On Mar 19,  2:58am, Greg A. Woods wrote:
} [ On Thursday, March 18, 1999 at 23:23:01 (-0800), John Nemeth wrote: ]
} >
} >      BSD, is a standard in its own right.  I personally, don't give a
} > d*mn about POSIX, especially where it conflicts with BSD.  Where there
} > is a conflict, I want BSD to come out on top.  If I wanted a system
} > that was POSIX first and others second, I would be using Linux.
} 
} You sure know how to perpetuate a flame fest John!  ;-)
} 
} If you're really referring to the choice between csh and sh here then
} you're so far out of line it's just not funny.  It really would be
} better off dead and buried, though I won't go so far as to say
} euthanasia is necessary (yet!).

     You sure know how to perpetuate a flame fest Greg!  ;-)

     The choice of which shell to use as a command line interface is
very much a personal choice, so the above can't be construed as
anything but flamebait.  Various people have tried to point this out
with various degrees of explicitness.  In case you haven't noticed, I
haven't stated my shell preference.  I'm tempted to do so now, but I
don't wish to prolong this thread.

} In any case perhaps you should take a closer look at the published goals
} regarding standards compliance for NetBSD and prepare to re-evaluate
} your choice of favourites.

     I know what it says; however, NetBSD very much has the look and
feel of BSD.  Also, there is presidence for BSD winnong when push
comes to shove (consider the whole setre[gu]id fiasco, where those
system calls were broken {in the name of POSIX} only to be fixed at a
later date).

} Traditional BSD doesn't have anything much left to offer that's of any
} redeeming value, at least nothing worth standardizing.

     Neither does SysV, so what's your point?

}-- End of excerpt from Greg A. Woods