From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 11 02:16:46 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A8A91065678 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 02:16:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from malcolm.kay@internode.on.net) Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.131]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FD9A8FC1D for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 02:16:44 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AogFAGQ3EUx5LWG+/2dsb2JhbACDHo9NjAxyrXg0kDiBJoMDbwSDSQ Received: from ppp121-45-97-190.lns20.adl6.internode.on.net (HELO alpha.home) ([121.45.97.190]) by ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 11 Jun 2010 11:46:44 +0930 From: Malcolm Kay Organization: at home To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 11:46:41 +0930 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <1276190395.5437.53.camel@jane.spg.more.net> In-Reply-To: <1276190395.5437.53.camel@jane.spg.more.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201006111146.42080.malcolm.kay@internode.on.net> Subject: Re: Switched to Bash and Comparison of Shells X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 02:16:46 -0000 On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 02:49 am, Dan D Niles wrote: > I had been using csh/tcsh for 20 years and I just switched to > bash. The recent discussion about the differences between the > shells prompted me to take another look at bash. I thought > I'd share my perception of the differences between tcsh and > bash. It seems to me that it is a little late in the day to be changing to bash. Some well known Linux distributions are beginning to see that some non-posix features of bash can create difficulties. I believe recent releases of Ubuntu use dash as the prefered shell, and it looks as though Debian will be going the same way. Dash is supposed to be a modern, faster and cleaner implementation of sh -- if installed through FBSD ports it has the same man page as sh. > > The big thing tcsh is lacking, and the reason I switched, is > the lack of sensible redirection (as some call it). > Specifically, not being able to do 'command 2>/dev/null > >/somefile' is why I switched. I'm also a long time csh/tcsh user (somewhat more than 20 years) and freely admit that redirection at the command line can occassionally be a problem. I've always used sh for any serious scripting. Unless you wish to play with one or other fairly common but lesser known shells such as zsh or ksh then I would suggest that sh or dash (perhaps with a -E or -V option for interactive use) would be more appropriate than bash in a modern OS. But ultimately each to his own. Good luck, Malcolm