Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!nntp.crl.com!news3.crl.com!nexp.crl.com!usenet From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@FreeBSD.org> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Serious brain damage in /bin/sh for FreeBSD 2.1.5 Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 03:52:08 -0800 Organization: Walnut Creek CDROM Lines: 26 Message-ID: <32A17168.446B9B3D@FreeBSD.org> References: <stanbE1M2D2.38I@netcom.com> <329E96C5.41C67EA6@freebsd.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: time.cdrom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.0-CURRENT i386) To: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@freebsd.org> John S. Dyson wrote: > > Stan Brown wrote: > > > > I realize all Berkley centric people think the workd revolves around > > csh, but the rest of us don't. > > > Well, I do as much BSD development as almost anyone... I hate csh. He's also wrong about the Berkeley people. csh may have originated there, but nobody in his right mind that I know of actually writes shell scripts in it. There is only one standard way of writing shell scripts which will actually run reliably on a large number of UN*X machines, and that's to write them in pure sh. I would certainly never write a mainstream shell script in anything else. As to ksh, I think that our /bin/sh doesn't even come close so it's hard to argue that its author even intended in making "ash" a ksh clone. More likely this was simple creeping featurism, and I for one wouldn't argue at all if features like emacs/vi command line and history editing were ripped right back out again. If I want that kind of comfy environment, I'll use bash (and I do). /bin/sh should be a lean, mean, standard by-the-book bourne shell and that's it. -- - Jordan Hubbard President, FreeBSD Project