Maybe I'm thinking of something else like pgcc then. I read something about it once but it was a while ago. Perhaps it was just other misinformed slashdot posts.
There's always going to be odd examples like that and it depends what commands you use. I'd bet most people would find more completions work for them right in zsh. Zsh also has a bashcompinit function which lets it use a bash completion function so you can always use the bash xine, screen and apt-get completion function.
The three things you mention are all easy to fix. Just post to zsh-workers and someone will help. Zsh does have an mplayer completion though you may need a slightly newer zsh. Restricting file typed is an easy one liner for xine.
Also, have you enabled the descriptions and messages in zsh completion. They make a big difference.
The FSF have got better but it varies with different programs. Savannah is a big step forward to. But compare GNU projects to many others and you'll find that often they can be a bit more protective of their own toys.
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.
Re:When are they going to upgrade MY shell?
on
Bash 3.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It's probably not too hard to break out of the restricted shell if you really put your mind to it. I've seen a shell where "command -p sh" would do the job. It isn't that widely used and is rarely used for anything where security really matters. I've never heard of anyone doing a serious study of it. If security matters to you, I wouldn't rely on it.
Re:First "zsh rules" post!
on
Bash 3.0 Released
·
· Score: 5, Informative
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.
Doesn't seem to be much changed given the version number increase. [[ =~ ]] can match regexes and it can do zsh style {1..3} expansions. Improved multibyte support too. There were bigger changes in some of the 2.0x updates.
Solaris tends to have an old version of zsh installed. It's zsh 3 which is way behind zsh 4 but at least as featureful as the latest bash. Certainly its a lot nicer than ksh88. From Solaris 8 or so, they come with bash anyway. I just hope they update to zsh 4 in Solaris 10.
You need to look closer than that. There isn't a bk8 yet and you've not spotted that there are both files with.gz and.bz2 extensions. Taking just.bz2, sizes are:
bk5: 349K bk6: 361K bk7: 964K
Working out when XFS went in becomes a little easier with the right figures don't you think?
As for XFS, I've used it for over a year with no problems and am glad to see it go in. Have long liked SGI stuff: I own an old Indigo and Indy.
After ssh, you get hostnames. And if you use scp (and don't configure it not to do remote connections), it will even complete files and directories on the remote host.
It'll also complete options. And because it allows headings a descriptions to be associated with matches, I get:
gpg --list<tab> option --list-keys -- list all keys --list-packets -- list only the sequence of packets --list-public-keys -- list all public keys --list-secret-keys -- list all secret keys --list-sigs -- lists keys and signatures --list-only
except better lined up - spaces are getting squeezed here
There is a `verbose' style (option) which needs to be set to get those though. And zsh doesn't handle colons in a totally moronic manner. Completion of parts of words is a lot easier - you don't need to add the whole beginning of a word as a prefix.
I'll second this. Have been using spamprobe since December. It took longer than a month before it was fully trained. These days it's very good. And the best thing (except once when someone quoted the full body of a spam when complaining about spams on a mailing list): It has never given me a false positive.
with regards your zsh comment: you want to get this ripping in bash;-)
I've seen it. No where even close to the power of zsh for completion though. It may handle rpm but zsh completion handles many more commands and does them much better. For example bash can only complete a word at a time, in zsh words can be broken up and completed in parts. Honestly, zsh is well worth giving a try. It's a bourne derivative so largely backward compatible with bash.
the tar thing, i dunno... it makes sense on the command line, but not in pipes. if you pipe a file to tar, its a massive overhead to have to check what kind of compression is being used (you cant do a regex on the filename in this scenario). i actually like it the way it is. and come on... its just ONE extra letter on the command line to let tar know its been compressed.
gzip uses a two byte signature at the start to identify the compression type. I don't know what star does but if it just checks for those two bytes, I don't think the overhead is great. All this said, I still use gzcat piped to tar because that is what I got used to long ago. I basically agree with your point about the extra letter but star does what the previous poster wanted.
To be fair, I haven't looked at libtool in any detail for a few years so I could be out-of-date but I'd agree with this. Its main aim seemed to be allowing static and dynamic libraries to be treated the same which was never a problem anyway. It clutters lib directories with pointless files and symlinks and it never used proper kernel support for library versionng as existed in IRIX (which I used at the time).
Why can't tar figure out if the archive is compressed and with which method without me giving the -z or -j option?
Try using star instead of GNU tar. It does just this. I'd also second the suggestion from someone else of using zsh: its completion narrowing things down to sensible possibilities allows me to work much faster.
I'd bet it was preprepared, especially considering that it claims that the European Mars Express was also launched "this month" when it was launched last month.
SGI's XFS still occasionally hangs my machine under heavy load. Plus, by the time they have a release out for 2.4.20 (they still don't), I'm sure I'll be running 2.4.21.
Just go to http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/patchlist.html and pick up the patch against 2.4.20. Works very well for me. All the releases get you is a bunch of release notes and rpms against RedHat kernels. I always get these patches which come out very promptly after the stock kernel release and work very well.
Yup, you can configure a virtual network with each UML session having its own IP address. The host PC can route for you if you want to access the sessions from other physical machines.
My main complaint is that it doesn't seem to be very good at working out all the dependencies properly so it rebuilds things which don't need it. But for things like putting together ejb,war files etc, it is a lot easier than make.
The XML tags never seemed to be particularly messy to me - I've seen a lot worse.
There is a project at http://linuxassembly.org/asmutils.html where they're writing some of the standard UNIX utilities in x86 assembly. It's used for things like floppy distributions such as tomsrtbt.
I used to do some assembly back in the DOS days and keep meaning to have a look again sometime.
It might have been useful if some of these "Bourne shell incompatibilities" were reported to the zsh mailing lists so they could be fixed. I've tried to find what they are by searching apple's darwin lists without success. Though I have come across a few comments where someone has misunderstood something like word splitting on variable expansions which is an area where zsh will faithfully emulate the bourne shell when invoked as `sh' or asked to emulate sh.
Apple's use of zsh 3 for/bin/sh resulted in one very obscure incompatibility being reported by the autoconf people and that had long been fixed in zsh 4 and was easy to work around.
> Except that there are millions of bash users out > there who are already very familiar with it. I've > never met anyone who's ever used zsh.
Familiarity with the shell used as/bin/sh is not so important as the Posix subset of either shell is much the same (tcsh remains the default interactive shell). And if you are going to go by familiarity, I know more people who are familiar with the Korn shell from commercial UNIX variants than with bash. Apple could have licenced ksh from AT&T and possibly only didn't on the grounds of cost.
It's a pity if you don't know anyone who's ever used zsh. It's extremely powerful and allows me to get things done much more quickly than in the days when I used tcsh.
Some are just the sort of window dressing we've come to expect like making bash the default shell
I don't see that as particularly being an improvement. They would have been better off updating to a more recent version of zsh. It would make a more efficient/bin/sh because the dynamic modules mean that none of the interactive functionality would be loaded when running basic shell scripts.
The only reason bash is the default shell on Linux is that it is official GNU shell and nothing todo with whether it is technically any good.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I'm thinking of something else like pgcc then. I read something about it once but it was a while ago. Perhaps it was just other misinformed slashdot posts.
In the case of bash, it is a valid point though.
There's always going to be odd examples like that and it depends what commands you use. I'd bet most people would find more completions work for them right in zsh. Zsh also has a bashcompinit function which lets it use a bash completion function so you can always use the bash xine, screen and apt-get completion function.
The three things you mention are all easy to fix. Just post to zsh-workers and someone will help. Zsh does have an mplayer completion though you may need a slightly newer zsh. Restricting file typed is an easy one liner for xine.
Also, have you enabled the descriptions and messages in zsh completion. They make a big difference.
Try finding an alpha of bash on it.
The FSF have got better but it varies with different programs. Savannah is a big step forward to. But compare GNU projects to many others and you'll find that often they can be a bit more protective of their own toys.
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.
It's probably not too hard to break out of the restricted shell if you really put your mind to it. I've seen a shell where "command -p sh" would do the job. It isn't that widely used and is rarely used for anything where security really matters. I've never heard of anyone doing a serious study of it. If security matters to you, I wouldn't rely on it.
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.
Doesn't seem to be much changed given the version number increase. [[ =~ ]] can match regexes and it can do zsh style {1..3} expansions. Improved multibyte support too. There were bigger changes in some of the 2.0x updates.
Solaris tends to have an old version of zsh installed. It's zsh 3 which is way behind zsh 4 but at least as featureful as the latest bash. Certainly its a lot nicer than ksh88. From Solaris 8 or so, they come with bash anyway. I just hope they update to zsh 4 in Solaris 10.
You need to look closer than that. There isn't a bk8 yet and you've not spotted that there are both files with .gz and .bz2 extensions. Taking just .bz2, sizes are:
bk5: 349K
bk6: 361K
bk7: 964K
Working out when XFS went in becomes a little easier with the right figures don't you think?
As for XFS, I've used it for over a year with no problems and am glad to see it go in. Have long liked SGI stuff: I own an old Indigo and Indy.
You'll probably want to use an alias or function for it. I use:
Yes.
After ssh, you get hostnames. And if you use scp (and don't configure it not to do remote connections), it will even complete files and directories on the remote host.
It'll also complete options. And because it allows headings a descriptions to be associated with matches, I get:
except better lined up - spaces are getting squeezed hereThere is a `verbose' style (option) which needs to be set to get those though. And zsh doesn't handle colons in a totally moronic manner. Completion of parts of words is a lot easier - you don't need to add the whole beginning of a word as a prefix.
I'll second this. Have been using spamprobe since December. It took longer than a month before it was fully trained. These days it's very good. And the best thing (except once when someone quoted the full body of a spam when complaining about spams on a mailing list): It has never given me a false positive.
To be fair, I haven't looked at libtool in any detail for a few years so I could be out-of-date but I'd agree with this. Its main aim seemed to be allowing static and dynamic libraries to be treated the same which was never a problem anyway. It clutters lib directories with pointless files and symlinks and it never used proper kernel support for library versionng as existed in IRIX (which I used at the time).
Try using star instead of GNU tar. It does just this. I'd also second the suggestion from someone else of using zsh: its completion narrowing things down to sensible possibilities allows me to work much faster.
I'd bet it was preprepared, especially considering that it claims that the European Mars Express was also launched "this month" when it was launched last month.
Just go to http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/patchlist.html and pick up the patch against 2.4.20. Works very well for me. All the releases get you is a bunch of release notes and rpms against RedHat kernels. I always get these patches which come out very promptly after the stock kernel release and work very well.
You won't. Ximian are dropping support for Debian.
Though they will release the source so someone may decide to compile it and package it unofficially.
Can only see the Windows download there. Also seems to be at http://games.telstra.com/gamearena/resources/files /?action=details&id=6570
Yup, you can configure a virtual network with each UML session having its own IP address. The host PC can route for you if you want to access the sessions from other physical machines.
My main complaint is that it doesn't seem to be very good at working out all the dependencies properly so it rebuilds things which don't need it. But for things like putting together ejb,war files etc, it is a lot easier than make.
The XML tags never seemed to be particularly messy to me - I've seen a lot worse.
There is a project at http://linuxassembly.org/asmutils.html where they're writing some of the standard UNIX utilities in x86 assembly. It's used for things like floppy distributions such as tomsrtbt.
I used to do some assembly back in the DOS days and keep meaning to have a look again sometime.
It might have been useful if some of these "Bourne shell incompatibilities" were reported to the zsh mailing lists so they could be fixed. I've tried to find what they are by searching apple's darwin lists without success. Though I have come across a few comments where someone has misunderstood something like word splitting on variable expansions which is an area where zsh will faithfully emulate the bourne shell when invoked as `sh' or asked to emulate sh.
/bin/sh resulted in one very obscure incompatibility being reported by the autoconf people and that had long been fixed in zsh 4 and was easy to work around.
Apple's use of zsh 3 for
> Except that there are millions of bash users out
/bin/sh is not so important as the Posix subset of either shell is much the same (tcsh remains the default interactive shell). And if you are going to go by familiarity, I know more people who are familiar with the Korn shell from commercial UNIX variants than with bash. Apple could have licenced ksh from AT&T and possibly only didn't on the grounds of cost.
> there who are already very familiar with it. I've
> never met anyone who's ever used zsh.
Familiarity with the shell used as
It's a pity if you don't know anyone who's ever used zsh. It's extremely powerful and allows me to get things done much more quickly than in the days when I used tcsh.
Some are just the sort of window dressing we've come to expect like making bash the default shell
/bin/sh because the dynamic modules mean that none of the interactive functionality would be loaded when running basic shell scripts.
I don't see that as particularly being an improvement. They would have been better off updating to a more recent version of zsh. It would make a more efficient
The only reason bash is the default shell on Linux is that it is official GNU shell and nothing todo with whether it is technically any good.