Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Nullifies Differences Between Bash, Csh
Andreas(R) writes "Red Hat Software has revealed that future versions of the distribution will hide the differences between command-line user interfaces, creating a 'more unified shell prompt experience'. 'I don't mind if they rebrand and unify the GNOME and KDE interfaces,' said one Linux longhair. 'Frankly, I rarely use GUIs. But when they start messing with my CLI, then it's personal. I'm not going to sit here and let Red Hat infect my beloved tcsh with those annoying quirks from bash." Ah, nothing like satire that only a small group will truly grok. *grin*
Please don't let RedHat make emacs like vi
?-|||-----x<*))))><
Why is an article from a humor/satire site (Humorix) being posted main-page to /. ?
This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
Read the link. This is FAKE news designed to humor us. Can't believe Slashdot would even post this...
Humorix? Hello, McFly?
why did it take soooooo long
I guess I'll have to download an RPM of both BASH and CSH the next time I install Redhat on a machine. Either that or I should just switch to Debian the next time I install. :-)
I can't wait until you have absolutely no control over your hardware (LaGrande) and your software (Palladium)! An idiot-proof world for idiots!
Burn them at the stake! How dare they alter the sacred bash shell!
though I wish this was really true, but unfortunately, it is just a joke.
The solution is quite simple: don't use redhat and quit whining. You don't own bash or csh and you sure as hell don't even remotely have the right to complain about the modifications redhat is making. It's free software and nobody is forcing you to use it.
"The majority is always sane, Louis." -- Nessus
http://slashdot.jp
does mean in bash I can say `setenv PATH ~/bin:${PATH}' or even `set path (~/bin $path)' or the other way around, in csh `EXPORT PATH=~/bin:$PATH'?
....hope they add a switch options menu too!!!
I wonder how this will trickle down to the other eight billion shells there are available.
Most notably, tcsh and zsh.
-- dK
Now this is a bad idea.
The GUIs is good - stop newbies getting confused when they start out. But the shells?
Once you know your way around a shell, you know about chsh, or editting the passwd file to change it.
I mean, I only use bash (you use what you know) but I can imagine this upsetting **lots** of people.
Imagine all those shell scripts breaking on an upgrade....
Get your own free personal location tracker
"Ah, nothing like satire that only a small group will truly grok."
Just like Lunix howtos.
I don't know where I ever got the idea that Linux zealots were elitist pricks. I must have imagined it.
/bin/false
It really is much more secure.
-- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
First thing I read in the article:
Fake News written by James Baughn on September 25, 2002
from the let-the-flame-wars-continue! dept.
I think the -Fake News- part might reveal some insight on the credibility of the story!
Please don't let RedHat make vi like emacs
Who cares if they change the shell? As long as they publish API's for the middleware pieces, how could we possibly complain?
This is a joke article...what gives? The /. editors just got trolled?
The article goes on to say how they also combined vi and emacs......freakin A the site's name is Humorix.
From the article:
The nullified CLI isn't the only new feature that has upset some users. Red Hat has also rebranded vi and emacs to create two virtually identical text editors: "vimacs" and "emavics".
end of quotes
Looks like Hemos got a little TOO fucked over the weekend.
I think RH is limiting choice now. First the GUI, now the shell, how far will they take this? Is this good for Linux? Probably. It may give a uniform UI so some new Linux user can show his other new Linux user friend how to do something, and knows it will work the same way. Just as long as the ability is there (and obviously there) for more advanced users to customize it. I had a little trouble changing my Gnome window manager to sawfish in Limbo which I did not like!
They keep combining things for now apparent purpose. Is there a particular reason that they are doing this? They just make everything generic. The bluecurve/gnome 2 menus are cluttered, with things like emacs repeated, and system settings in 5 different menus. I can't imagine how they would do this to a shell, but I guess small things like variables and file selection can be "tweaked."
--Jason
If you hadn't noticed it's under the "funny/humour" catogory. Turn this catagory off in your preferences if you dont want it.
I've always felt like I've been on the outside. For the entire time that I've been using *nix, I've had to choose from already extant shells, while my long haired collegues make fun of losers who can't use (insert shell flavor here).
Now it's The Rev's turn! Watch out whoever can only use Red Hat's shell! I'm going to mock you relentlessly!
Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
I honestly can't tell.
They both suck.
zsh all the way, mofos.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Yes, this was a joke story, but there is a kernel of truth. I'm friends with the 10th person hired at Red Hat (Andrew Henderson), and he has said that internal politics regarding BSD-style shells versus Linux-style shells have reached a boiling point. It is something of an old-guard/new-guard thing.
He said he would not be surprised at all if John Mathers (Red Hat's Director of Technology) made such a decision in the near future. My friend assured me that the tech workforce inside the company would NOT let that happen.
Posting anon in case I wasn't supposed to mention any of this....
M-x viper-mode.
It would have been better if it was announced on April Fools day...
Geesh. I'm glad for it, it brightened my day.
---
the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword is mightier than the court, the court is mightier than the pen.
Someday, all of us will actually read the news headers!
The law of excluded middle : Either I'm foo or I'm foobar
As stated in some other thread as well, read the first 2 lines of the atleast : "Fake News written by James Baughn". And still, if you wish to speculate on the matter. Speculate on whether you are still capable of choosing your favorite /bin/l33t if you are capable of speculating on this speculative hoax?
All your shell are belong to us!
I've never seen such a collection of knee-jerk humorless reactionaries in my life!!! I think the responses to this article are funnier than the article itself.
Warning: serious reactions to this article will go on your permanent record!!!
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
To be sure, I give the fuckers /dev/random. If lucky, it'll screw their terminal and they won't bother me.
fucktard is a tenderhearted description
>Ah, nothing like satire that only a small group
>will truly grok. *grin*
Anyone else want to join me in saying "SHUT THE FUCK UP HEMOS!" This is not even the remotest bit obscure, and I would guess at least 90% of slashdot readers will understand this. Seriously, what has slashdot editing come to? Why don't you get down off your horse Hemos, you are not 31337, and no one here thinks you are cool. How about some intelligent commentary? How about something that makes sense.
If you don't have anything to say, then SHUT THE FUCK UP!
Seriously though, MacOSX includes zsh and just about every Linux and BSD distro has a port. Give it a shot. It's worth it.
# Peter's
# Comfort options
setopt CORRECT AUTO_LIST AUTO_MENU
alias ls='ls -F'
alias ll='ls -laF'
# Tab completion for "cd" only returns directories
compctl -g '*(-/)
# Set the prompt
PROMPT='%m}%~> '
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
Obviously RedHat is building thier own OS from the linux kernel dont complain that you want thier OS to work the way you want. If you want to stay with (GNU/)Linux then veer away from RedHat sooner or later the kernel RedHat uses will be incompatible with linus' kernel
Turns out we're both correct. I was definitely wrong about why the article was posted. But you have to admit I was right about the TROLL part. It was so good in fact, that I didn't even get past the title before I had linked through to the artle to see what was up. I must admit I was a bit curious on how someone would combine those two shells.
I've dirtied my hands writing poetry, for the sake of seduction; that is, for the sake of a useful cause. --Dostoevsky
The article itself, or the fact that it seems like the majority of posters have failed to:
A) RTFA
B) Notice that this is "from the funny-funny-haha dept."
C) Read the editors comment Hemos left in the little blurb once again clueing them into the fact that the article is a joke just like the ignorant fools who have started to bitch already.
Come on guys, yes it was a rather silly comment for him to make, but definatly not "shut the f*** up" quality. So the editors mess up every now and then, cut them some slack!
Instead of making bash like csh, or csh like bash, why don't they just not include one or the other. Duh....
That or make their own...
I think its the 'anal' Linux zealots who ultimately stop Linux from moving forward because they are so stuck in their ways.
If you dont like what Red Hat do then don't use their sodding distribution. There are plenty of other people out there who appreciate that Red Hat are interested in making the Linux experience as easy as possible for newer users, rather than confusing the hell out of them.
Lord knows they pump enough cash & resources into the community, and all people do is bitch about em.
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
From the article:people that have accidentally started vi and couldn't figure out how to do anything -- or even how to quit
Sadly, this has happened to me. Fortunately, the only thing I need a text editor for is little things like modifying config files in Quake, so pico or notepad work just fine.
This bit had me rolling on the floor..
The head of the Emacs Flame War Re-enactment Society (a group that re-enacts the great Usenet emacs versus vi flames wars of the 20th Century) said, "Red Hat is destroying our cultural heritage!
Ahh.. I know guys who belong to war re-enactment societies.. and this about sums them up..
I love it when Slashdot posts stuff like this. All the morons that don't read the articles look stupid when they go off on a tangent.
It's like April 1st but better.
For the record, I can be caught not reading the articles from time to time - but I never said I wasn't a moron.
LoRider
/bin/false ? Personally, I prefer the features of /bin/nosuchshell
how are they going to manage to avoid the thousands of #!/bin/bash scripts?
/bin/rh-shell or somesuch, which 'unifies' shell differences (?why?) but how are you they going to do this without the headaches?
/bin/bash" and switch EVERYTHING in RedHat GNU/Linux to it.
its one thing to say they want to *create* another unified shell say,
they would be further ahead to just say "we use
"Dude, you are right, it's a fake story! It's Satire! THEY ARE NOT REALLY DOING THIS SO CALM DOWN! Dind't the foot as the Icon give you Clue #2? :x:q or was that ^q? Damn Vimacs!"
I think the real comedy here isn't the satirical write-up, but the responses to it.
I hope this link is enough to convince them.
I also hope that page ends the debates once and for all!
Am I a hipster-doofus?
Before everyone starts to bag on Redhat because they are Nullifying the shell prompt think about who the target audience is for their product. This is not for the bitchy whiney IT professional who want to tweak the hell out of their system. It is for professionals who actually do productive work on their computer. By productive work I mean anything which is not related to IT work. Let's get real, computers are meant to simply people lives and make them more productive. Instead Linux people hold the notion that Linux is meant to consume all of ones time reading how-to and figuring out how to configure the dam thing. I for one believe that much more will have to change in Linux before it goes mainstream and this will piss even more of you purist off...
by at least one cd, if they removed emacs.
I told a coworker of mine that the 2.4.x kernel cannot support a statically compiled emacs, because of the 2TB file limit.
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
int main( void ) { return 0; }
- vmfedor
I like my women how I like my sugar.. granulated.
I know there are many complaints about this, but think about all the *advantages* of this move.
Users really don't give a damn whether they are running bash or csh. What they want is a shell that works. If the user is clueful enough to want to original behaviour, then she can damn well compile her own shell.
Me likes. Go Red Hat!
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
While they are at it why don't they nullify the difference between Perl and C++. They could call it Pee++
.. and it's actually pretty good, especially for newbies. For instance, "redhat-list-my-files-in-current-directory" is a little heavily branded, but it makes a lot more sense than "ls" to a new user. And the "Are you sure you want to run 'xyz' (Y/n)" prompts after every command saved my ass a couple times. Getting rid of all commands that can delete files is also great for security, and that's definitely an advantage over other distros.
The only thing that really tripped me up was that Red Hat mapped "delete character" to the "d" key (probably to fix the whole backspace/delete confusion once and for all). And the character D is mapped to ^X-F4 which is a little hard to type at first but you get used to it. Since they made this change system-wide I learned it pretty fast.
All in all a step in the right direction. Of course power users can always use another distro, or just type their system's source code onto the hard drive from scratch or whatever it is they do for fun on Saturday nights.
I just hope they add a clippy like interface to emacs. Nothing like having productivity interuped by a dancing paperclip. It's not fare that vi gets one. vigor
Linux. Because a 386 is a terrible thing to waste.
It's all configurable by toggling a GConf key. Unfortunately the next release of Red Hat will continue the trend by making all their configuration tool GUIs, and move to a database format for their GConf keys, so... .. you will need a GUI to change your TUI!
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
i think you mean SLASHDOT readers..
the actual post said its satire, the "dept" is "funny-funny-haha".. its the posters that are dumbasses.
vimacs or emavics. I say vimacs!
This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
Please keep in mind that the reason we have the wide variety of shells is because each has their own stengths and weaknesses. For example, csh on the surface is more user friendly, but once you start doing non-trival things with you, you quickly run into "quoting hell" (long before dll hell existed there was quoting hell). The original shell sh was unforgiving and inflexible. Korn shell, ksh, was pretty nifty, but it was never as widely adopted as it should have been, probably because it did not propagate the problems of csh.
Anyway, my point here is to say that if one is going to work at the command line level, it really does matter which shell you use. And, combined shells, shells that try to be all shells in one always involve compromise, making some things less good and others better than they are in the un-mingled shells. Thus, I really don't see the value in yet another round of trying to merge the shells into a single shell, and then have everything split off again.
Some people argue that scripting is now dominated by the "higher level scripting languages" such as Perl, and thus it no longer matters which shell you use. I guess I could buy this IF all scripting was done in these languages AND they were universal in all Unix/Linux systems. But, I don't see it being there right now. Which is what really matters, because when I have to write my next portable shell script, I'm still going to have to pick my shell, and I'm going to end up going for the closest to ksh that I can find.
CASH!!
I know, I know, its very sad, Im sorry I'll go back to my corner now
I agree!!!
It really is much more secure.
Actually, in some old *nixes, that absolutely was NOT the case. If the shell in
Not that this behavious persists today, but just to be safe, use
Don't sweat the petty things. But do pet the sweaty things.
The new language doesn't have a name yet, but you can be sure that few will like the idea, many will have an opinion, and noone will read the actual announcement.
Give a hand, not a hand-out.
Surely this is a hoax?
If it isn't then the Redhat guys behind it have to be certifiably insane.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Heh! Heh! Good one, It's gonna hurt from laughing on a full stomach
C|N>K
And especially so when you complement its use with the /dev/null video accelerator.
Life-free geeks who care about this stuff all use Debian or Slackware anyway."
:-)
from the article, 'nuff said
Seriously, I often have vi running in the left window and emacs in the right hand one. It's a good mental exercise to switch back and forth between them frequently. I wish I could train myself to use my right hand for emacs and the left for vi, but I'm not there yet. Maybe I could do it with two chord keyboards?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Like, say, the group that actually uses the word 'grok' in conversation?
when at least half of slashdot's readers (i.e., hundreds of thousands of people) probably understand the joke, even if 90% fall for it.
Step 1: Imagine a beowolf cluster of these.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit.
All done.
This is SAD. NERD humour! Get a life will ya!
Quit Slashdot Today!
No, you're pretty much wrong on all points. It's not a troll at all, it's satire.
It's ok, though. We can't all be smrt.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
Slackware!!!!!!!!!!
god, I'm glad I type slow at this time of the evening. (Joke lost to eternity with newbie moderators)
Yes... the last slackware zealot has spoken..
Go Patrick! Go Patrick! Go Patrick! Go Patrick! Go Patrick! Go Patrick! Go Patrick! Go Patrick!
yah right, mod this troll, see if I care... ever tried Slackware have you?
Right up their stupid asses!
Seriously, lighten up, people. Smoke a bowl, download Slackware, and quit beetching. You wanna roll your own Linux, grow your own Linux, then you'll get exactly what you're tokin' for.
Sweetleaf Linux. Now there's an idea.
Yeah, wouldn't it be cool to find that small group?
note: Apparently the moderation system does work, since most of the knee-jerk reactions from people who didn't read the article are buried in this thread =)
--
Overcaffeinated. Angry geeks.
/bin/false
That is simply not true...
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
Worst...misuse...of..."grok"...ever.
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
Red Hat has sold it's soul. If this is true they
have no clue what Unix is about. We've got to do
something about this! They are bastardizing our OS!
I give my users /dev/null :) that's the perfect cli.
For those who missed it the first time, take a look at: this or this thread -- the oldest one I could find on Google...
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
standard linux access shell...
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
Bob Hutzfield has put a dozen copies of "Red Hat Linux 10.0" up for auction at eBay.com. He claims that his toilet is the portal to a "temporal vortex singularity" and that the toilet periodically spits out items from the future. Last week, a package containing twelve Red Hat Linux 10.0 shrink-wrapped boxes materialized at the toilet vortex. Hutzfield is now offering them at auction with a minimum bid of US$1000.
The following press release was taken from the eBay auction page. Hutzfield claims that he found this press release inside the package that emerged from his toilet vortex.
Click here RH10.0Linux for the toilet
RALEIGH-DURHAM, NC -- HypeNewsWire -- Red Hat, the producer of the most popular Linux distribution with over 25 million estimated users, is proud to announce the availability of Red Hat Linux 10.0. The latest version contains the new Linux 6.2 kernel, the Z Window System 2.0, full support for legacy Windows 3.x/9x/200x/NT software apps, and more. Copies of Red Hat Linux 10.0 will be available in stores on CD-ROM, DVD-ROM, or GNUDE (GNU Digital Encoding) disks within the next week.
Compaq, Dell, Gateway, and several other large computer manufacturers have announced that they will offer computer systems with Red Hat 10.0 pre-installed. "We can sell systems with Red Hat pre-installed for considerably less than systems with Microsoft ActiveWindows 2001. Overall, Red Hat Linux's superior quality, low price, and modest system requirements puts Windows to shame," one Dell spokesperson said at last week's LinDex convention.
Read more here - i cant resist this Redhat 10.x
Would you people read the bloody article. It's a spoof.
Actually, I believe the linux kernel has been ported to elisp.
whether you want them unified, or the normal way. I will be VERY angry if they do it without letting you have a choice in the matter during the Red Hat install.
Why would they even *want* to do this. Like 90% of all Linux users I use the shell chosen by my distro. That's almost 100% Bash. I've done some pretty techie stuff with my system and tend to be a pretty advanced RedHat user but the thought of changing my shell never even occurred to me. After all, it works just great, why would I care? It seems to me only total techie geeks would reject the Bash shell and if they're so damn techie why create a distro that limits this ability. Am I missing something here???
Seriously people, there are soooooooo many linux distros out there, im pretty sure it would only take a few days, and before you know it, you have a new favourite distro.
This reminds me of a SubWay add here in Australia. This same guy comes in everyday at the same time and orders the same thing. Someone else tells him to try something different. He ignores initialy, but eventualy gives in and gives another Sub a try.
After a few minutes of pricing information and pretty pictures, we return to our borring old friend and find, not only did he like the new Sub, but he has a "new favourite".
What does this mean? Well, just like in the Sub add, the consumer was already happy, and had no reason to change. But when he did venture outside of his familiar souroundings, he foudn he loved it.
Now our situation is a little different because they're forcing us to conform to something we're not used to.
So while you might want to fight it, and tell RH boo boo, other people might be praising this move. So, why dont you look at some other platforms with a unix flavour. Like the hundreds of Linux distros out there? Maybe also you could dip your toe in to the BSD's? Maybe have a go at MacOSX and see what all the fuss is about?
Bottom line, if you dont like it, dont use it, find something else that does what you want it to do. Thats not going to be hard either!!!!
Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
from http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed.msg.html
i found the original alt.religion.emacs post here: groups.google.com
... nevermind, there is no way this post is making it past the lameness filter. too bad, read the link.
...just what is the difference between the Bourne Again shell and Csh? Why should I care?
With all of the gaps being closed in being able to pick one distribution over the next, I give the bounty to the first distribution to NOT include Emacs in the "default install" button. Oh yea, and include blackbox/fluxbox as one of the "default" window managers. (they can put KDE and GNOME on the "options" or "Contributed" CD). And why they are at it, they can decide on 1 font manager (xfstt) for the whole distribution VS. the 1 font manager for each app you see nowdays. That should be a pretty cool distro that I could throw at this old assed hardware that I have.
PS -- The article made me laugh hard, and miss satirewire even more.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
I don't make jokes about race....
I really find jokes about peoples countries of origin un-funny.
Jokes about religion turn me off...
And jokes about screwing around with my CLI drive me into a rage worthy of the Lord GOD HIMSELF!
Next time you post an un-funny article like this, I start calling you funny names!
But Hemos is a pretty funny name to begin with, so I don't have a clue where to start. ;-)
Note to moderators: It's FUNNY, not offtopic.
LongTail SSH Brute Force analysis tool is here!
Hopefully I will never see this behavior. I doubt I'll ever work on anything old enough, though. I put /bin/true in /etc/shells so I can assign it to a user so they can ftp but not log in; I use /bin/false to not even let them log in (but still let them authenticate.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
.NET has had this implemented from the word go and what do we get from Red Hat? A hopeless kludge attempting to reverse-engineer the behavior. Linux advocates should stop trying to push compliance with The-Other-OS and develop new strategies instead.
Several German laboratories have already developed innovative foot-pedal interfaces to the kernel and I'd really prefer to see people installing them on their own systems and sending bug reports to the developers.
bash and other Bourne shell syntax shells are acceptable, but tcsh and csh must die.
- If you thought this was real: silly monkey, pay attention next time.
- If you thought this was real and proceeded to post with that assumption: you have shown the way of the dumb monkey.
- If you thought this was real and flamed as a result: dumb ass.
- You understood this was humorous and proceeded to flame for that reason: kill yourself.
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
I touch type ksh emacs mode editor commands, including for path completion. I can not use other shells.
In the end Red Hat shall rule supreme, replacing Microsoft as the One true OS.
Have you read my journal today?
netbsd has a nologin that simply prints out
nee nee nee nee!
RTFA ;-)
You, Sir, are the world's greatest living genius. I salute you.
Setup Clisp as their login shell. No I'm not kidding it actually is possible, see http://clisp.cons.org/clash.html
:-)
Although it is security through obscurity, you'll be hard pressed find a more amusing setup, and to top it off it's more painful for the user. By security by obscurity standards you'll be hard pressed to do much better - they have to solve the chicken egg problem of getting to the man pages to figure out the command prompt. And that's the advanced users.
I have this great mental image of a black hat trying to run his newfangled worm on a machine with a clisp prompt...
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
"Over the years, we've received nearly 1,000 technical support calls from people that have accidentally started vi and couldn't figure out how to do anything -- or even how to quit."
I resent that! I know how to quit when using vi! ALT-F2! kill -9 vi!
-- Jim
You shouldn't care. Just live in Bill Gate's wonderland "Windows nerd" (now that is quite funny).
I always thought the standard for false was zero and true was non-zero. Is if different for those two?
its called the "GNU/unified shell prompt experience."
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
I'm still using the clunky yet compatible QWERTY, but one nice trick to simultaneous mouse/keyboard operation is using the mouse with your left hand (if you're right handed). There are several advantages:
- With only one hand to type with, it's better to use the more dexterous
one.
- If you have a desktop keyboard with a number pad, your hands will be
closer together and probably more comfortable.
- Using the mouse isn't too complicated for the left hand. Your
right-hand dexterity would be wasted on this simple activity.
- Your right hand is naturally closer to the right edge of the keyb,
where the arrows and other controls are. Great for web surfing.
I've had it this way for years. Of course for proper touch typing you'll like using both hands, at least with qwerty.--
If you moderate this, then your children will be next.
I do care. I want to care. Oh, for crying out loud, why won't you let me care? I want to learn to Lunix! I want to be 31347 just like you. I want to be able to hack on theh source code and make witty trolls about teh manham. I want to be like you, 'cuz you're so cool! So, PLEASE LET ME CARE?!!!11!!
And call it your own shell. Problem solved. However don't call this thing a mixture of Bash and tcsh. Call it Rshell or Redhat Shell or Redhat Prompt or something.
Well bash /ch are one thing. What about packaging? Has anyone tried to mix non-redhat rpms with and RH 8.0 install.
If they keep acquisitioning other's technology soon you won't RH distribution but a collection RH'ized packages that only work the RH way. Sounds alot like Redmond speak to me.
Take a look at this list: Each was once a free independent platform. Now they each have some many minor interdependencies that you can't install one without the other.
RH Desktop
RH Database
RH Shell
RH PHP
RH RPM (yea they own this one but now it won't work with anyone else)
RH Media
RH XFree86
RH Python
I'm an RCHE and have used RH for 4 years straight on dozens of servers. The last 1.5 years have been scary because I've seen good tech get gradually mediocritized to RH standards.
Quite frankly upgrading to 7.1-8.0 has required that I DOWNGRADE my system's functionality not enhance it. While I have 8.0 on a test machine and a laptop, I have serious misgivings about ever moving any of my servers to RH 8.X
And to think I thought that Linux users were elitist!
The default behaviour for unix is to check for failure. Hence false returns !false to indicate that it failed to fail. true returns false to indicate that it did failed to succeed.
actually, it's different for all return values in linux (shell return values that is), 0 means success everything else is usually an error
In a recent move to reduce the confusing differences in pronounciations of the word "potato", Red Hat pissed off both the "po-tay-to" and "po-tah-to" factions by decreeing that the word "potato" will now be pronounced "starchy self-reproducing tuber with eyes".
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
I don't like the funny switches you have to use to get the prompt you want in bash, and it's bigger than it has to be.
I never bothered to learn csh/tcsh because Borne shell is what all the scripts are written in, and frankly tcsh doen't do anything that's particularly cool for me.
Plus bash always beeps and does wierd thinks.
PDKSH all the way. Download it.
Eat at Joe's.
It's different for UNIX shells. Zero means success, while nonzero represents an error number.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Combining two shells or two text-based editors isn't that innovative. For the Linux community to really beat the Microsoft machine we need to combine the power of the command line with the ease of use of the GUI. How about kdesh... this shell would work only on high resolution monitors... support 32-million colors and would allow you to customize the background image... all of the possible commands would be listed at the left (or right if you prefer) of the screen for easy access. You could then drag these commands onto the command bar to execute them. Of course there would be a Start> menu for those comfortable with that kind of thing (Start# for administrators of course).
This is only the beginning... with GNOMACS you would have a helpful digital assistant (probably a harmless office product like a paperclip) that would figure out what you wanted in a text editor and then customize it for you.
Ok, I've come up w/ the ideas... now it's time for all of you coders out there to go to work!
See subject
You can't be a 'windows nerd' - it's an oxymoron....
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
Hehehehe!
I'm sorry, but bash sux compared to good olde Korn shell rulez.
I don't like the funny switches you have to use to get the prompt you want in bash, and it's bigger than it has to be.
I never bothered to learn csh/tcsh because Borne shell is what all the scripts are written in, and frankly tcsh doen't do anything that's particularly cool for me.
Plus bash always beeps and does wierd thinks.
PDKSH all the way. Download it.
Eat at Joe's.
HIHIHOHO ANOTHER ONE SUCKERED
+1 Out to lunch.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Try it. Hopefully, Redhat won't combine it with bash though.
I am sitting here in a graduate corporate finance class, and you made me laugh so hard my stomach almost came out my nose.
Red Hat nullifies the Red Hat and Microsoft...
mp3: l33t term for empty.
RedHat can do whatever the hell they want, it's so full of bloated crap, it's useless, just use Gentoo, it's loaclly compiled, and only puts the stuff you want into it....
Networking, only one letter from NOT working...
As p3d0 said, shells behave the opposite. (Although there once was an odd bug in - what was it, Ultrix? - where csh behaved the opposite, i.e. didn't behave the opposite, i.e. was buggy, with regards to the && and || short-circuit operators. But then, csh history is replete with odd bugs.)
But to expand on the point: in Unix, the exit status of a program is an integer (7 unsigned bits, anyway: trying to use more is not portable). Convention dictates that 0 is normal termination, non-zero is abnormal, and anything over 128 means it was killed by a signal rather than the exit() function. (Which signal? Subtract 128 to find out.) Furthermore, many programs document their various abnormal exit status numbers to mean various failure cases.
Note that even MS-DOS (and all of its misshapen get) uses the zero / greater-than-zero convention. In DOS, a process's return value is called the "errorlevel", which indeed more accurately describes its main purpose.
This convention also goes a little deeper in Unix. Most system calls and many C library functions (remember, the standard C library was first defined on Unix) return 0 for success (or similar concepts: "equality" in the string compare function strcmp()) and non-zero for failure ("inequality" in strcmp()). Even system calls which return other meaningful integers (open(), for example) generally use >=0 for success and -1 for failure.
So it may make no sense from a boolean logic point of view but zero==true is surprisingly widespread. Mostly because there is often only one way to succeed at a task but many ways to fail, and it's useful to be able to report specific failure modes.
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
... so of course I have to intrude... :)
;)
Maybe the reason everyone is looking up vi on google is because it is so *intuitive* and *easy-to-learn*?
Then again, I personally think emacs is a tool of the devil....
http://www.textpad.com - all the editor you'll ever need
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
>> To be sure, I give the fuckers /dev/random. If lucky, it'll screw their terminal and they won't bother me.
/dev/random.
But if you're supremely unlucky, it'll drop them to a SUID root perl process. Do not taunt
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
I had to learn a new Language...
Braaahh... New Language, New Language.
This
Call it the Secure Linux Access Server Heisenberg Direct Operation Tester It's designed to push a server to the utmost limits of it's capabilities! (Forgive the obligatory technobabble)
You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
Wow! I use Windows. Why? Because I don't want to learn about my freakin' shell, gnome, kde, bfe, or ASAP. I just want to do work. Sorry, if this flamebait...but I just want to USE my computer no have to worry about all the moving parts under the hood. In my book, I WANT an alternative. If redhat can get there by breaking a few eggs to make the omelete. More power to them.
Linux - Destine to be a server OS (unless people wake up)
It won't work. /dev/random isn't usually marked as executable. Even if it were, it wouldn't even get to run anything unless by some miracle the random string was a valid ELF header. Of course, the random string could also be something like "#!/bin/bash", thereby giving them a shell.
/dev/random
What you want to do is make a script like:
#!/bin/sh
cat
Then make that script their shell. When they log in, they'll just get lots of random crap.
My other first post is car post.
I have an idea. Why don't these IDIOTS at Red Hat just get rid of all the shells and install ONE shell. Just decide on one... whether it is bash or ksh or fuckyoush or whatever, and leave us alone. And do the same for the graphical interface. Fucking idiots.
hell I'd rather use Windows that that commerical piece of crap, with non-standard this and that.
Thank god for Debian.
When I was learning UNIX programming and C++ (on Solaris), we were taught how to code (nothing quite like Stevens' APUE, RIP Richard) but nothing about how to edit, not even a tipsheet/survival guide thing. I hated vi so much, I felt like an idiot because I don't know how to quit it. I programmed most of my stuff on a mac and ftp'ed stuff over. I used Alpha on the Mac, glad it's still around at least in some form. Still the best editor I've used, though NEdit (my current fave) comes close. Me has to start looking at new editors, I kind of like the idea of the folding editors, but they all seem to be too heavy with resources. For those with recommendations of emacs, see last statement about too much resources.
Satire website people! Joke! Not true! Not really gonna happen! Read the damn article!
thats funny, I have been using linux now for years, and I still cant quit vi! That has happened to me, accidentally starting vi and issuing a killall command after a worthless ^X-C frenzy, lol. That, belive it or not was what made me used emacs, which I actually ended up learning a completly non-standard way of controlling.
What signature defines me as a person?
All slashdotting Open Sourcers should help out in creating the Porn Again SHell, the project doesn't seem to have much activity. Maybe his hands are cramped from ....
I agree 100%. Ksh is the best shell out there for universal script development. I can't stand using the up and down arrows to scroll thru my command history either... reminds me too much of NT/2000 cmd.exe, I'd much rather use [ESC]j and [ESC]k and also export EDITOR=vi so I can use my good old familiar vi editing on the command line too .
You have users??
SlashSig Karma: Excellent (mostly affected by moderatio
I actually like a left-handed trackball, especially when I'm using and O.S. that has focus-follows-mouse (trackballs don't slide around on you).
:^)
Plus, when I mouse with my right hand playing too much Quake or Urban Terror or Tribes2, my right hand gets all messed up. This way, I can't play FPS with a left-handed trackball, and thus forces me to be more productive.
--Robert
I find that edit.com is all the editor i really need for most tasks... why doesn't someone come out with something that simple for Linux?
I prefer something along the lines of:
/dev/urandom
#!/bin/sh
cat
Unless you want to sit there wiggling the mouse while it generates entropy...
kmem russian roulette: Aquillar> dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/kmem bs=1 count=1 seek=$RANDOM
common denominator..In a problem situation IT WILL ALWAYS WORK, even over a FSCK'n PALM into the A port. Use what you like for everyday, but KNOW basic VI or have a good cheatsheet for when the excrement hits the fan.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
if you have ever taken ANY C class you will remember that line at the end of your function 'return 0;' that meant 'everything's fine'
fear is the mind killer
This must set the record for the most number of posts before 1 person actually read the article and realized the 300 people before them never RTFA.
News for Nerds... which assumes there is _some_ intake of actual news information. We have the nerd part down pat.
Or better, for safety, 'exec /bin/cat /dev/random'.
-30-
The complaints of emacs were also on its process size just as much, if not more, than its disk space used. (hence the nickname "eight megabytes and constantly swapping")
Even there, with modern applications, the reputation is ill-deserved. On my iBook, an instance of emacs uses less memory than the Clock app that sits in the dock.
> who in world uses console at home?
Me, for devel it rocks, automate anything.
I use it even more on my work desktop, life without echo -e "//+1,//-1d\nx\n" | ex Y.xml, find -exec, awk and grep would suck.
Wow, I should not post when knackered.
Diffrent command.com/cmd.exe for UNIXes, csh takes its syntax from C (ish).
;)
sh does not.
ash, bash and ksh are extentions to sh, adding stuff like history, line editing (think doskeys, but better), better variable manuplation (than sh) and tab competion.
tcsh is an extention to csh anding stuff like history, line editing (think doskeys, but better) and tab competion.
You can use bash & tcsh in Windows (imo they are much better then cmd.exe) from http://cygwin.com
If you don't use 'em, no need to care about them, if you did, and this was real then you would have One More Shell to have to type 'bash' at
Wow, I should not post when knackered.
Wow ... I can't believe it ... nobody said it.
In all the modded funny posts, no one said it, or it's getting filtered. The most hackneyed attempt at a cheap laugh on the internet today and nobody said it.
Okay, okay, I'll say it, I got a little karma to burn ...
All your shells are belong to us.
Now don't make me do that again. Don't make me come over there.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
seriously dude... I don't know what we would do without you here to save the day.
1. Create a new unified shell;
2. ????
3. Profit!
Oh yeah, there's also:
All your shell are belong to RedHat
What, are you saying that emacs comes with the RedHat dist? Isn't RedHat supposed to sell Linux? Why are they disting a Linux based os and then bundeling another os with that?
This sound really stupid.
Having a setuid root shell somewhere on the box that is executable by the user would be just insane.
/bin/sh (not dropping privs, so it would run as root) if the user shell child process returned nonzero.
login already runs as root. It executes your shell by forking, dropping privs (seteuid) and exec'ing. The sensible thing for it to do would be fork and exec
Assuming that your story is true, that is...
Hands in my pocket
Well, vimacs really exists!
Chilli
-=- Just a random lambda hacker
Maximum debugging information..
You are talking about the .a file, which is not very unlike a .tar file. I.e. this is not a library that is needed by any running program. /usr/lib/libc.a" and you will see that there are about 1200 packages in there with full debugging information and unstripped. It comes from glibc-devel.
Do a "ar -tv
Having a huge libc.a simply means that you have lots of development libraries in there. The linker will extract those needed and add if to your binary.
I think the original poster meant /lib/libc.so which is 1.2 MB on my RH7.1
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
I think RH should add an option to install an expert and a normal version of their distribution. This could greatly enhance RH's install base while leaving the 'i'm in control' feel of Linux in-tact for users that install the expert version.
It's a Mac Thing. You wouldn't understand.
See, it's a new era on slashdot. We used to spout off at the mouth after not reading the article's linked to the slashdot summary. Now we don't even read the slashdot summary! After all, it wastes valuable posting time! You don't want someone else to beat you to a +5 insightful, now, do you?
Best quotes: HUMORIX WORLD HEADQUARTERS -- Two Humorix unpaid interns were injured earlier today as the result of mass panic induced by an unexpected attack of the dreaded Slashdot Effect.
The two injured interns are actually specially bred chickens trained to peck the reboot button on our two Windows PCs when the screen turns blue
People missed the joke. too bad.
bash and csh is old hat.
Use zsh.
I resent that! I know how to quit when using vi! ALT-F2! kill -9 vi!
Heh; you got off easy. Hard core vi users have to join support groups and sometimes take prozac for months before they are ready to quit. It's always the same, sad story. "I just picked it up out of curiousity, thought I'd try it once. A few minutes experimenting with command mode and I was hooked. It took a few weeks before I started using it every day, but after that it was any excuse I could get to fire it up. Write a letter? vi. Web page? vi. Grocery list? vi. I kept it to myself at first but after a while I was doing it in public, even talking about it openly. People would point and laugh, or cluck sadly at me, but I didn't care. It didn't matter to me if it was right or wrong, I just kept doing it and doing it, no matter what anyone said."
Or Redhat to be the NEW Microsoft...
They seem like they are on the right track...
Hrrm... I usually just sign my name.
one more reason to use LFS
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
the "Emacs Flamewar Re-enactment Society", dedicated to re-enacting the vi/emacs flamewars that raged during the latter years of the 20th century.
--
vi!
emacs!
vi!
emacs!
vi!
(kerchunk... BLAMM!!
ed!)
Yeah, I always return that in the end of the malloc function if it is succesfull.
The next time you're confused about why linux isn't making it's way into the desktop as fast as you'd like... read this quote: "Ah, nothing like satire that only a small group will truly grok. *grin*" Hehe isn't it cute what a small, tight-knit group those linux geeks are? The phrase "self-perpetuating" comes to mind. As long as serious linux folks think it's cool to be a microcosm, that's exactly what they'll be.
Let me get this straight: the whole point of having different shells is because they're DIFFERENT! Now RedHat is saying "Let's un-differentiate them". Why not just install Bash and leave the other shells alone ? It's never been a problem in the past. They should work on un-differentiating their public image instead. These days they're really bent on fucking up Linux, turning it into windows-like bird seed. They fail to acknowledge that the whole drive behind Linux software is to have something that perfectly suits YOU, hence the bazillion Mozilla spinoffs and umpthousand window managers.
Once again, Red Hat sucks (ass).
-Billco, Fnarg.com
RTFA!!! (Read The Freaking Article for the acronym-unsavvy!)
"The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS
holy infinite loop.
Pine Is Not Elm.
leads to Pine Is Not Elm. Is Not Elm..... etc etc.
Bad programming, sir!
Order now and we will throw in a 20% off coupon for the the special Political edition of our TrollChow, which always has TONS of buyers. Bash that political party for things that you and your own political party have in spades. Point out that superficial and irellevant speck in their eye whilst you knock your neighbors down with the plank in your own. All good for increasing the appetite for our Political edition TrollChow.
.
.
.
But wait! There's more... react now and receive this all new, neighbor's "sovereignty and dignity suppression kit." With this lovely device you will go out of your way to suppress the liberties and freedoms of others, while hypocritically not applying those things to yourself much less accepting the equivelent movement that would supress anything that YOU happen to want (as in WANT, not NEED). By using its award winning Priority Bastardizer, you will soon marvel at how the foolish Founding Fathers of the US could have EVER thought that the role of government was to protect from harm and fraud, not create inefficient hand-out machines that have give out rates of less than 10 cents for the dollar taken from subjects (why bother calling them citizens, comrade?). Then you will begin bitching about how the money is going to the military yet fail to understand the truth of how it is not, and yet how it very well should! Soon, you will turn those M-16's into slave making handouts that turn productive and self sufficient humans into wallowing animals.
Never mess around with a long haired womans CLIT if she isn't up for it. No wait..
If any of you so called "hard" C junkies ever did any assembly, you would know that 0=true is used because it's the fastest numerical test. Loading a value of 0 into an accumulator type register causes the zero flag to be set, which you can then use a conditional branch/jump on (the only kind of conditional code flow possible within assembly).
So ner!
It is a funny article. But it is something I have wanted before. Here is the section of my bashrc that lets it parse my .cshrc file. It keeps me from having to update aliases and environment variables in two different files.
function alias () {
builtin alias $1="$2"
}
function setenv () {
export $1="$2"
}
builtin alias rehash='return'
source $HOME/.cshrc
unalias alias
unalias rehash
IMHO the time has come to pick the best of bread and go with one shell. Others should be around as "extras", but we should all decide what the primary shell for all UNIX and UNIX-like systems should be.
Most users seem to use bash under Linux. [t]csh is most popular under Solaris. ksh is the HP/UX fav. *BSD users tend to stick with the csh-shells.
And then, of course there's zsh, which I use sometimes at work because there's a cluster of zsh geeks who have added some nice dotfile goodies for it.
What's the best shell? It really doesn't mater. Quoting is saner in the sh-variants. Command-line editing, history etc is better in zsh and bash. Variable syntax is nicer in (especially arrays) in *csh. Functions are most powerful in the later-day *sh variants. POSIX specifies a subset of most sh implementations.
Personally, I think bash should take over the world just because it's what lots of Linux systems expect as the root shell, it ties for best of many features with zsh. Has most, if not all, of ksh and ships with most platforms as included or optional add-on.
4) ...
5) Profit!
Personally I think this is a very good thing. I think everyone here understimated the will of Red Hat to make Linux truly easy to use in each and every way. For far too long Linux has suffered from TOO much choice. Not that exterminating choice altogether is the goal, or even desireable but the most common and weakest argument in support of using Linux is the out of control amount of different applications that do the exact same thing.
This is bad because a large base of common knowledge cannot be built around such fragmented apps. A few people know vi, a few others emacs, a few more bash, and a few more know....etc. Whats this leads to is no one knows what YOU need to know whenever you ask them. Thus the Linux desktop/workstation movement overall suffers. (For those of you about to butt in with your "We don't want Linux to be easy, we don't care about the desktop, you stoopit users can just stick to Windows blah blah blah" just stuff it. This Linux "thing" was usurped from you whiney fellows a LONG time ago and your opinions as worthless as ever simply do not matter.)
So RedHat, clearly emboldened by their unifying of the two idiotically different KDE/Gnome projects now seeks to unify other unnecessarily divided efforts thus making the learning curve smaller for newbies and those who's time is more precious than any geek could possibly imagine.
Someday in the near future the glorious masses shall have a mind bendingly easy to use Linux, a Linux as easy to use as Mac OS X or Windows XP and they'll have one company, one distro to thank for it. Not the distro that is associated with a guy who wants to add "GNU/" to the front of everything open source (Debian). Not the distro that is updated once every 2 years. (Slackware). Not the distro that tries to be a pitiful half-Windows (Lindows).
No. The company and distro to thank shall be RedHat. The bright light at the end of the tunnel. The only distro brave enough to face the pedantic relentlessly whinney geeks/nerds and grasp them by the horns. Forcing their separate projects to gel together into a cohesive and easy to use greater whole. Recognizing that if this "Linux thing" is ever going to be worth a damn, it has to reach the regular man. It cannot remain the domain of sunlight deprived long bearded caffiene junkie anti-social "open sourcers".
Thank you RedHat. Thank you for making Linux into something everyone and anyone can use. Thank you for taming the geeks. Thank you for helping some of us realize that in order to have REAL choice in operating systems, you must sometimes make difficult CHOICES.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Bad advice.
The argument to exit() has unsigned 8 bits, not 7. And they are returned in the first byte of the status integer, not in the second.
But good programmers don't care for this. They use WIFEXITED(), WEXITSTATUS(), WTERMSIG(), etc, as defined in POSIX.1. "man 2 wait" is your friend. (Or "man wstat", depending on your Unix flavour.)
Joachim
People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
#include <stdio.h>
void main(){
printf("Hello, World!\n");
}
Why it is so hard for educators and book-authors to actually read the standard is beyond me...
And loading a non-zero value into an accumulator causes the zero flag to be cleared. Which you can then use in your conditional. What was your point again?
Of course, all this depends on the specific instruction set, but for the ones I've seen, testing for nonzero is exactly as easy as testing for zero.
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
Technically true. But note that I said "not portable". If your program defines an interface where the 8th bit of the return value is of interest, how does a shell script know whether it crashed on a signal or not? Remember, this conversation was originally about shells..
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
Anyhow, I just wanted to point out that there is a big difference between the semantics of a shell's exit and of Unix exit. The have a completely different API, and always had. I'm sure you know this, but your article might have been read by newbies who could easily fall in this "false friend" trap.
Joachim
People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
Damn, now I have to retype this all over again since these text entry boxes don't support vi commands. ESC just clears the box.
I need a support group. I spend all my time in vim. I even use gvim as my default text editor on Windows. I have complained to get a distro developer to add vi to the installation system. Gentoo just did this. Nano was just too difficult to use to get a basic system installed.
What do I do? How do I change? Should I just keep my dirty little secret and hope my wife never finds out? I hear wives will leave their vi using husbands.(No offense to the poor cat this really(sorta) happened to).
Someone please help me. I am afraid to end this comment as I might accidentally press ESC when done. Ok, I will end this. Remember, don't press ESC.
There's an even simpler way:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Tell that to L0pht.
I'm sure this would be modded much higher if everyone knew the full story.
I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
That is perfectly valid C. On most systems, that will even link and run without complaint. Some systems with ancient preludes won't take it. Such systems generally won't like the perfectly valid int main(int argc, char **argv, char **env) convention either.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Viva Bash! Viva Bush!
Vida la Viva Loca!
No, it isn't. Neither ANSI nor ISO C allows main to return anything but an int.
On most systems, that will even link and run without complaint.
I shudder to think about what you consider acceptable C, if you have to qualify "link and run without complaint" with "even".
But your system isn't the C standard, and the fact that it runs there doesn't mean it is valid C. Most systems allow i = i++ += ++i as well. The result is undefined, and that means that anything is allowed to happen (including program crash, spontaneous massive existence failure, making demons run out of your nose, or simply set i to some guessable value).
The fact that most calling conventions are sane enough for it not to matter defining a function returning nothing when the run-time-system really expects one returning success or failure as an integer, doesn't mean that it is valid (or that it makes sense, i.e.: what will your C program return to the OS after running?)
Some systems with ancient preludes won't take it.
So what you are saying is that, even though it is explicitly not allowed by the standard, it also doesn't work at all on some systems?
Such systems generally won't like the perfectly valid int main(int argc, char **argv, char **env) convention either.
Surprise. It isn't perfectly valid C. I'm not even shure if it's POSIX (although extern char **environ is). But it is pretty common among unixes.
i = i++ += ++i; fails with 'invalid lvalue in assignment' (gcc 2.95, 3.2)
Ok, I'm missing something, what's wrong with that?i = i += ++i; compiles with 'warning: operation on `i' may be undefined'
A few years ago that was Eight instead of Eighty. Apparently Moore's Law is affecting the editor holy wars as much as the machines!
...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
The Windows versions of edit.com is vastly improved over the edit.com in older MS operating systems, allowing you to open 9 files at once and a weak binary mode, not to mention the ability to open fairly large files. You should check it out.
M-x viper has some of the keybindings of vi, but misses out on all the colon-prompt commands (actually ex commands). I'll take :%s/findme/replace/g any day over emacs's "Let's bind most of the useful versions of functions to keys your keyboard doesn't have, or better yet not bind them at all and let you try to wade through info pages to figure out how to give them a binding, but the pages that show you the lisp code to write don't have links pointing you to something telling you WHERE these things are supposed to go" mentality.
Configuring a simple keybinding shouldn't require hours of documentation reading.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
--Now THAT's *funny*! .dotgoeshere
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
Just use ksh instead of bash or csh.
It isn't standard C.
(Although in practice you would be hard pressed to find a unix where it isn't supported (I would probably go so far as to say that it wouldn't really be unix then...))
Hey do you think you could change your url to point to http://www.utacm.org? acm.csres.utexas.edu has been deprecated and may stop working sometime soon. I'm the webmaster for utacm.org and have been trying to get any links to the old page updated (I noticed your link on our tracker). Thanks.
"A good conspiracy is an unprovable one." -Conspiracy Theory
The Bible on letters of reference:
Are we beginning all over again to produce our credentials? Do
we, like some people, need letters of introduction to you, or from you?
No, you are all the letter we need, a letter written on your heart; any
man can see it for what it is and read it for himself.
-- 2 Corinthians 3:1-2, New English translation
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...