From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Apr 20 0:56:56 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C7D37BDE0 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:56:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA07102 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 09:56:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id JAA00697 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 09:56:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.6.134]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CA4037BD5B for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 14:24:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert@usr09.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp04.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA13798; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 14:24:22 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr09.primenet.com(206.165.6.209) via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAqqaa5A; Wed Apr 19 14:24:12 2000 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA04275; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 14:24:14 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <200004192124.OAA04275@usr09.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Shells V2 To: Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 21:24:14 +0000 (GMT) Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <200004160031.e3G0Vt302555@cwsys.cwsent.com> from "Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group" at Apr 15, 2000 05:31:26 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > With commit of tcsh, I'd like to raise another question. Are there any > plans to replace sh with bash? Granted they're not 100% compatible, > though my only experience with bash vs sh incompatibility was over 6 > years ago on a Linux system, I still think it might be a good idea to > replace sh with bash. My opinion, which seems to be missing from the summaries, is that importing tcsh over csh is a stupid thing. It is stupid to do because of, among other incompatabilities, it has "enhanced" variable substitution which will find its way into csh scripts written by people who don't know any better. The same argument is true of bash. It claims that bash is a superset of sh, and that it is OK to replace sh because of this. It is stupid to do because of, among other incompatabilities, it has "enhanced" variable substitution which will find its way into sh scripts written by people who don't know any better. [ ... Wait, is there an echo in here? ... ] You all realize that this creeping-featurism based incompatability is the same thing that fueled the "UNIX wars" of the 80's, and resulted in their being no common ABI between UNIX implementations, right? I really don't give a damn if someone wants to write tcsh or bash scripts, but they should at least have the human decency to put #!/usr/local/bin/tcsh or #!/usr/local/bin/bash to warn us of the possible use of non-standard features in their scripts. Failing to do this will lead to scripts not running across platforms, with no indication of why not. Quit being so damned FreeBSD and Linux centric for a minute, will you?!? Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message