Subject: Re: misc/23278: fixes for sh(1) - wrong sections and man pages referred
To: NetBSD GNATS submissions and followups <email@example.com>
From: Igor Sobrado <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/28/2003 10:03:53
In message <m1AEDAB-0002TNC@proven.weird.com>, you wrote:
> [ On Monday, October 27, 2003 at 13:34:02 (+0100), Igor Sobrado wrote: ]
> > How curious,
> > sh(1) was originally written by Stephen Bourne (the former ACM president)
> > and used in AT&T Unix. csh(1) was developed for the BSD operating
> > systems. ;-)
> Well, actually the history of csh is a little more complicated than that.
> Bourne independently wrote a new shell for the Seventh Edition, and it's
> the root of all things "sh" in modern systems, though of course the
> implementation we use in NetBSD is not based on any more than the syntax
> implemented by Bourne's interpreter.
The Bourne shell used in NetBSD has those improvements that are really
useful for end users, like the ability to recover the history and edit
a line to fix things. I like a lot both vi and emacs modes.
> Besides, "sh" is a POSIX thing; and "csh" is a nothing. :-)
You are absolutely right. "sh" is a POSIX fully compliant interpreter.
One of the best things in all the BSDs is the compliance with standards,
and that is good for interoperability. Now I am running a lot of Unices
on my machines (Solaris, in both x86 and SPARC, HP-UX, NetBSD, IRIX, and
SINIX-P). At our University, we are running a lot of GNU/Linux
workstations and servers too. Not so bad, but I have a lot of problems
using both telnet and ssh with the GNU/Linux systems from other machines
(even with TERM set to low-end DEC VT terminals). We have a lot of
issues running a NFS server on a GNU/Linux server, it does not implements
locks as expected and a lot of software fails when using remote
I see that all BSDs have a clean design and follow standards (even if
the operating systems themselves are not certified, but it is another
> Also, I'm not really a fan of any BSD technology per se (I am a great
> fan of BSD politics), though I do very much acknowledge some of the
> important contributions the CSRG folks made to unix, such as sockets for
> network programming, filesystem enhancements, virtual memory, etc.
I like both the BSD license (that offers good oportunities both for
non-profit organizations and commercial vendors), the compliance
with standards (BSDs are as compatible as possible without breaking
the BSD-style), and the high quality of software provided.
My department (well, I am not in the staff of our University, I am only
a Ph. D. candidate in computer sciences) is building a wireless network
using a Windows 2003 Advanced Server machine, I doubt it will work.
On the other hand, I am building a WLAN as a collaboration between
my old department (I am a physics graduate), the maths department,
and the geological sciences one. This WLAN will cover all the campus,
and all we are using is a small DHCP/RADIUS/DNS server running on
OpenBSD. It supports hundreds of users. A clean design that works.
> A miriade of examples are not usually needed or wanted in a reference
> manual page -- they often just get in the way of the important details
> that a reference should make clear.
> Examples, and guides to how to use commands, belong in a "User's Guide",
> though unfortunately there is not yet any equivalent in NetBSD
> documentation to the old "An Introduction to the UNIX Shell" paper by
> Bourne that was included in the original V7 manual volume 2.
Well, my english is not so good (that is a problem that will probably
make difficult for me going to a serious research center in the
United States). I was speaking about a description of how alias
works on Bourne shell. As syntax differs between both Bourne and C
shells, a description of how an alias is created in C shell is not
really useful for Bourne shell users. I was not speaking about
examples about "how making `ll' an alias to `ls -lA'". But a
description of the syntax used is useful. I believe that people need
to read another information sources to know why the alias syntax
described in alias(1) does not works.
> Well there are still two separate Troff macro packages in use for NetBSD
> manual pages -- one compatible with UNIX(tm) man macros, and the other
> is based on the new (and much better) BSD mdoc macros.
If mdoc is the package used with ls(1) and so on, I like it a lot.
Very clean... is there a possibility for using that macro package
with the man pages of the software provided in the base system.
It will provide a more coherent documentation for NetBSD, and sometimes
a better layout (when entries are indented, the gcc(1) layout is not
Please, do not hesitate in asking me for some help on this issue.
I will do my best working on patches, or helping in other way.
> (True GNU documentation is always in "texinfo" format :-)
Indeed... a VMS-like documentation system. Not a good alternative
on Unix (and Unix-like) systems.
> The hyphens appearing as spaces problem is caused by a bug in the way
> the X11 manual pages are generated.
> What was done in previous releases in the old /usr/xsrc/xc, was to use
> "-Tascii" instead of "-Tlatin1", and then normal ASCII '-' characters
> were used as hyphens and all was well. Perhaps we should just revert to
> using ASCII for the default English manual pages since that's the lowest
> common denominator between all the ISO-8859-* character sets and forcing
> non-Latin-1 users to explicitly use Latin-1 when viewing manual pages is
> perhaps a bit much to expect.
ASCII (7-bit) characters is all required for XFree86 man pages.
I doubt those man pages will use 8-bit characters (except if written
in German, French, or Spanish...)
Yes, I think that using 7-bit characters is the best answer to this
problem. There is not need for making the hyphen an 8-bit character,
and not all people needs the ISO-8859-1 (Latin1) western european
characters set or ISO-8859-15 (the new character set that supports
the Euro symbol).
Man pages should be plain ASCII... at least, IMHO.
Igor Sobrado, UK34436 - email@example.com