Erik Trimble wrote:
> Curious: Can you point me to anything that indicates ksh88 and/or ksh93
> are NOT fully Bourne-compatible?
Did you read the information on:
http://schilytools.sourceforge.net/bosh.html
and on the man page, e.g. from:
http://schillix.sourceforge.net/man/m
Hugh McIntyre wrote:
>
> On 8/29/16 4:05 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
> >
> >> Wow, looks like I have ignited a long thread! :)
> >> Maybe I should have better stated that it's not about bash, but that the
> >> shells are said to be Bourne-compatible.
> >> Also, maybe I
S.r.l.
:
http://www.sonicle.com
Music:
http://www.gabrielebulfon.com
Quantum Mechanics :
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/gabrielebulfon
Da:
Erik Trimble
A:
discuss@lists.illumos.org
Data:
29 agosto 2016 10.06.48 CEST
Oggetto:
Re: [discuss] default system shell
Your RedHat friend is, frankly, talking out of
wn way patching.
>
> Please rethink this afte you read my recent mail.
>
> > Da:
> > Erik Trimble
> > A:
> > discuss@lists.illumos.org
> > Data:
> > 29 agosto 2016 10.06.48 CEST
> > Oggetto:
> > Re: [discuss] default system shell
> > Y
On 8/29/16 4:05 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
Wow, looks like I have ignited a long thread! :)
Maybe I should have better stated that it's not about bash, but that the shells
are said to be Bourne-compatible.
Also, maybe I exagerated the number of shells, it's about one h
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> On 08/29/16 03:19 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > What people prefer as shell seems to depend on when people started to use
> > UNIX.
> >
> > tcsh is a csh descendent, but it added support for a history editor very
> > lately.
>
> It had that when I started using it in
and yet working with vanilla tcsh is not horrible. it mostly does what i want
out of the box.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 29, 2016, at 8:31 AM, Tobias Oetiker wrote:
>
> Today Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
>> I have tried ksh93 and of course I use bash sometimes (when I am
>> forced to). I fin
Today Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> I have tried ksh93 and of course I use bash sometimes (when I am
> forced to). I find them both miserable for interactive use, at
> least for me. (And tcsh is just as miserable for scripting which
> is why I wont do that either.)
I have recently switched from tcs
Interactively I have not found a better shell though admittedly I have not
tried zsh. Part of the reason is that zsh is far less widely deployed.
There a few things in tcsh that I think are unmatched. Programmable
completion. Support for some magic functions like magic-space (which expands
h
> On Aug 29, 2016, at 10:26 AM, Alan Coopersmith
> wrote:
>
>> I would be interested to understand why people these days still use tcsh.
>> Could
>> you explain?
>
> Quarter century of muscle memory, and not taken the time yet to upgrade to
> zsh.
Amen!
bloody(~)[0]% grep danmcd /etc/passw
On 08/29/16 03:19 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
What people prefer as shell seems to depend on when people started to use UNIX.
tcsh is a csh descendent, but it added support for a history editor very lately.
It had that when I started using it in 1990 when I learned UNIX, so it's only
"very late
Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
> you mean I should try to remove the "local" operators usage so I can still
> use ksh?
ksh88 (available as "ksh" on Solaris) supports "local". This is implemented by
a hardwired alias "local=typeset".
ksh93 does not support this feature in a standard compliant environm
cdbaby.com/cd/gabrielebulfon
--
Da: Joerg Schilling
discuss@lists.illumos.org
erik.trim...@netdemons.org
Data: 29 agosto 2016 13.31.31 CEST
Oggetto: Re: [discuss] default system shell
Gabriele Bulfon
wrote:
"Volker A. Brandt" wrote:
> Joerg Schilling writes:
> > I would be interested to understand why people these days still use
> > tcsh. Could you explain?
>
> - It works.
>
> - It has been working the same way since ~1985/86 when I started using
> it (under ConvexOS). Yes, it had a history edito
Udo Grabowski wrote:
> On 29/08/2016 12:19, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >..
> > I would be interested to understand why people these days still use tcsh.
> > Could
> > you explain?
> > ..
>
> Mostly because the whole "infrastructure" (complete-definitions,
> aliases, etc.) for users is the
ts.illumos.org
> Data:
> 29 agosto 2016 10.06.48 CEST
> Oggetto:
> Re: [discuss] default system shell
> Your RedHat friend is, frankly, talking out of his ass.
> First off, Ksh (also known as ksh88) is fully, 100% backwards compatible with
> the Bourne shell (sh).
> Secondly, ks
Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
> Wow, looks like I have ignited a long thread! :)
> Maybe I should have better stated that it's not about bash, but that the
> shells are said to be Bourne-compatible.
> Also, maybe I exagerated the number of shells, it's about one hundered at
> most... ;)
There are not
Joerg Schilling writes:
> I would be interested to understand why people these days still use
> tcsh. Could you explain?
- It works.
- It has been working the same way since ~1985/86 when I started using
it (under ConvexOS). Yes, it had a history editor then.
- It's csh compatible.
- No inco
On 29/08/2016 12:19, Joerg Schilling wrote:
..
I would be interested to understand why people these days still use tcsh. Could
you explain?
> ..
Mostly because the whole "infrastructure" (complete-definitions,
aliases, etc.) for users is there and proven, and users are adapted
to its be
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2016, Udo Grabowski wrote:
>
> > On 27/08/2016 20:16, Alex Smith (K4RNT) wrote:
> >> I must be the only one who still uses tcsh occasionally, especially on
> >> older OS platforms.
> > Nope, it's the login shell for all our users.
> > Nothing beats it as an
://www.sonicle.com
Music:
http://www.gabrielebulfon.com
Quantum Mechanics :
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/gabrielebulfon
Da:
Erik Trimble
A:
discuss@lists.illumos.org
Data:
29 agosto 2016 10.06.48 CEST
Oggetto:
Re: [discuss] default system shell
Your RedHat friend is, frankly, talking out of his ass.
First off, Ksh
Your RedHat friend is, frankly, talking out of his ass.
First off, Ksh (also known as ksh88) is fully, 100% backwards compatible
with the Bourne shell (sh).
Secondly, ksh93 is also 100% compatible with Bourne shell (sh), but is NOT
100% compatible with ksh88 (a couple of things changed).
Thirdly
ible.
Maybe it just not supports the "local" definition?
Gabriele
Sonicle S.r.l.
:
http://www.sonicle.com
Music:
http://www.gabrielebulfon.com
Quantum Mechanics :
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/gabrielebulfon
Da:
Erik Trimble
A:
discuss@lists.illumos.org
Data:
27 agosto 2
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016, Udo Grabowski wrote:
On 27/08/2016 20:16, Alex Smith (K4RNT) wrote:
I must be the only one who still uses tcsh occasionally, especially on
older OS platforms.
Nope, it's the login shell for all our users.
Nothing beats it as an interactive shell, but
in scripts, we always
Alan Coopersmith writes:
> On 08/27/16 11:16 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > I must be the only one who still uses tcsh occasionally, especially on
> > older OS
> > platforms.
> You are not alone.
>
> alanc@also:/tmp [1:18pm - 13] ps -ef | grep alanc | grep -c tcsh
> 28
> alanc@also:/tmp [1:18pm - 14]
The short jist of this thread is so:
/bin/sh should never be used for anything that's not assumed to be purely
Bourne-only compatible.
If the script requires something else, then it should invoke the proper
shell which has the proper feature support.
If the scripts want bash, the proper thing to
On 27/08/2016 20:16, Alex Smith (K4RNT) wrote:
I must be the only one who still uses tcsh occasionally, especially on
older OS platforms.
Nope, it's the login shell for all our users.
Nothing beats it as an interactive shell, but
in scripts, we always use classical sh, ksh93.
smime.p7s
Descr
27 августа 2016 г. 11:44:33 CEST, Erik Trimble
пишет:
>Well,
>
>Since a significant amount of Linux distros use Dash instead of Bash
>for
>/bin/sh, and the large majority of Solaris/IllumOS system scripts
>depend on
>a 100% Bourne-compatible /bin/sh (of which Bash is *not*), I'd say
>fix
>the
You know about pgrep, right? ;)
Didn't realize I wasn't in such a tiny minority.
" 'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the
first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all
irrevocably.' Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie as wisdom and
w
On 08/27/16 11:16 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
I must be the only one who still uses tcsh occasionally, especially on older OS
platforms.
You are not alone.
alanc@also:/tmp [1:18pm - 13] ps -ef | grep alanc | grep -c tcsh
28
alanc@also:/tmp [1:18pm - 14] ls -l /bin/csh
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 7:16 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I must be the only one who still uses tcsh occasionally, especially on
> older OS platforms.
>
Well no, my own interactive shell has been tcsh for 30 odd years, and I much
prefer it to anything else. But even then, I wouldn't think of using tc
I must be the only one who still uses tcsh occasionally, especially on
older OS platforms.
" 'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the
first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all
irrevocably.' Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie as wis
On 08/27/16 04:14 AM, Jim Klimov wrote:
First of all, old solaris sh (ksh88-?) was already documented as a Bourne shell.
The old Solaris sh was actually the historical Bourne shell, not ksh88.
ksh88 was /usr/bin/ksh on Solaris 10 and older, and /usr/xpg4/bin/sh for
those who preferred POSIX co
On 27/08/2016 13:14, Jim Klimov wrote:
27 августа 2016 г. 10:37:03 CEST, Gabriele Bulfon пишет:
Hi,
recently I've been driving mad porting a linux software containing a
lot of shells, failing with poor debugging infos.
At the end, I found they were all using /bin/sh but required a
compatible Bo
27 августа 2016 г. 10:37:03 CEST, Gabriele Bulfon пишет:
>Hi,
>recently I've been driving mad porting a linux software containing a
>lot of shells, failing with poor debugging infos.
>At the end, I found they were all using /bin/sh but required a
>compatible Bourne shell.
>This will require me to
Erik Trimble wrote:
> Well,
>
> Since a significant amount of Linux distros use Dash instead of Bash for
> /bin/sh, and the large majority of Solaris/IllumOS system scripts depend on
> a 100% Bourne-compatible /bin/sh (of which Bash is *not*), I'd say fix
> the shell script, rather than open t
Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
> Hi,
> recently I've been driving mad porting a linux software containing a lot of
> shells, failing with poor debugging infos.
> At the end, I found they were all using /bin/sh but required a compatible
> Bourne shell.
> This will require me to patch hundreds of shell t
Well,
Since a significant amount of Linux distros use Dash instead of Bash for
/bin/sh, and the large majority of Solaris/IllumOS system scripts depend on
a 100% Bourne-compatible /bin/sh (of which Bash is *not*), I'd say fix
the shell script, rather than open that particular can of worms.
Fra
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Gabriele Bulfon
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> recently I've been driving mad porting a linux software containing a lot
> of shells, failing with poor debugging infos.
> At the end, I found they were all using /bin/sh but required a compatible
> Bourne shell.
>
It's somewhat u
Hi,
recently I've been driving mad porting a linux software containing a lot of
shells, failing with poor debugging infos.
At the end, I found they were all using /bin/sh but required a compatible
Bourne shell.
This will require me to patch hundreds of shell to point to /bin/bash instead
of /bin
40 matches
Mail list logo
