> 1) I find myself working on several different OSs these days: WinNT, > Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, FreeBSD, Linux, etc. Being able to have the same > shell everywhere is nice and I have found bash to be the easiest to > install on all these types of machines. (autoconf is a beautiful > thing!)
this is one of the main motivators for me also. the fact that bash comes with just about everything, and is easily installed (or already installed by the geek before you) on what's left. > 2) Bash is Bourne Shell compatible. This means that if I'm in a > situation where I cannot install bash, for whatever reason, I'm not > strangled by being unfamiliar with sh-flavor command line behavior. again a good reason. also the functionality of bash functions seems to have well surpassed tcsh's aliases. > (I've found that an unconfigured csh is about as friendly as > unconfigured ksh - both of which are found standard on most machines, no kidding ... i learned on csh (sunos 4.1.1) ... talk about a horrible experience ... it drove me to tcsh. > This point is even stronger for scripts. Very few scripts I find are > written in csh, so being familiar with Bourne syntax is more yack. only program in sh/bash ... please. it's so much nicer anyway i'm not sure why anyone would want to write csh scripts. > Of course this topic cannot be mentioned without the following > reference: http://language.perl.com/versus/csh.whynot yep. a must read if you are tempted by the evil empire. > While there are still a few things I prefer about tcsh, I figure bash can you expound? i'm curious. > LocalWords: Kron eh? what is this? adam. ------------------------ Internet Alaska ------------------------- 4050 Lake Otis Adam Shand (v) +1 907 562 4638 Anchorage, Alaska Systems Administrator (f) +1 907 562 1677 ----------------- http://larry.earthlight.co.nz ------------------ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
