From: ross@utopia.druid.com (Ross Ridge) Subject: Re: Emacs 18.59.4 Problem? Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 06:36:13 GMT
root@fusion.cuc.ab.ca (Superuser) writes:
>Linux just happens to use bash as it's primary shell, but you could put
>in some other shell in its place and then you wouldn't see this problem.
Well then I have to fix /etc/profile because that uses bash
specific features, and it looks like I'd have to fix the
sysinstall script too, and maybe there's some other script
somewhere...
>The problem is GNU's, not Linux's.
GNU didn't put bash in the Linux distribution.
>Ahh- but bash is *NOT* the responsibility of Linus and the Linux developers.
>A patch has been developed that solves this problem, but the GNU folks
>haven't released a new version of bash. So you *might* be justified in
>saying "GNU sucks" for not releasing a new version, or "SLS sucks" for not
>making the patched version of the shell a part of its standard distribution,
>but it has nothing to do with Linux, the OS, itself, especially since other
>distributions have the fixed bash instead.
If the distribution that Linus and the Linux developers ship, if any,
doesn't have a broken shell, than you may almost be right. In that
case I should've said "SLS Linux sucks." Of course there's still
the other stupid bugs in Linux.
>In any case, almost all shells have bugs- as an example the SunOS/Solaris
>sh/csh both have bugs that were discovered several years ago.
And are they anywhere as serious the one were discussing here?
>> In fact, Linus very explicitly had nothing to say.
>
>No- he didn't say anything because you're beneath his contempt ...
No?
>Read the comp.unix.* groups and other Unix-type OS groups.. I think you'll
>see more posts about problems than in the Linux group.
I don't know how that could be possible, comp.os.linux one of the
highest volume newsgroups groups and every post in this groups
seems to be about problems.
>Yes- Coherent's shell is broken, it's been broken since the very first
>release, and it hasn't been fixed yet.
Too bad.
>MS-LOSS?? Command.com has *zero* features,
It works. You can't say that about Linux's shell. I can type
CTRL-G in GNU Emacs under MS-DOS without any problems.
> it has remained basically identical to the very first command.com
Not true. The changes between 1.xx and MS-DOS 2.xx were fairly
signifcant.
>and it still has a few bugs..
Like what?
>> Ross "I suck" Ridge
Don't misquote me, you asshole.
Ross Ridge