From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) Subject: Re: FIX: UUCP, !, bash and smail Date: 14 Nov 1992 00:22:04 GMT
chet@odin.ins.cwru.edu (Chet Ramey) writes:
> In article <4926TB2w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpat
>
> >Bash really pissed me off too --for the same reason. I think linux
> >should have a nondescript plain-jane bourne shell for system level
> >functions. Having to hack sources for os compatibility is one thing,
> >but having to do it for shells is pretty bizarre.
>
> If you don't like csh-style history, start bash with the +H option, or
> use `set +H', or type `histchars='. This is all documented in the man
> page, at least the one I wrote. You could put it in /etc/profile, if
> you like it that little.
Ah! What I was hoping to have was the ability to have it change it's
mode by what name it was invoked as. So that if called as 'sh' it
wouldn't have the user-options like history, etc.
> >While I'm whining, is there any documentation available to fill the
> >gaping holes in the man pages?
>
> Please be more specific about the `gaping holes'. I have changed the
> manual page quite a bit since the 1.12 release; perhaps the updated
> version will satisfy you.
I had no idea that bash had a man page. I have the sls package and it
isn't a part of what I managed to get, I guess. By gaping holes, I was
speaking in terms of the many utilities that go with linux whose man
pages aren't a part of the bundled software.
I meant no personal assaults. Until I read the recently posted article
on bad block isolation, I had no clue as to what the options in fsck
would do. It reacted differently than other fsck utilities I've used
with bsd and sysv unii, and early xenix. Of course discovering that a
part of fsck didn't really work cleared up some of that confusion. (-:
Bash itself is fine, a good stable shell. It was just over-helping.
---
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA