Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!howland.erols.net!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!198.4.164.94!gail.ripco.com!mind From: mind@ripco.com (Dr. Who) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Which Shell? Date: 1 Dec 1996 03:09:38 GMT Organization: Ripco, Chicago's Oldest Online Information Service Lines: 19 Message-ID: <57qsti$kpl$4@gail.ripco.com> References: <Pine.BSF.3.91.961130104832.14837A-100000@darkstar> NNTP-Posting-Host: cook.ripco.com X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Charles Mott (cmott@srv.net) wrote: : I am a relatively new to unix, so I have not formed irreversible opinions : about which shell is best. I started out on linux before switching to : freebsd, so I became accustomed to bash. With regard to posix compliance : and compatibility with commercial unix systems (sun, hp, sgi), which shell : would be the most appropriate to standardize on? : Charles Mott Mind you, this is just opinion, but use Bash/Bourne. It's pretty much the standard as scripts go these days. tcsh is too full of little twists that don't make much sense (as well as a nice share of inadequacies). If not Bash, then Ksh is a good second choice. -- ------------------------------------------------ THINK FREE! | mind@ripco.com Knowledge is Power! | question everything! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~