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!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~