Dan Farrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - When using tab completion, and you press tab two times to get a list
> > of possibilities, ksh doesn't use less/more to present the
> possibilities
> > (i.e. they just scroll by and I have to use shift+page-up).
> >
>
> Less/more works just fine for m
> - When using tab completion, and you press tab two times to get a list
> of possibilities, ksh doesn't use less/more to present the
possibilities
> (i.e. they just scroll by and I have to use shift+page-up).
>
Less/more works just fine for me in ksh... or maybe I installed
something I've forgot
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 11:22:13AM +0200, Martin Toft wrote:
> Sam Chill wrote:
> >ksh does most everything bash does too, so it doesn't seem like a loss.
>
> FWIW, I miss a couple of features in ksh and consider to switch (back)
> to bash:
>
> - When using tab completion, and you press tab two
When I started using OpenBSD, I got tired of having to install Bash all the
time so I just stuck with ksh. That was several years ago. I don't know much
about shell programming nor do I do any configuring with ksh.
Now everytime I use linux, I find bash very annoying. I don't know why, I
just d
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 09:14:12AM -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> > "Woodchuck" == Woodchuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Woodchuck> Perl has obviated the need for some sort of interactive interpreted
> Woodchuck> system language. Bash has some new and expanded features, but not
> Woo
Martin Toft wrote:
Sam Chill wrote:
ksh does most everything bash does too, so it doesn't seem like a
loss.
FWIW, I miss a couple of features in ksh and consider to switch
(back) to bash:
- When using tab completion, and you press tab two times to get a
list of possibilities, ksh doesn't use
> "Woodchuck" == Woodchuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Woodchuck> Perl has obviated the need for some sort of interactive interpreted
Woodchuck> system language. Bash has some new and expanded features, but not
Woodchuck> enough to make its use compelling.
Since discovering Perl, the longes
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 11:22:13AM +0200, Martin Toft wrote:
> Sam Chill wrote:
> >ksh does most everything bash does too, so it doesn't seem like a loss.
>
> FWIW, I miss a couple of features in ksh and consider to switch (back)
> to bash:
>
> - When using tab completion, and you press tab two
Martin Toft wrote:
FWIW, I miss a couple of features in ksh and consider to switch (back)
to bash:
I forgot one:
- I miss the "for (( expr1 ; expr2 ; expr3 )) ; do list ; done"
construct. Of course, using e.g. jot, it is possible to do semantically
equivalent stuff.
/Martin
Sam Chill wrote:
ksh does most everything bash does too, so it doesn't seem like a loss.
FWIW, I miss a couple of features in ksh and consider to switch (back)
to bash:
- When using tab completion, and you press tab two times to get a list
of possibilities, ksh doesn't use less/more to pres
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 11:02:32PM -0500, Default User wrote:
> I just know I'm going to regret asking this, but . . .
> why does OpenBSD have ksh as the default shell, rather than bash?
Size, speed[1], license (PD vs. GPL), possibly standard conformance.
> Also, what ever happened to the stati
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Default User wrote:
> I just know I'm going to regret asking this, but . . .
> why does OpenBSD have ksh as the default shell, rather than bash?
>
> Also, what ever happened to the statically-compiled bash that used to be
> available in OpenBSD packages?
>
> BTW, thanks
On Sunday 27 August 2006 00:02, Default User wrote:
> I just know I'm going to regret asking this, but . . .
> why does OpenBSD have ksh as the default shell, rather than bash?
>
> Also, what ever happened to the statically-compiled bash that used to be
> available in OpenBSD packages?
>
> BTW, tha
On 27/08/06, Default User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
why does OpenBSD have ksh as the default shell, rather than bash?
...
No flames, please. Just honest thoughtful discussion.
That's probably not a question that's going to result in honest,
thoughtful discussion.
MC
On 8/27/06, Default User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just know I'm going to regret asking this, but . . .
why does OpenBSD have ksh as the default shell, rather than bash?
ksh is free while bash is GNU licensed. If it is possible to use free
(bsd, public domain, etc) software it is preferable.
On 8/26/06, Default User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just know I'm going to regret asking this, but . . .
why does OpenBSD have ksh as the default shell, rather than bash?
...
No flames, please. Just honest thoughtful discussion.
Sure, dude. I take it you haven't figured out where the arch
I just know I'm going to regret asking this, but . . .
why does OpenBSD have ksh as the default shell, rather than bash?
Also, what ever happened to the statically-compiled bash that used to be
available in OpenBSD packages?
BTW, thanks for making ksh the default shell for root - IMHO much ea
17 matches
Mail list logo
