kernel@darkside.LBP.HARRIS.COM (Administrator) (09/21/88)
I want to put csh on my minix. Is it PD? I have the sources from Berkely, as we distribute it as a part of our XENIX. If it's not PD (I doubt it is) is there a reasonable clone I can start from?
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (09/22/88)
In article <6173@galbp.LBP.HARRIS.COM> kernel@darkside.LBP.HARRIS.COM (Administrator) writes: >I want to put csh on my minix. Is it PD? I have the sources from Berkely, >as we distribute it as a part of our XENIX. It's derived from Bell code and is not public domain. (Actually, even the non-Bell parts probably have Berkeley copyright notices on them, so none of it is PD.) Berkeley is actively interested in de-Belling their stuff, but I don't think they've done csh yet. > If it's not PD (I doubt it is) is there a reasonable clone I can start from? Why on Earth would anyone want to clone that mess? :-) -- NASA is into artificial | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology stupidity. - Jerry Pournelle | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
root@cca.ucsf.edu (Computer Center) (09/23/88)
In article <1988Sep21.170200.20433@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: :: In article <6173@galbp.LBP.HARRIS.COM> :: kernel@darkside.LBP.HARRIS.COM (Administrator) writes: :: >I want to put csh on my minix. :: ... :: :: Why on Earth would anyone want to clone that mess? :-) Because they're smart? Thos Sumner (thos@cca.ucsf.edu) BITNET: thos@ucsfcca (The I.G.) (...ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf!thos) OS|2 -- an Operating System for puppets. #include <disclaimer.std>
charles@hpcvca.HP.COM (Charles Brown) (09/24/88)
>::> I want to put csh on my minix. >:: Why on Earth would anyone want to clone that mess? :-) > Because they're smart? No. Because they've never used ksh. Charles Brown
koreth@ssyx.ucsc.edu (Steven Grimm) (09/25/88)
In article <5870005@hpcvca.HP.COM> charles@hpcvca.HP.COM (Charles Brown) writes: >>::> I want to put csh on my minix. >>:: Why on Earth would anyone want to clone that mess? :-) >> Because they're smart? >No. Because they've never used ksh. How about: - Because they're used to csh from another system. - Because they have lots of csh scripts that they'd rather not convert. - Because they like the way csh does some things (history, for instance). And, maybe the most important reason for a hacker: - Because it's there. --- These are my opinions, and in no way reflect those of UCSC, which are wrong. Steven Grimm Moderator, comp.{sources,binaries}.atari.st koreth@ssyx.ucsc.edu uunet!ucbvax!ucscc!ssyx!koreth
charles@hpcvca.HP.COM (Charles Brown) (09/26/88)
>>>::> I want to put csh on my minix. >>>:: Why on Earth would anyone want to clone that mess? :-) >>> Because they're smart? >>No. Because they've never used ksh. >- Because they're used to csh from another system. We had several hold-outs here for almost a year. When they finally converted, inevitably they said "Why did I wait so long? What a waste!" >- Because they have lots of csh scripts that they'd rather not convert. That consists of inserting #!/bin/csh as the first line. No problem. >- Because they like the way csh does some things (history, for instance). This tells me you have never used ksh. The history in ksh is clearly superior to csh. 1. Who wants to use a bizzare sequence of characters to specify using portions of the previous line when you can simply edit that line in place using your favorite editor's commands? 2. Csh's history is remembered as long as that shell history lasts. Ksh's history is remembered as long as you don't remove the history file. >- Because it's there. > Steven Grimm Moderator, comp.{sources,binaries}.atari.st Is it? Where? If we do not have csh sources, then it makes far more sense to take sh (which clearly DOES exit) and modify it to make it as powerful as ksh. Charles Brown Not representing my employer.
root@darkside.LBP.HARRIS.COM (Administrator) (09/27/88)
In article <4929@saturn.ucsc.edu:> koreth@ssyx.ucsc.edu (Steven Grimm) writes: :>In article <5870005@hpcvca.HP.COM> charles@hpcvca.HP.COM (Charles Brown) writes: :>>>::> I want to put csh on my minix. :>>>:: Why on Earth would anyone want to clone that mess? :-) :>>> Because they're smart? :>>No. Because they've never used ksh. :> :>How about: :> :>- Because they're used to csh from another system. :>- Because they have lots of csh scripts that they'd rather not convert. :>- Because they like the way csh does some things (history, for instance). :> :>And, maybe the most important reason for a hacker: :> :>- Because it's there. :> I guess if I do do a port, nobody'll ever hear about it... :-) :-) :-) I have seen ksh before... <thumbs slowly pointing down> oh BTW anybody port any good games to minix yet? a nice early version of hack (when they used to still fit into 64K data, text) would be nice... Bing H Bang uucp: ...gatech!galbp!bing "You are born. You live. You go prodigy: jxkh70a on some diets. You die." --Opus
wtoomey@gara.une.oz (Warren Toomey) (09/28/88)
In several articles to date: > >>>::> I want to put csh on my minix. > >>>:: Why on Earth would anyone want to clone that mess? :-) > >>> Because they're smart? > >>No. Because they've never used ksh. > >- Because they're used to csh from another system. Ok, let's solve this debate by saying, if you want <particular shell> on Minix, then you should write it. If you look back a few weeks, you'll see that I posted an article asking for some system calls which haven't been implemented on Minix yet, so I could do a port of my friend's tcsh clone. Haven't noticed any replies, either! Re: this shell is better than that, if you write <particular shell> and post it to this newsgroup, we'll be able to try it ourselves, and see if it is better. Right, now let's get back to Minix.. +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Warren Toomey | |Dept. of Computing Science ACSNET: wtoomey@gara.une.oz | |University of New England UUCP: ...!uunet!munnari!gara.une.oz!wtoomey | |Armidale Australia 2351 ARPA: wtoomey%gara.une.oz@uunet.uu.net | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | "Life isn't as trivial as it seems, it only appears to be." | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
rroot@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) (10/01/88)
From article <5870006@hpcvca.HP.COM>, by charles@hpcvca.HP.COM (Charles Brown): >>>>::> I want to put csh on my minix. >>>>:: Why on Earth would anyone want to clone that mess? :-) > >>- Because they like the way csh does some things (history, for instance). > > This tells me you have never used ksh. The history in ksh is clearly > superior to csh. Only in some ways. It is sometimes really nice to make arbitrary changes to history lines but, in most cases I tend to want my history lines more intact or with few changes. Csh works fine for that -- It's a lot easier to do things like: find here -name foo -size -5 -print (Hmm, I wanna edit that ) vi ` !! ` as opposed to KSH: <esc>kivi `<esc>A` which would do the same thing. It's even worse with KSH when you're doing things over a low-speed (1200bd) modem.. (KSH ignores the concept of CURSES) >>- Because they have lots of csh scripts that they'd rather not convert. > That consists of inserting > #!/bin/csh > as the first line. No problem. unh, that doesn't work if csh hasn't been ported over (that's the reason for this discussion in the first place). There is one thing I LIKE about not using CSH: you can 'Mail edm!obed!steve' instead of 'edm\!obed\!steve' (I refuse to change the history char to something reasonable). One last GOOD thing about csh is the iterative brackets: ls -l /usr/man/{a,u}_man/*/{a*,cat.?} If you're gonna re-invent the shell, at least put THAT in. -- ------------- Stephen Samuel (userzxcv@ualtamts.bitnet or alberta!edm!steve) (Only in Canada, you say??.... Pity!)