Re: considered harmful (was [off topic] Learning Shell from an old UNIX book)

2003-03-15 Thread csj
At Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:58:48 +0200, Aryan Ameri wrote: > > On Saturday 15 March 2003 03:05, John Hasler wrote: > > > I know the shortcomings of csh have been discussed > > > elsewhere in this thread. But tcsh is enhanced csh. > > > > I have no problem with csh (or tcsh) as a login shell. It is >

Re: considered harmful (was [off topic] Learning Shell from an old UNIX book)

2003-03-15 Thread John Hasler
I wrote: > I have no problem with csh (or tcsh) as a login shell. It is just not > suitable for scripting. Johan Kullstam writes: > I do. If csh (and tcsh) suck for scripting, then why on earth use them > as your shell? I don't. > If you make them your shell then you have to spend time learnin

Re: considered harmful (was [off topic] Learning Shell from an old UNIX book)

2003-03-15 Thread Johan Kullstam
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I know the shortcomings of csh have been discussed elsewhere in this > > thread. But tcsh is enhanced csh. > > I have no problem with csh (or tcsh) as a login shell. It is just not > suitable for scripting. I do. If csh (and tcsh) suck for scripting,

Re: considered harmful (was [off topic] Learning Shell from an old UNIX book)

2003-03-15 Thread John Hasler
Aryan Ameri writes: > OK you guys say that, OOo is bad software because they use csh, and they > use java to build it. Don't get me wrong, I am a true believer in free > software, but I guess sometimes, you have to see things from a different > point of view. My main objection is not that csh and

Re: considered harmful (was [off topic] Learning Shell from an old UNIX book)

2003-03-15 Thread Aryan Ameri
On Saturday 15 March 2003 03:05, John Hasler wrote: > > I know the shortcomings of csh have been discussed elsewhere in this > > thread. But tcsh is enhanced csh. > > I have no problem with csh (or tcsh) as a login shell. It is just not > suitable for scripting. > > > Perhaps you should rephrase y

Re: considered harmful (was [off topic] Learning Shell from an old UNIX book)

2003-03-14 Thread John Hasler
> I know the shortcomings of csh have been discussed elsewhere in this > thread. But tcsh is enhanced csh. I have no problem with csh (or tcsh) as a login shell. It is just not suitable for scripting. > Perhaps you should rephrase your complaint to address a more significant > issue, the presenc

Re: considered harmful (was [off topic] Learning Shell from an old UNIX book)

2003-03-14 Thread Craig Dickson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > not all Unix or > Unix-like (attention SCO) systems use or would use bash. Nor do they all have csh. But they all have sh. If you want least-common-denominator portability, use sh and stock Unix commands. > I have no faith in the quality of the work of developers who w

Re: considered harmful

2003-03-14 Thread Alan Shutko
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I have no faith in the quality of the work of developers who would choose > to use csh in their build system. I would only consider installing the > package if the csh is something inherited from Sun and is in the process of > being replaced. It is somet

Re: considered harmful (was [off topic] Learning Shell from an old UNIX book)

2003-03-14 Thread csj
On 13 Mar 2003 16:40:25 -0600, John Hasler wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > But I know of at least one big project that uses tcsh > > scripting, OpenOffice.org. [...] > I have no faith in the quality of the work of developers who > would choose to use csh in their build system. I would o

Re: considered harmful (was [off topic] Learning Shell from an old UNIX book)

2003-03-13 Thread John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > But I know of at least one big project that uses tcsh > scripting, OpenOffice.org. I wrote: > Thanks for the warning. I had been considering installing it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Not needed if all you want is to run it. I have no faith in the quality of the work

Re: considered harmful (was [off topic] Learning Shell from an old UNIX book)

2003-03-13 Thread csj
On 12 Mar 2003 18:28:52 -0600, John Hasler wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > But I know of at least one big project that uses tcsh > > scripting, OpenOffice.org. > > Thanks for the warning. I had been considering installing it. s/installing/compiling Not needed if all you want is to run

Re: considered harmful (was [off topic] Learning Shell from an old UNIX book)

2003-03-12 Thread Craig Dickson
John Hasler wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > But I know of at least one big project that uses tcsh scripting, > > OpenOffice.org. > > Thanks for the warning. I had been considering installing it. I'm not sure it's required for installation. I don't have csh or tcsh installed, yet the openo

Re: considered harmful (was [off topic] Learning Shell from an old UNIX book)

2003-03-12 Thread John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > But I know of at least one big project that uses tcsh scripting, > OpenOffice.org. Thanks for the warning. I had been considering installing it. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: considered harmful (was [off topic] Learning Shell from an old UNIX book)

2003-03-12 Thread sean finney
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 06:45:15AM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'm not convinced. As the article itself points out, there are > workarounds for the perceived weaknesses of csh. And why pick on > the granddaddy, when the grandson is very much alive and kickin? > I've been using tcsh for both m

Re: considered harmful (was [off topic] Learning Shell from an old UNIX book)

2003-03-12 Thread csj
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:08:19 -0800, Vineet Kumar wrote: > > [1 ] > Hello, > > I think you've already gotten good answers about the book, and > how bash is derived from bourne, and what ksh and csh are. > > While you're learning about the shells, I think it's important > to keep this in mind: >