From: iiitac@swan.pyr (Alan Cox) Subject: Re: Emacs 18.59.4 Problem? Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 08:59:57 GMT
In article <1993Jul31.161223.18224@utopia.druid.com> ross@utopia.druid.com (Ross Ridge) writes:
>Wrong. Bash is Linux's shell. Even the most basic Linux distribution
>uses bash and requires bash. This has everything to do with Linux.
No it has everything to do with the fact that BASH isn't too hot a piece
of software. I've got at least one Linux box here that doesn't even have bash
on it. Stick to rc. BTW BSD Unix has had a buggy csh since day 1 and it's still
not totally fixed. Equally bourne shell is buggy on many systems - it makes
stupid portability assumptions
>ross@utopia.druid.com (Ross Ridge) writes:
>>In other words Linux sucks.
Beep: Moron detector alert. Anyone who makes statements like that obviously
doesn't know what they are on about - that goes for just announcing xx sucks
regardless fo what xx is.
>clau@acs.ucalgary.ca (Christopher Lau) writes:
>>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??
Whats wrong with thinking AmigaDOS is better than Unix. It is for some things
- AberMUD is much more efficient under AmigaDOS for example. Horses For Courses
>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.
Coherent's shell is positiviely prehistoric. But in that it matches much of
coherent - it works but it doesn't do anything fancy and won't run a lot
of modern stuff. Most shells are broken somehow - VMS SH used to crash
beautifully if you got a read wrong. BSD csh is buggy. In fact almost
everything is buggy everywhere.
Alan