Re: Shell games

2000-04-26 Thread Sheldon Hearn
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 22:53:22 +0100, Brian Somers wrote: > I'm not sure why sanity won here though. I guess it'll be done the > next time it comes up Reason won in the Bourne shell case because ours is actively maintained. Until ours is no longer actively maintained by a responsive, cluef

Re: Shell games

2000-04-18 Thread Jamie Howard
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Brian Somers wrote: > > I don't get a lot of time to pay attention to the lists, so this might > > have been asked before. Does the csh->tcsh move imply that sh->ksh will > > be happening soon? Didn't NetBSD do that a while ago? > > *groan* shame on you ! Everyone went a

Re: Shell games

2000-04-18 Thread Brian Somers
> I don't get a lot of time to pay attention to the lists, so this might > have been asked before. Does the csh->tcsh move imply that sh->ksh will > be happening soon? Didn't NetBSD do that a while ago? *groan* shame on you ! Everyone went a step further and targeted the sh -> bash war ! I'

Re: Shell games

2000-04-18 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, James Howard wrote: > I don't get a lot of time to pay attention to the lists, so this might > have been asked before. Does the csh->tcsh move imply that sh->ksh will > be happening soon? Didn't NetBSD do that a while ago? No, it doesn't automatically mean that. The csh->t

Shell games

2000-04-18 Thread James Howard
I don't get a lot of time to pay attention to the lists, so this might have been asked before. Does the csh->tcsh move imply that sh->ksh will be happening soon? Didn't NetBSD do that a while ago? J~ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body