28 May
2004
28 May
'04
7:41 a.m.
Cameron Kaiser <spectre(a)floodgap.com> wrote:
Perl is unbelievably commonplace, though. You
don't have it/use it? I
barely remember life before Perl (and for that matter tcsh -- I can't believe
I fumbled by on csh all those years in university).
Just as a data point: I have Perl 4.036 installed on this VAX running
4.3BSD-Quasijarus, though I don't know Perl and don't use it myself.
(I installed it because something else needed it, don't remember what.)
As for the shell, I refuse to install any shell other than those than come
standard with 4.3BSD (original sh and csh). I personally use sh only.
That's right, the *original* Bourne Shell.
MS
28 May
28 May
7:48 a.m.
On Friday 28 May 2004 11:41, Michael Sokolov wrote:
As for the shell, I refuse to install any shell other
than those than
come standard with 4.3BSD (original sh and csh). I personally use sh
only. That's right, the *original* Bourne Shell.
Line editing, tab completion, and command history be damned! (Just a few
of the advantages of having a recent shell). Personally, I rather be
able to press <UP> than retype a 40+ character command line that I
mis-typed a single letter on.
Of course, I'm not going to argue with you about this. I know how far
that'll get me. ;)
Pat
--
Purdue University ITAP/RCS --- http://www.itap.purdue.edu/rcs/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
8:13 a.m.
On Fri, 2004-05-28 at 16:48, Patrick Finnegan wrote:
Personally, I rather be
able to press <UP> than retype a 40+ character command line that I
mis-typed a single letter on.
Doesn't that particular form of simple command line editing (eg. ^a^b)
work in the original sh? :-) It works in sh on this linux machine, but
that's perhaps a long way from the original sh (as I believe it's just
bash running in sh compatibility mode). I think it's always been present
in csh.
(I used to hate not being able to do simple substitution like that in
MSDOS :-)
cheers
Jules
8:34 a.m.
Rumor has it that Jules Richardson may have mentioned these words:
On Fri, 2004-05-28 at 16:48, Patrick Finnegan wrote:
> Personally, I rather be
> able to press <UP> than retype a 40+ character command line that I
> mis-typed a single letter on.
Bingo... I did my time doing that on OS-9 -- I eschewed a bulkier shell on
that platform at the for two reasons: 1) ENOCASH, and 2) when you're only
working with 2Mhz & 64K datasegments, I was willing to live with the
limitations... and maybe that's one reason I can pop out 110wpm... ;-)
Doesn't that particular form of simple command line
editing (eg. ^a^b)
work in the original sh? :-)
Yes, but <UP><DOWN> and tab file/command completion don't.
It works in sh on this linux machine, but
that's perhaps a long way from the original sh (as I believe it's just
bash running in sh compatibility mode).
Huh? AFAIK, bash is *always* in "sh compatibility mode" as it's (supposed
to be) backward-compatible with sh. If you:
ls -lAF /bin|grep sh
you'll prolly see that sh is just a symlink to bash, so you're running
full-blown bash.
Here's mine:
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 92444 Feb 6 2003 ash*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 492968 Feb 6 2003 ash.static*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 626028 Feb 11 2003 bash*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Apr 15 2003 bash2 -> bash*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 3 Apr 15 2003 bsh -> ash*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Apr 15 2003 csh -> tcsh*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Apr 15 2003 sh -> bash*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 316276 Jan 25 2003 tcsh*
[[ RedSplat 9... ]]
Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger --- sysadmin, Iceberg Computers
zmerch(a)30below.com
Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature to join in!
9:17 a.m.
On Fri, 2004-05-28 at 17:34, Roger Merchberger wrote:
Rumor has it that Jules Richardson may have mentioned
these words:
Sure - but I meant that just because I tried doing the ^a^b command
modification thingy in sh (which as you say is a link to bash) on the
machine I'm sitting in front of (as with you, RH9), that doesn't
necessarily mean that it's available in the original sh, as it could be
a feature of another shell which bash has incorporated over time.
Actually, I just looked at the man page for bash, which says:
"If bash is invoked with the name sh, it tries to mimic the startup
behavior of historical versions of sh as closely as possible, while
conforming to the POSIX standard as well"
... which maybe does imply that bash isn't *quite* as sh compatible when
run as bash rather than sh. Of course that just mentions the startup
behaviour, not whether there are differences during normal interactive
operation.
Which makes me realise that I may well still have an old version of the
SLS distribution of Linux somewhere, which is actually on topic as it's
over ten years old now. :)
cheers
Jules
It works in sh on this linux machine, but
that's perhaps a long way from the original sh (as I believe it's just
bash running in sh compatibility mode).
Huh? AFAIK, bash is *always* in "sh compatibility mode" as it's (supposed
to be) backward-compatible with sh. If you:
ls -lAF /bin|grep sh
you'll prolly see that sh is just a symlink to bash, so you're running
full-blown bash. 
9:43 a.m.
Perl is
unbelievably commonplace, though. You don't have it/use it? I
barely remember life before Perl (and for that matter tcsh -- I can't
believe I fumbled by on csh all those years in university).
Just as a data point: I have Perl 4.036 installed on this VAX running
4.3BSD-Quasijarus, though I don't know Perl and don't use it myself.
(I installed it because something else needed it, don't remember what.)
As for the shell, I refuse to install any shell other than those than come
standard with 4.3BSD (original sh and csh). I personally use sh only.
That's right, the *original* Bourne Shell.
7365
days inactive
7365
days old
5 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
msokolov＠ivan.Harhan.ORG -
pat＠computer-refuge.org -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
zmerch＠30below.com