Subject: Re: Packages for NetBSD (Was: Why are there two 4.4BSD dev. groups)
To: Simon J. Gerraty <>
From: David Brownlee <>
List: current-users
Date: 01/09/1995 12:54:26
	I withdraw any comments about bash (I dont use it - I was just
	trying to give anotehr example of 'tcsh' & friends).

	But my original comment still stands for 'tcsh' (I think!:) (MIME). Network Analyst. Postmaster. Hostmaster.
              (>=-=<)   Telephone: (+44) 171 477 8186.   (>=-=<)
  Computing Services, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB.
  \ Gratuitous advertising      Monochrome BBS      telnet \

On Mon, 9 Jan 1995, Simon J. Gerraty wrote:

> David Brownlee writes:
> > 	a) perl, tcsh, bash - Perl is just so useful to be able to depend
> > 	   on having on a system for scripts etc. And I guess everyone
> > 	   who knows about them will pull down tcsh/bash or similar and
> > 	   install them for the extra features. How feasible would it be 
> > 	   to replace sh & csh with bash & tcsh? Or at least have them
> Nope, never...
> As one who makes a living writing shell scripts (among other things)
> to run on multiple platforms (ah, lets see, NetBSD, SunOS 4.x, HP-UX,
> Solaris, UTS, SysVr[34]... you get the idea) nothing irks me more than
> systems that don't have standard shells.
> While I maintained the pd-ksh for quite a few years, _I_ never write
> shell scripts for anything but the bourne shell.  And didn't I just
> love having to re-write a bunch of stuff to be ksh compatible because
> HPsUX's /bin/sh is about SysVr2 vintage and still has all the
> bugs... and /bin/ksh was the only shell they have that works.
> If it can't be done easily in bourne shell/sed/awk etc, I use perl.
> All I'm saying is, by all means have /bin/{bash,zsh,tcsh,ksh} etc but
> leave /bin/sh as it is. 
> BTW I think you'll find that by the time they've finished POSIXizing
> /bin/sh it will be _almost_ the Korn shell, so you'll have history,
> command line editing etc etc.
> --sjg