
  tcsh as well (I'm still not exactly a tcsh expert).
 
 As you can see, it is 11 years old, but still good advice.  For interactive 
 use, tcsh is not too bad, but for writing scripts of any length, sh or bash 
 are considered better tools.   For code that will run anywhere, stick to the 
 sh subset. 
 
 flamebaitBash 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'm happy with sh as the system shell though; it's light weight:

$ ls -l /bin/sh
-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  111028 Nov 30 00:10 /bin/sh

$ ls -l /bin/ksh
-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  681584 Oct  6 12:33 /bin/ksh

How about giving us all a laugh and posting the results for bash ;)

/flamebait


-- 

 Frank 


 Contact info: http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/misc/contact.html 

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-14 Thread Gerard Seibert
 On December 14, 2007 at 04:10PM Frank Shute wrote:

[ snip ]

 I'm happy with sh as the system shell though; it's light weight:
 
 $ ls -l /bin/sh
 -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  111028 Nov 30 00:10 /bin/sh
 
 $ ls -l /bin/ksh
 -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  681584 Oct  6 12:33 /bin/ksh
 
 How about giving us all a laugh and posting the results for bash ;)

~ $ ls -l /usr/local/bin/bash
-rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  643984 Sep 12 15:51 /usr/local/bin/bash*


-- 
Gerard
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-14 Thread Frank Shute
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 06:00:14PM -0500, Gerard Seibert wrote:

  On December 14, 2007 at 04:10PM Frank Shute wrote:
 
 [ snip ]
 
  I'm happy with sh as the system shell though; it's light weight:
  
  $ ls -l /bin/sh
  -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  111028 Nov 30 00:10 /bin/sh
  
  $ ls -l /bin/ksh
  -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  681584 Oct  6 12:33 /bin/ksh
  
  How about giving us all a laugh and posting the results for bash ;)
 
 ~ $ ls -l /usr/local/bin/bash
 -rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  643984 Sep 12 15:51 /usr/local/bin/bash*
 

pdksh has put on weight. Used to be ~300k in the 4.* days and bash
about 500k IIRC. On my machine bash is bigger than yours (newer version?):

$ ls -l /usr/local/bin/bash
-rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  676752 Nov  9 11:57 /usr/local/bin/bash

Don't know why bash is writable by root but sh  ksh aren't. 

Seems like I've ended up with bash installed whether I like it or not:

$ pkg_info -R bash-3.2.25
Information for bash-3.2.25:

Required by:
gnome-doc-utils-0.12.0
libgnome-2.20.1.1_1
rarian-0.6.0_1

:(

-- 

 Frank 


 Contact info: http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/misc/contact.html 

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


pdksh vs. mksh info [was: Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.]

2007-12-14 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On 2007-12-14 21:10, Frank Shute [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 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.

Hi Frank,

Now that you mention pdksh, have you tried mksh (in Ports too)?

I've installed it and successfully run moderately large ksh scripts
(like the webrev(1) utility of OpenSolaris), and it is about an order of
magnitude smaller than pdksh here:

% [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/bin$ ls -ld mksh bash ksh
% -rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  -  684699 Dec  9 19:51 bash
% -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  - 2390645 Aug 31 17:07 ksh
% -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  -  236202 Dec  9 18:34 mksh
% [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/bin$ ldd mksh bash ksh
% mksh:
% libc.so.7 = /lib/libc.so.7 (0x280ae000)
% bash:
% libncurses.so.7 = /lib/libncurses.so.7 (0x28101000)
% libintl.so.8 = /usr/local/lib/libintl.so.8 (0x28144000)
% libiconv.so.3 = /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so.3 (0x28156000)
% libc.so.7 = /lib/libc.so.7 (0x2824b000)
% ldd: ksh: not a dynamic executable
% [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/bin$

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-13 Thread Jerry McAllister
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:
 
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
 
  Title:
Csh Programming Considered Harmful
 
  I wonder what responses I might get here, and how much of this applies to
  tcsh as well (I'm still not exactly a tcsh expert).
 
 As you can see, it is 11 years old, but still good advice.  For interactive 
 use, tcsh is not too bad, but for writing scripts of any length, sh or bash 
 are considered better tools.   For code that will run anywhere, stick to the 
 sh subset. 
 
 flamebaitBash 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

Here it is.
I find bash to be ugly and hate it for interactive use.
I would rather just use /bin/sh.

jerry

 
 -- 
 Mike Jeays
 http://www.jeays.ca
 ___
 freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
 To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-13 Thread Rob

Chad Perrin wrote:

I ran across this today:
  http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
Title:  Csh Programming Considered Harmful
I wonder what responses I might get here, and how much of this applies to
tcsh as well (I'm still not exactly a tcsh expert).


If you really want to troll, there's a unix haters handbook available 
as a pdf out there (stw)


  -R

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-13 Thread Rob

Jerry McAllister wrote:
flamebaitBash 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


Yeah, right... when Penguins Fly (hahahaha)  [that was intended as a 
joke and dumb linux reference]



I find bash to be ugly and hate it for interactive use.
I would rather just use /bin/sh.  jerry


Seriously, Jerry, what do you dislike about it?  If you ignore its 
features, it's no different from sh that I've seen.


  -R



___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-13 Thread Mike Jeays
On December 13, 2007 08:05:42 pm Chad Perrin wrote:
 I ran across this today:

   http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/

 Title:
   Csh Programming Considered Harmful

 I wonder what responses I might get here, and how much of this applies to
 tcsh as well (I'm still not exactly a tcsh expert).

As you can see, it is 11 years old, but still good advice.  For interactive 
use, tcsh is not too bad, but for writing scripts of any length, sh or bash 
are considered better tools.   For code that will run anywhere, stick to the 
sh subset. 

flamebaitBash 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



-- 
Mike Jeays
http://www.jeays.ca
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-13 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On 2007-12-13 18:05, Chad Perrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I ran across this today:
 
   http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
 
 Title:
   Csh Programming Considered Harmful
 
 I wonder what responses I might get here, and how much of this applies
 to tcsh as well (I'm still not exactly a tcsh expert).

Most of the points made in the FAQ about scripting large `applications'
with csh ring a bell for me.  Now, having said that, /bin/sh is nice for
small to medium-sized scripts, but there is a certain point where even
sh(1) becomes annoying.

Do you have any _particular_ parts of the csh-whynot article that you
would like to discuss, or this is a free for all flame? :)

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-13 Thread Warren Block

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Chad Perrin wrote:


I ran across this today:

 http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/

Title:
 Csh Programming Considered Harmful

I wonder what responses I might get here, and how much of this applies to
tcsh as well (I'm still not exactly a tcsh expert).


I like csh/tcsh as a shell, but don't use it to run scripts.

/bin/sh is the One True Shell Script Interpreter; heathen bashisms are 
just as bad as csh constructs.


When you can't use a higher-level language (Perubython), use shell 
scripts.  But stick to plain sh, because if it's useful you'll probably 
end up having to convert it to sh anyway.


-Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota USA
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-13 Thread Matt LaPlante
On Dec 13, 2007 9:59 PM, Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
  On 2007-12-13 18:05, Chad Perrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I ran across this today:
 
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
 
  Title:
Csh Programming Considered Harmful

 That was written sometime last millenium, I mean, it's REALLY old.  The
 question is sort of flamebait (you ought to go ask it on, say, the Linux
 IRC channel, for well-reasoned, adult discussion (NOT!)

One could argue that making irrelevant, potentially insulting
statements about alternative operating systems is:
- not adult
- not well-reasoned
- flamebait

 In general,
 it's right, you really wouldn't want to use tcsh as a scripting
 language.  Read it, you'll come out ahead, but understand, that tcsh is
 a heck of a good general purpose command shell for users.

 
  I wonder what responses I might get here, and how much of this applies
  to tcsh as well (I'm still not exactly a tcsh expert).
 
  Most of the points made in the FAQ about scripting large `applications'
  with csh ring a bell for me.  Now, having said that, /bin/sh is nice for
  small to medium-sized scripts, but there is a certain point where even
  sh(1) becomes annoying.
 
  Do you have any _particular_ parts of the csh-whynot article that you
  would like to discuss, or this is a free for all flame? :)
 
  ___
  freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
  http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
  To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 ___
 freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
 To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-13 Thread Chuck Robey

Giorgos Keramidas wrote:

On 2007-12-13 18:05, Chad Perrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I ran across this today:

  http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/

Title:
  Csh Programming Considered Harmful


That was written sometime last millenium, I mean, it's REALLY old.  The 
question is sort of flamebait (you ought to go ask it on, say, the Linux 
IRC channel, for well-reasoned, adult discussion (NOT!)  In general, 
it's right, you really wouldn't want to use tcsh as a scripting 
language.  Read it, you'll come out ahead, but understand, that tcsh is 
a heck of a good general purpose command shell for users.




I wonder what responses I might get here, and how much of this applies
to tcsh as well (I'm still not exactly a tcsh expert).


Most of the points made in the FAQ about scripting large `applications'
with csh ring a bell for me.  Now, having said that, /bin/sh is nice for
small to medium-sized scripts, but there is a certain point where even
sh(1) becomes annoying.

Do you have any _particular_ parts of the csh-whynot article that you
would like to discuss, or this is a free for all flame? :)

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-13 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On 2007-12-13 21:59, Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
 On 2007-12-13 18:05, Chad Perrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I ran across this today:

   http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/

 Title:
   Csh Programming Considered Harmful

 That was written sometime last millenium, I mean, it's REALLY old.  The
 question is sort of flamebait (you ought to go ask it on, say, the Linux
 IRC channel, for well-reasoned, adult discussion (NOT!)  In general, it's
 right, you really wouldn't want to use tcsh as a scripting language.  Read
 it, you'll come out ahead, but understand, that tcsh is a heck of a good
 general purpose command shell for users.

Tcsh is a fine shell.  I'm using it all the time (that's how I found out
that a buglet reported by Kris Kennaway a few months ago was indeed a
bug which I could reproduce too).

I just don't like it for scripting :-)

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


RE: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-13 Thread Ted Mittelstaedt


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mike Jeays
 Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:13 PM
 To: FreeBSD Questions
 Subject: Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.



 flamebaitBash 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



The standard shell MUST be able to be statically compiled.

You don't have access to all your nice dynamically loaded libraries
when the only filesystem on your server that will mount is /, due
to some disk error.

Ted
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1183 - Release Date: 12/13/2007
9:15 AM

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-13 Thread Chad Perrin
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 04:25:30AM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
 On 2007-12-13 18:05, Chad Perrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I ran across this today:
  
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
  
  Title:
Csh Programming Considered Harmful
  
  I wonder what responses I might get here, and how much of this applies
  to tcsh as well (I'm still not exactly a tcsh expert).
 
 Most of the points made in the FAQ about scripting large `applications'
 with csh ring a bell for me.  Now, having said that, /bin/sh is nice for
 small to medium-sized scripts, but there is a certain point where even
 sh(1) becomes annoying.
 
 Do you have any _particular_ parts of the csh-whynot article that you
 would like to discuss, or this is a free for all flame? :)

It's a free-for-all -- but not really a flame.  I was looking for some
general opinions and insights on the matter.  As I said, I'm still not
exactly a tcsh expert (though, in general, I find I like it more than
bash as my command shell).

I don't generally like using any of the common shells for real
programming, anyway.  Anything beyond just automating a few commands so I
don't get RSI, I tend to go with Perl or Ruby for scripting.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Kent Beck: I always knew that one day Smalltalk would replace Java.  I
just didn't know it would be called Ruby.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

2007-12-13 Thread Chad Perrin
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 07:42:35PM -0700, Warren Block wrote:
 On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Chad Perrin wrote:
 
 I ran across this today:
 
  http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
 
 Title:
  Csh Programming Considered Harmful
 
 I wonder what responses I might get here, and how much of this applies to
 tcsh as well (I'm still not exactly a tcsh expert).
 
 I like csh/tcsh as a shell, but don't use it to run scripts.
 
 /bin/sh is the One True Shell Script Interpreter; heathen bashisms are 
 just as bad as csh constructs.
 
 When you can't use a higher-level language (Perubython), use shell 
 scripts.  But stick to plain sh, because if it's useful you'll probably 
 end up having to convert it to sh anyway.

Hmm -- fair answer.  I was kind of thinking that on FreeBSD I should
maybe do such work in csh as the standard shell, but it occurs to me that
I'd probably be pretty hard-pressed to find a FreeBSD system without sh
on it.

. . . and I *do* use Perubython (or rather, Perubyl) for anything complex
enough to use more than one or two conditionals in it.  I haven't met a
shell (other than one derived from a general purpose programming
language) yet that doesn't annoy me beyond that level of complexity for
scripting.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
John W. Russell: People point. Sometimes that's just easier. They also use
words. Sometimes that's just easier. For the same reasons that pointing has
not made words obsolete, there will always be command lines.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]