mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) (02/11/91)
In article <6422@spdcc.SPDCC.COM> rbraun@spdcc.COM (Rich Braun) writes: > Also, I'm curious as to why the cryptic 'sh' user interface > has not been replaced with something hi-tech. I still miss > the DEC-20. As far as I know, 'ksh' still retains the basic > look-and-feel of 'sh', though with an Emacs line editor. It has. It's called Bash. The reason it's not in /bin/sh is because it would break a great deal of things that rely on /bin/sh behaving a certain way. The other reason is that /bin/sh is small, lean, and relatively fast. Bash is large, unwieldy, and does strange things sometimes. When I'm working with something in single-user mode, I want to have the shell do what I want it to; I don't want to have to fight with it. Bash is also GNUware, which means the chances of SCO distributing it are little to none. -- Marc Unangst | "I think I have a bad disk. Even though I mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us | folded it to fit into my drive, it still ...!umich!leebai!mudos!mju | doesn't work..." -Caller to a tech support line