oju@elektra.hut.fi (Olli Juhola) (08/02/90)
Hate to bring up the subject, I suppose, once again.
Any kind sole running tcsh on HP-UX 7.0 9000/350 or alike, please,
consider sending an uuencoded copy of it by email to the reply-to
address above.
Any reference to the binaries of tcsh is also highly appreciated.
Speak up, if you know there is an ftp-archive.
I guess the problem is common for many of us using HP-UX. There is
little use of tcsh patches with only a binary of csh. Surely there
are licensed holders of the csh source code who have run the diffs
and compiled the tcsh. There are binaries of tcsh available for so
many operating systems _except_ HP-UX that I begin to feel a certain
kind of isolation not to speak of frustration. It makes you wonder
that maybe tcsh is so hard to find for HP-UX because there are not
enough HPs around at the universities... Or is it just that I
haven't looked for it hard enough.
Thank you for your time.
Olli
--
Olli Juhola
oju@niksula.hut.fitml@hemuli.tik.vtt.fi (Tor Lillqvist) (08/02/90)
In article <OJU.90Aug2101956@elektra.hut.fi> Olli Juhola <oju@niksula.hut.fi> writes: > Hate to bring up the subject, I suppose, once again. > Any kind soul running tcsh on HP-UX 7.0 9000/350 or alike, please, > consider sending an uuencoded copy of it by email to the reply-to > address above. What is so wonderful in tcsh that you can't do in ksh? Have you tried ksh? (OK, I admit that there are a few features in (t)csh that I would like to see in ksh: the {} metacharacters come first to mind. Bash (the GNU Bourne-Again Shell) would be ideal, I guess, if only it was a bit easier to port to HP-UX, or actually POSIX, job control etc. Or maybe I haven't had time enough to try porting the latest version...) -- Tor Lillqvist, working, but not speaking, for the Technical Research Centre of Finland
tml@hemuli.tik.vtt.fi (Tor Lillqvist) (08/02/90)
In article <KIM.90Aug2134117@kannel.lut.fi> kim@lut.fi (Kimmo Suominen) writes: >One wonderful thing would be that tcsh understands csh syntax, which >many people (incl. me) are familiar with. Of course one could learn >to use ksh, but what's the point? A month or two of always having to >type every command twice to get it right would be too much for me! >I'd rather stay with csh. This is degrading into a shell war, but anyhow: I think people shouldn't be asking "where do i get tcsh for HP-UX" but rather "where do I get ksh for SunOS/Ultrix/whatever." Do you really write shell scripts in csh? I think it is generally agreed that Bourne (or Korn) shell is the right shell to use for scripts. So why not use the same syntax for the occasional for loop entered interactively, for instance? -- Tor Lillqvist, working, but not speaking, for the Technical Research Centre of Finland
kim@lut.fi (Kimmo Suominen) (08/03/90)
>>>>> On 2 Aug 90 08:38:55 GMT, tml@hemuli.tik.vtt.fi (Tor Lillqvist) said:
Tor> What is so wonderful in tcsh that you can't do in ksh? Have you tried
Tor> ksh? (OK, I admit that there are a few features in (t)csh that I
One wonderful thing would be that tcsh understands csh syntax, which
many people (incl. me) are familiar with. Of course one could learn
to use ksh, but what's the point? A month or two of always having to
type every command twice to get it right would be too much for me!
I'd rather stay with csh.
Ans what is so wrong about wanting tcsh? I've been trying to find a
binary for BOTH Series 800 and 300 for months - haven't found one yet,
but I've got a dozen patches for csh though ;-)
--
Kim ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"That's what ( Kimmo ! Lappeenranta U of Technology ! kim@lut.fi )
*I* think." ( Suominen ! Computing Centre * Finland ! KUULA::KIM )
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''kim@lut.fi (Kimmo Suominen) (08/03/90)
>>>>> On 2 Aug 90 12:47:24 GMT, tml@hemuli.tik.vtt.fi (Tor Lillqvist) said:
Tor> I think people shouldn't be asking "where do i get tcsh for HP-UX" but
Tor> rather "where do I get ksh for SunOS/Ultrix/whatever."
In case you are asking that, I have ksh running on SunOS and sources
for it, too.
Tor> Do you really write shell scripts in csh? I think it is generally
Tor> agreed that Bourne (or Korn) shell is the right shell to use for scripts.
You missed the point! I already know csh and I'm not keen on learning
a new shell. Also, I'm quite a poor shell script writer and *YES* the
couple scripts (adding users, updating YP etc) I've needed I've
written in csh. I thought of learning perl next.
Well, enough of this. Btw - can arrow keys be used to scan history in
bash as they can in tcsh? I know you can use them in ksh.
--
Kim ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"That's what ( Kimmo ! Lappeenranta U of Technology ! kim@lut.fi )
*I* think." ( Suominen ! Computing Centre * Finland ! KUULA::KIM )
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''jwright@cfht.hawaii.edu (Jim Wright) (08/03/90)
oju@elektra.hut.fi (Olli Juhola) writes: > Any kind sole running tcsh on HP-UX 7.0 9000/350 or alike, please, > consider sending an uuencoded copy of it by email to the reply-to > address above. > Any reference to the binaries of tcsh is also highly appreciated. > Speak up, if you know there is an ftp-archive. Yes, there are HP binaries available for version 5.12 (not 5.18, the latest). I believe I got them from tut.cis.ohio-state.edu [128.146.8.60]. However... the HP version is so bug ridden as to be unusable. I simply gave up on it and switched to ksh. The Sun versions there work well; I use them daily. I have spoken with other HP users who claim that tcsh works fine with a plain dumb terminal. Perhaps the problem is an X windows interaction. -- Jim Wright jwright@quonset.cfht.hawaii.edu Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Corp.
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (08/04/90)
>(OK, I admit that there are a few features in (t)csh that I >would like to see in ksh: the {} metacharacters come first to mind. I think there may be a compile-time option in the latest versions of "ksh" to enable them - I presume you mean "more {foo,bar}.c" and the like - although this may introduce an incompatible shell syntax change, so vendors may not turn it on by default. (I'd vote for making it settable at run-time.)
jwright@cfht.hawaii.edu (Jim Wright) (08/05/90)
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes: >I think there may be a compile-time option in the latest versions of >"ksh" to enable them Speaking of latest version of ksh, when can we expect it. The ksh that came with 7.0 reports "Version 06/03/86a". There are quite a few features that are only available in post-86 versions. -- Jim Wright jwright@quonset.cfht.hawaii.edu Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Corp.
donn@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Donn Terry) (08/09/90)
On the issue of choice of shell (and here I'm wearing my standards hat,
not my HP hat) you probably are better off learning ksh than continuing
to use (t)csh, because the POSIX.2 shell is something halfway (more or
less) between ksh and sh. It uses the sh syntax, and in POSIX.2a,
has ksh editing.
I moved from sh to csh (with Tenex stuff) and then to ksh. I consider
the move to ksh to have been worth every bit of effort it took and
a lot more. It's much better. The POSIX shell will feel very much
the same, and in about 2 years you will be able to get it on any
POSIX machine you may want. No more need to ask questions like the
one that started this discussion.
(I do miss the {} stuff, but it's really hard to do it right.)
Donn Terrycph@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Chris Hanson) (08/10/90)
In article <5570463@hpfcdc.HP.COM> donn@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Donn Terry) writes:
From: donn@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Donn Terry)
Date: 9 Aug 90 00:22:41 GMT
On the issue of choice of shell (and here I'm wearing my standards hat,
not my HP hat) you probably are better off learning ksh than continuing
to use (t)csh, because the POSIX.2 shell is something halfway (more or
less) between ksh and sh. It uses the sh syntax, and in POSIX.2a,
has ksh editing.
(I do miss the {} stuff, but it's really hard to do it right.)
Donn Terry
An alternative that is available now is BASH, the GNU Bourne-Again
SHell. It, like ksh, supports editing and job control. But in
addition, BASH provides {} syntax like csh. Best of all, you get the
source code with it.
BASH is available from "prep.ai.mit.edu" by anonymous ftp, in the
"pub/gnu/" directory.guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (08/11/90)
>I moved from sh to csh (with Tenex stuff) and then to ksh. ... ... >(I do miss the {} stuff, but it's really hard to do it right.) I seem to remember hearing that more recent versions of "ksh" can be built to support the "{}" stuff, if by that you mean e.g. "cp {foo,bar,bletch}.c /usr/src/fnord". The resulting "ksh" may lose compatibility with the Bourne shell as a result, so making it a run-time option or something such as that may be a good idea.