From: ross@utopia.druid.com (Ross Ridge) Subject: Re: Emacs 18.59.4 Problem? Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 17:40:14 GMT
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.
jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov () writes:
>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).
Wrong. The Bourne shell is not distributed with Linux. If it was
I wouldn't be having this problem.
> 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.
So? I expect that the primary shell, installed as /bin/sh, that
everything depends on, to work. If operating systems requires that
it be replaced or fixed somehow in order to do simple ordinary
tasks like using an editor, I say it sucks.
>I personally use tcsh, does that make it "Linux's shell".
tcsh is not Bourne shell compatible and cannot replace /bin/sh.
It doesn't solve the problem.
> As far as Linux "requiring" Bash...funny, I haven't used one
>program/shell script/utility that *requires* Bash...
If you have the distributation as the one here than you did when
you installed Linux.
>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...
Unfortunately, this is the only site in the local calling area
that I can read news on. And of course this is the most
appropriate newsgroup to bitch about Linux on.
>Obviously, you use UNIX, but you're not very familiar with UNIX...
I'm very familiar with Unix, Mr. Burt. In fact I know much
more about Unix than you do.
>>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
This one particular admin has had some experience with Unix and a
quite a bit with Linux, although tht doesn't stop him from posting
naive questions.
>Have you read any of the *other* UNIX newsgroups?
Not this is a Unix group, but yes.
> If you had, you'd probably notice a very similar trend...
No, I haven't noticed people posting about their shells being
broken.
>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...
Actually, I did read comp.unix.sys5.r4 to laugh at the postings
of another particular sysadmin, but we don't get that newsgroup
here.
>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.
An operating system is more than just a kernel. A shell is an integral
part of operating system. Linux is useless without one, it won't even
boot without one. An operating system that requires me to replace such
an important component as this sucks.
>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.
All operating systems that ship with bash installed as /bin/sh suck.
> 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...
MS-DOS is better than Linux. I have no problems running GNU Emacs
under MS-DOS.
Ross Ridge