| Mental on 21 Oct 2003 09:37:02 -0400 |
|
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 12:40:22AM -0400, William H. Magill wrote: > > On Monday, October 20, 2003, at 11:24 AM, Chris Hedemark wrote: > >Bourne shell is the most portable but perhaps the least capable. zsh > >is > >one of the most capable but even on Linux systems you'll end up > >needing to > >install it, let alone on HP-UX. If you're a competent C programmer you > >might use csh or tcsh. Sysadmins with primarily legacy UNIX > >backgrounds > >may prefer ksh while those with Red Hat Linux backgrounds may prefer > >bash > > Legacy is Bourne Shell, then came the csh, then came the new Bourne > Shell. > > Ksh is the Posix shell. > > Today tcsh and bash seem to be the most preferred, although I prefer > zsh myself. > But then I'm a ksh kind of guy... > (One nice thing about OS X, is that it ships with tcsh, bash and zsh! > - sh and csh are links to bash an tcsh respectively.) > > As for HP-UX, there is an old joke... > > The only reason that AIX is not the worst Unix around is because HP-UX > is! > Don't try to write scripts in csh. There's an entire faq on the subject. http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/ The bourne shell is the vi of shells as far as availability goes. Its the lowest common denominator and is almost always available. -- Mental (Mental@NeverLight.com) We live beneath the specter Of an omnipresent doom We know for sure it's coming It's just a question of how soon --Assemblage 23 GPG public key: http://www.neverlight.com/pas/Mental.asc Attachment:
pgpKp0ZqNiu0Z.pgp
|
|