From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 15 13:25:13 2007 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 822C516A418 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:25:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bv@bilver.wjv.com) Received: from wjv.com (fl-65-40-24-38.sta.embarqhsd.net [65.40.24.38]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2992713C459 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:25:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bv@bilver.wjv.com) Received: from bilver.wjv.com (localhost.wjv.com [127.0.0.1]) by wjv.com (8.14.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lBFDPB5L050266 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:25:11 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from bv@bilver.wjv.com) Received: (from bv@localhost) by bilver.wjv.com (8.14.1/8.13.1/Submit) id lBFDP6S4050265 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:25:06 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from bv) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:25:06 -0500 From: Bill Vermillion To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20071215132506.GA49938@wjv.com> References: <20071214223349.8FC0A16A4CA@hub.freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071214223349.8FC0A16A4CA@hub.freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Organization: W.J.Vermillion / Orlando - Winter Park ReplyTo: bv@wjv.com Subject: ksh - was: Re: csh progermming considered harmful X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: bv@wjv.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:25:13 -0000 Shakespeare wrote plays and sonnets which will last an eternity, but on Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 22:33 , freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org wrote these truly forgetable lines: > Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:10:08 +0000 > From: "Frank Shute" > Subject: Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful. > To: Mike Jeays > Cc: FreeBSD Questions > 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: [much deleted - wjv] > > Bash 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. > > 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 tried the pdksh once and didn't like it. I went back to the genuine ksh [from AT&T] that I had been using for years, and I have it on all the *n*x systems I mainatain. Even though it's bigger then the pdksh [and I always compile my shells statically just in case] I'd be lost without it. Bill -- Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com