Slashdot Mirror
Bash 3.0 Released
qazwsx789 writes "The first public release of bash-3.0 is now available via ftp and from the usual GNU mirror sites. For the official release notes by the author, Chet Ramey, check his usenet post."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
zsh is nice, but bash still has its applications. I run zsh on most places, but my laptop, and servers that are somewhat underpowered, stick with bash as a nice balance between the baroque zsh and a lightweight, but less usable shell.
Several bug fixes for POSIX compliance came in from Apple; their assistance is appreciated.
It looks like Apple is giving back to the community, and to a fundamental tool.
To the parent: I'm in the same boat. I thought bash 3?? What is there to add?? Looks like multibyte char support (sorry, I'm are a dum Amer'kin).
-truth
I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...
As far as scripting is concerned, however, there's not a great deal of difference between zsh and bash, since the former is quite compatible with the latter.
According to the changelog, all the messages are internationalized now, so if you spoke a language other than English, you can get error messages and such in your native language.
No. You are 15 months ago. Slackware 9 was succeeded by 9.1 on 2003-09-26 and 10 on 2004-06-23.
The main difference is full internationalisation support, which deserves a full version upgrade :)
:)
Unless you have scripts which used the old slightly dubious (but still not bad) internationalisation then you should notice no differences at all. There are a couple of really, really stupid looking scripts which now produce something different, but in almost every single case the new answer is I'm sure what everyone expected to appear before
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
There's been an interesting little problem caused for people like Gentoo with the updates in bash 3.0.
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58703
Just a simple move towards compliance breaks most of their scripts, so they've had to patch it out.
Lovely.
"How fine you look when dressed in rage."
wget http://porn.com/image{1..300}.jpg ?
Neat! (assuming I got the syntax right;)
Everything else, I do in emacs...
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Globs are more powerful: **/*.c will recursively search for .c files: much quicker to type than find.
You can match file types: e.g. *(@) will get you symlinks. *(U) gets files owned by you.
Syntax for alternation is a lot easier. No @(this|that) or !(*.f). Instead, it is (this|that) and ^*.f
Next point is completion. It includes a vast range of definitions so completion works well for lots of commands. The completion system handles completing parts of words so it better handles user@host completion. You get descriptions with completion match listings. Completion also has a really powerful context sensitive configuration system so you can make it work the way you like.
It has modules. For running a simple shell script it will actually use less space than bash because it doesn't need to load the line editor and other interactive related code into memory.
There is much much more. It takes a while to learn everything but if you just enable the completion functions (autoload -U compinit; compinit) you'll find it better than bash or tcsh from day 1.
Gentoo's various scripts rely on the fact that /bin/sh is usually symlinked to /bin/bash. With 3.0, when invoked as /bin/sh, bash behaves as it should for the first time, which caused some problems. (which are now fixed, by the way)
-truth
I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...
Ok, please tell me how I can change the SOA on 150 domain files all at once with pointing and clicking. In bash, it's: sed -i s/oldSOA/newSOA/g * Until there's a way to do search and replace on any number of files that's easier than that, the command line will still be useful.
Find out about the Lexus Rx400h Hybrid!
Bash is a good shell, and I have nothing bad to say about it. However, zsh seems to have been designed from the ground up by power users and for power users. I absolutely love it and everyone that I've given a example config file to (to get them running with little hassle) has permanently switched.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Bash can now store timestamps in the history and save them to the history file. This alone is worth the upgrade for me. The option to erase duplicates is pretty nice too.
- http://subwiki.honeypot.net/cgi-bin/view/Computin
g /DotZshRc
- http://subwiki.honeypot.net/cgi-bin/view/Computin
g /DotZshEnv
for the most recent versions of myDewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Zsh is still the best.
Bash developers have different priorities.
Bash became the default primarily because it is GNU.
Zsh has some ugly but powerful features like nested expansions. The two areas where bash is better than zsh is multibyte support and POSIX compliance. Much of that was contributed by IBM and Apple respectively. But if you use the shell a lot, you'll find zsh does a lot of things better. The completion is amazing. And when it isn't emulating sh/posix, it fixes some of the broken design decisions (like word splitting of variables) which saves you from doing stupid things.
The FSF actually does development in a very closed manner when it can (the gcc egcs split was partly because of this). Bash is a good example of this. That perhaps a good thing because it is probably good that bash doesn't get some of zsh's nasty (but powerful) features. And if zsh didn't exist, bash might have been forked by now. If you care about your shell, you'll find much more of a community on the zsh lists than the spam filled bug-bash list. You can't even get at alpha releases of bash without being one of the chosen few.
The completion ability of bash has been steadily improving. There is a nice script here that sets up a lot of good completion rules for bash.
GNU or Unix would seem to be the most appropriate
bash has been around since 1989 (according to copywrite on man page). Linux 1.0 came around 5 years later.
The editors should know better, unless they're intentionally trying to piss off RMS
That man tried to kill mah Daddy
As I said in another post, a big side effect is that zsh's completions seem to be much faster than bash's. That alone is worth the price of admission for me.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
timestamped history sounds like a useful auditing feature....
Ash (or dash, as it's called nowadays) is a Linux port of NetBSD's /bin/sh. It's a POSIX shell with separate lineage from bash.
/bin/sh on my system too. Faster and smaller than bash; watch those configure scripts fly!
http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/dash/
It's
-Stephen
I amended the page for DotZshRc to point out that you really need to create both .zshrc and .zshenv from my site to get the full experience. Through this moment, over 200 people have visited the DotZshRc page, but only about 80 have seen DotZshEnv. If you're in the 120-user disjoint, then go back and snag the other one too!
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Try gnome-terminal, it's what I'm using. Apart from being a bit unstable, it works fine.
I sometimes also use a combination of VNC and Xterm. Not as pretty or refined (doesn't have tabs) but otherwise fine.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Up until recently, I also was a zsh user. But bash has one thing going for it, that zsh does not do: work with a UTF-8 locale.
The zsh line editor get's totally confused if you type for example an umlaut and backspace over it.
And since my native language uses umlauts, and I need a UTF-8 environment for work, I had to go back to bash. Unfortunately...
chmod has an intelligent option (uppercase X) to set the execute bit. This sets the execute but only for directories and executables (those which have the x bit set already).
The -R does it recursively.
cat >> ~/.inputrc
"\e[A": history-search-backward
"\e[B": history-search-forward
^D
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The world could learn something from IBM here. In at least AIX and maybe other IBM operating systems, when you run a command and you get an error message, each error message has a unique ID which can be used to look up errors. Presumably these IDs are identical from one language to the next. IIRC they are four bytes, displayed in hex. They are probably unique only to a given executable these days, but might correspond to an AIX version (or other OS version) instead.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Here you are,put this in .inputrc:
"\e[6~": history-search-forward
"\e[5~": history-search-backward
and use page-up pagge-down to search
I can live whithout it since 4dos
This would obviously be very useful in scripts where the success or failure of a command in the pipleine would not be as determinable as watching it on screen interactively.
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
You're speaking in half-truths.
The top catagory for this story is Announcements. It is also listed under the following catagories: GNU, Operating Systems, Unix, and lastly Linux.
I had it running on Windows as well. Default shell for cygwin.
Boys from the City. Not yet caught by the Whirlwind of Progress. Feed soda pop to the thirsty pigs.
Type 'Ctrl-R' (prompt changes to read "(reverse-i-search) `':"). Type 'foo'. If this is not the foo you want, hit Ctrl-R again to find the next match.
It's amazing how many complaints people have about their favorite shells and editors which are actually already accounted for. One just needs to take the time to read the documentation once.
You like splinters in your crotch? -Jon Caldara
Download curl, then you can do stuff like
/ img[1-99].jpg -o "#1#2-#3.jpg"
curl http://hugetractsofland.com/{amy,crystal}/[01-05]
The perfect command....which I've yet to find a use for. um..yeah.
Apple contributed some changes recently, mostly as a result of their running bash through the Open Group's posix conformance test suites, but the majority of bash's posix compliance was implemented as part of its development.
As for being on the alpha tester list, how about sending mail to the maintainer and asking?