From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov () Subject: Re: Emacs 18.59.4 Problem? Date: 2 Aug 1993 12:49:23 GMT
In article <1993Jul31.161223.18224@utopia.druid.com> ross@utopia.druid.com (Ross Ridge) writes:
>clau@acs.ucalgary.ca (Christopher Lau) writes:
>>Nope. It turns out that this is a problem with Bash 1.12, and not Linux
>>at all.
>
>Wrong. Bash is Linux's shell. Even the most basic Linux distribution
>uses bash and requires bash. This has everything to do with Linux.
>
Wrong. Bash is a shell that is used frequently by Linux and many other operating
system. It is (if I'm not mistaken) distributed by the GNU project, and is primarily
an extension of the Bourne shell (which is *also* distributed with Linux). If you
knew anything about UNIX you'd know, that there are *several* shells that can be used
by a UNIX type operating system, some are distributed with an O/S, others are not.
I personally use tcsh, does that make it "Linux's shell". As far as Linux "requiring"
Bash...funny, I haven't used one program/shell script/utility that *requires* Bash...
>ross@utopia.druid.com (Ross Ridge) writes:
>>In other words Linux sucks.
>
So, what the hell are you doing here? Nobody is holding a gun to your head and saying
you *must* use Linux, if you don't like it, don't use it...
>clau@acs.ucalgary.ca (Christopher Lau) writes:
>>*FLAME ON*
>>
>>What the hell are you, one of those manual-up-the-butt-type Coherent users??
>>You're probably one of the kind who think AmigaDOS is better than Unix too
>>aren't you??
>
>Actually I'm just one of the those anal-Unix types who's come to
>expect that operating system come with a working shell. The fact
>this problem with Linux, among others, has existed for so long leads
>me to conclude only one thing.
>
Obviously, you use UNIX, but you're not very familiar with UNIX...
>
>To see if Linux has any hope. (Also to laugh when one particular
>Linux admin posts about his latest problem.)
>
Considering *most* of the people posting here have never administered a UNIX
system before, many of the "problems" reported are due to their own inexperience
as opposed to any particular deficiency of Linux
Have you read any of the *other* UNIX newsgroups? If you had, you'd probably notice
a very similar trend...I guess you laugh when a SunOS, or a AIX, or a SCO, or an
Ultrix or a (fill in the blank) systems administrator posts about his/her latest
problems...seems even the "professional" and "commercial" UNIX operating systems
have problems also...
>>The problem had nothing to do with Linux- in fact I just tried compiling
>>the unfixed bash sources and a fresh copy of elm (not the MWC hacked version)
>>under Coherent and I get the same "problem"- should I say that Coherent (or
>>any other OS for that matter) sucks too???
>
>Is Coherent's shell broken? Or the shell of any other OS for
>that matter? MS-DOS's shell works. AmigaDOS's shell works.
>Linux's doesn't.
Ahhh...I see the problem here...you *really* don't understand what a shell is, do
you...for your education, a shell is a command interpreting interface to the base
operating system. It IS NOT the operating system itself. Being just an interface, it
can easily be removed and replaced without touching the base operating system. 4DOS,
NDOS and Windows are replacement shells for command.com in the MS-DOS world. DR-DOS
is a different operating system. sh, ksh, bsh, bash, csh, tcsh are just a few of the
shells that are available in the UNIX world, most of which have been ported to
Linux. Since you're *such* a UNIX hot-shot, you should already know all of this. You
should *also* know that if you don't like a particular shell, then you just download
a new one.
Lets see if I get your logic...if one of several shells has a bug, that means that
the O/S itself sucks...So with this logic, since bash apparently has a problem, then
*all* operating systems that run bash suck...boy this sounds like a *really*
intelligent statement. I guess that the inverse also holds...if the shell works, then
the operating system *must* be good...hmmm since you seem to think that the MS-DOS
shell works, you must think that MS-DOS is a good operating system...
If you don't like Bash, don't use it, use something else. If you don't like Linux,
don't use it, use something else.
John