Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 18:11:34 -0600 From: Nikolas Britton <freebsd@nbritton.org> To: Mike Jeays <Mike.Jeays@rogers.com> Cc: freebsd-newbies@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Shell Games Message-ID: <41D49936.4000802@nbritton.org> In-Reply-To: <1104431994.1669.19.camel@chaucer> References: <49B5BEF2.7CCF22F4.0F75C5EC@netscape.net> <1104431994.1669.19.camel@chaucer>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Jeays wrote: >On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 13:00, Jeff Lewis wrote: > > >> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * >> * * >> * Sue & Greg: Please don't hesitate to suggest that I take these * >> * comments to a more appropriate list. I do not want * >> * them to just be allowed as in times past. * >> * * >> * I believe that all of these postings are within * >> * the list's charter. Perhaps they will be a good * >> * example. If not, then perhaps I will concur with * >> * you both that the list should be disbanded. But * >> * I figure that I have roughly 30 days to push the * >> * envelope. Be purists so that newbies understand. * >> * * >> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * >> >>FIRST >>----- >>I chose FreeBSD to house my company's new external web server primarily >>because of it's stability. I've only played with linux, but enough to >>feel like I was on a real whirlwind of updates all the time. I figured >>that if FreeBSD was stable enough for Yahoo, Google and Pair (my ISP) >>to base THEIR business on, then it should be stable enough for this >>little business as well. >> >>SECOND >>------ >>I have time. I have 3-6 months to get this box up, stable and secure. >>Security is this huge black hole for me. I don't even know enough to >>know how much I don't know. I am chomping at the bit to learn. >> >>THIRD >>----- >>I primarily come from an MSDOS 3.0 - 6.22 world. I beta tested Win95. >>I barely used Win98, preferring WinNT. But I've used a multitude of >>computers throughout my career, including TRS-DOS, Concurrent CPM, >>PR1MOS, and tons of embedded stuff. I spent roughly 25 years in an >>electronics manufacturing environment. I got into IT as a Netware 3 >>and 4 administrator. Took a job at a fast growing company in the >>center of a major US city and helped them setup WinNT servers, as >>well as create a WAN throughout the US. The corporate mandate there >>was Microsoft. No FOSS whatsover, period. >> >>Today, I am an administrator for a small Microsoft based Win2k3/WinXP >>network, in a small company, located only 2 miles from my home. I am 47, >>eat lunch at home everyday and see my wife and teenagers every night. >> >>But I choose what we run here. We were bound to an app that mandated >>Microsoft SQL Server. We had no such mandate for the new web server. >> >> >>AND FINALLY! >>------------ >>I have played with Unix, or worked in a very small way on production >>SunOS computers off and on for years. I never understood the whole >>concept of multiple shells and/or scripting languages. I've read about >>them, but there MUST be some teflon in the cranium somewhere. >> >>I understand this next question could invoke what I've termed digital >>zealotry, but as a FreeBSD newbie, I gotta know. >> >>Why are there so many different shells? Does each shell interface >>directly with the kernel independantly? AND (here it comes) which is >>the [right one/best one] to use? >> >> > >There are several shells because each author felt he could improve on >what had been done before - and to scratch a personal itch, perhaps. >There isn't a 'best' shell - this is the stuff of flamewars. > >My personal preference is Bash. It is readily available on most Unixes, >and has a good selection of features. I don't so much like the csh/tcsh >family, which have a somewhat different syntax. > >It pays to learn one thoroughly - they are so similar that if you use >several, it is easy to get confused. > > >>I guess I am TOO comfortable with the command.com/batch file world >>and that I need to open my mind a little. I've always felt that CMD/Batch >>was more of a limiting factor than a plus, but I could alway use KIX >>or Novell's login scripts to get network scripting done. For everything >>else, there was perl. I never had to chang a shell, replaced command.com. >>Just used a different scripting language. Perl has existed a lot longer >>in the unix world than the MS world. Why not script everything in that? >> >>So why CSHELL as a shell AND a scripting language, BASH as a shell AND >>a scripting language? SHELL, CSHELL and BASH all on the same machine? >>Do they have specific purposes? Should I log in as root using one type >>of shell but log in as my user account using another type of shell? >> >> > >There is no reason to have separate shells for batch and interactive use >- this just increases the learning curve. > >Many people recommend keeping sh as the root shell for FreeBSD, but lots >more disagree. The benefit is that sh should always be available, even >in a badly crippled machine. (If even sh won't work, the machine is >probably toast) > > I thought csh was the default shell for freebsd....yea it is: root:********************************:0:0::0:0:Charlie &:/root:/bin/csh >>I guess that I am leaning towards BASH for everything. I have an >>O'Reilly book for BASH. But if I do so, am I missing some rich feature >>set somewhere else? >> >>Is there a good rule of thumb for when I should not use a BASH script >>and go to a PERL script? >> >> > >If you can't do it easily in Bash, then using Perl makes sense. It >depends on your skill level - Bash can do just about anything, but the >harder things are very tricky sometimes. > > >>URLs gladly accepted for places to learn more. >> >>Jeff >> >> >> >> Do you remember the TMTOWTDI motto for perl and the underlying message in it jeff?......
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41D49936.4000802>