On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 09:34:09PM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Miquel van Smoorenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-11 21:19:04 +]:
> > Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >The old Bourne shell is not free software. Therefore only commercial
> > >proprietary systems have it available.
> >
Joshua Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-11 16:24:00 -0500]:
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 05:32:58PM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
> > The Korn shell is not free. At one time you could buy source from
> > AT&T by an anonymous uucp connection for IIRC $300 and we did that.
>
> The Korn shell *used* to not
Miquel van Smoorenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-11 21:19:04 +]:
> Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The old Bourne shell is not free software. Therefore only commercial
> >proprietary systems have it available.
> >[...]
> >In order to find a Real Thing copy of the Bourne shell you w
Miquel van Smoorenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-11 21:11:10 +]:
> Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >So what is the typical bashinsm we should be really careful?
>
> The whatever{foo,bar} syntax is very common but a bashism (and zshism).
> For example diff -u file.c{.orig,}
That is
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 05:32:58PM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
> The Korn shell is not free. At one time you could buy source from
> AT&T by an anonymous uucp connection for IIRC $300 and we did that.
The Korn shell *used* to not be free, now it is, as in beer. You can
download it for free but not d
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The old Bourne shell is not free software. Therefore only commercial
>proprietary systems have it available. You won't find it in a Debian
>system for this reason. In fact I know not of any free software based
>system that ha
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 11:41:34AM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >By the way, dash will be the POSIX shell in testing/unstable
>> >Bashism s
* Bruce Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Now, what can I do about the C shell and the Korn shell? Are those
> also not free?
http://www.kornshell.com/
http://web.cs.mun.ca/~michael/pdksh/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTE
Bruce Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-10 16:33:19 -0500]:
>
> After doing some research, I found out that ash is a clone of a bourne
> shell from BSD.
Yes. But it is a modern clone and has all of the modern features and
is very standards conforming. But it is not the old Bourne shell.
> I w
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 04:33:19PM -0500, Bruce Park wrote:
> anything that differs from the real shell. Now, what can I do about the C
> shell and the Korn shell? Are those also not free?
pdksh is a free Korn shell. I've heard that it's not 100% compatible,
but it's close enough that IBM uses it
bp writes:
> After doing some research, I found out that ash is a clone of a bourne
> shell from BSD. I was using this last night and I really couldn't find
> anything that differs from the real shell.
What do you mean by the "real" shell? Do you realize that the Bourne shell
has not remained com
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 11:41:34AM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >By the way, dash will be the POSIX shell in testing/unstable
> >Bashism such as "export FOO=bar" is no-no :)
>
> That's not a bashism, that's valid
Bob,
After doing some research, I found out that ash is a clone of a bourne shell
from BSD. I was using this last night and I really couldn't find anything
that differs from the real shell. Now, what can I do about the C shell and
the Korn shell? Are those also not free?
I'm doing a lot of shel
Bruce Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-09 21:26:51 -0500]:
>
> I plan to install bash and tcsh. I'm currently running bash under
> redhat(I'm waiting to for a new release for debian) and I use it all the
> time. The only reason why I want the original UNIX shells is to test some
> scripts that
On Sat, 2002-11-09 at 20:17, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 06:19:53PM -0500, Bruce Park wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Just wanted to know, does debian linux include the Bourne and C shell? In
> > redhat, they are a symbolic link to bash and tcsh respectively.
>
> Bash is the de-facto
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 06:19:53PM -0500, Bruce Park wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Just wanted to know, does debian linux include the Bourne and C shell? In
> redhat, they are a symbolic link to bash and tcsh respectively.
Bash is the de-facto standard shell on Linux, and it's designed to be
Bourne-co
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>By the way, dash will be the POSIX shell in testing/unstable
>Bashism such as "export FOO=bar" is no-no :)
That's not a bashism, that's valid POSIX syntax and has been
for at least 10 years or so.
Mike.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Nathan E Norman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ash is supposed to be POSIX compliant, and according to the package
> description it makes a better /bin/sh because it is smaller. However
> I beleive there are some Bourne shell features not present in ash (I
> don't have a reference for that, it's
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 12:26:23AM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 06:39:51PM -0500, Joshua Lee wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 06:19:53PM -0500, Bruce Park wrote:
> > > Just wanted to know, does debian linux include the Bourne and C shell? In
> > > redhat, they are a sy
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 06:39:51PM -0500, Joshua Lee wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 06:19:53PM -0500, Bruce Park wrote:
> > Just wanted to know, does debian linux include the Bourne and C shell? In
> > redhat, they are a symbolic link to bash and tcsh respectively.
>
> You can install ash, the
On 09/11/02 Osamu Aoki did speaketh:
> For POSIX complience, dash (from unstable, ash variant) is good.
> I thought csh is not for scripting...
That's right.
http://www.perl.com/lpt/a/language/versus/csh.html
Speaking from personal experience, csh sucks the big one for scripting.
T
* Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I thought csh is not for scripting...
http://unlser1.unl.csi.cuny.edu/tutorials/C.shell.harmful.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 09:26:51PM -0500, Bruce Park wrote:
> Josh,
>
> I plan to install bash and tcsh. I'm currently running bash under
> redhat(I'm waiting to for a new release for debian) and I use it all the
> time. The only reason why I want the original UNIX shells is to test some
> scri
Josh,
I plan to install bash and tcsh. I'm currently running bash under redhat(I'm
waiting to for a new release for debian) and I use it all the time. The only
reason why I want the original UNIX shells is to test some scripts that I'm
writing.
bp
_
"Bruce Park" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just wanted to know, does debian linux include the Bourne and C shell?
> In redhat, they are a symbolic link to bash and tcsh respectively.
Debian includes a csh package (though most people I know who use
cshish shells use tcsh, which is also in Debian).
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 06:19:53PM -0500, Bruce Park wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Just wanted to know, does debian linux include the Bourne and C shell? In
> redhat, they are a symbolic link to bash and tcsh respectively.
>
Yes, and yes they are included as links. Earlier versions of Deebian
requir
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 06:19:53PM -0500, Bruce Park wrote:
> Just wanted to know, does debian linux include the Bourne and C shell? In
> redhat, they are a symbolic link to bash and tcsh respectively.
You can install ash, the BSD sh, which is closer to the actual Bourne
shell in behavior. I thi
27 matches
Mail list logo
