On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 07:00:11PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Gary Gatten <ggat...@waddell.com> wrote: > > Everyone is wrong! "pfmsh" is the best at everything, period. It does > > everything you can possibly think of today and tomorrow. It doesn't > > require any upgrades, ever. It's 100% secure. It doesn't use any > > memory or other resources, $hit, it doesn't even need to be installed; > > it just "magically" works. > > you can ignore all you want, but there are shells of different quality, > and tcsh is inferior to mksh in everyway
You keep saying that. Maybe it's just personal taste. > > there are no interactive features in csh that could justify its > inclusion over mksh, and the code is regarded as horrible (as per author > and people with eyes) because of the adhoc parser > > tcsh people fixed a few bugs, but that doesn't change that the intrinsic > design is a mess. the tcsh also added stupid redundant builtins like > ls-F > > mksh also has stupid builtins like cat, but it makes up for it by being > an extremely solid shell and overall more polished than the horrible > turd that is (t)csh So far, your complaints translate to "Well, sure, for every concrete (t)csh problem I've identified, mksh has similar problems, but it's better because I like it." -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
pgp1160GmVAcc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
