General discussion



By Jaqui ·
which of the many shells do you use?
why this over the ubiquitous bash?
( if not bash )
what benefits does the shell offer over bash?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -


by Choppit In reply to shell

It's bash for me, purely because it's the default on my distros and I've never had the time or inclination to try others.

Collapse -

and don't forget

by Jaqui In reply to Bash

that if you ever do decide to build a kernel, you have to have bash, or it isn't going to work. :)

Collapse -

bash on Linux, tcsh on Solaris

by stress junkie In reply to shell

I use bash on Linux in order to remain familiar with it. Since the boot scripts are written in bash it seems like a good idea to have a grasp of this shell's syntax.

I use tcsh on Solaris because I write a lot more scripts on the Solaris machines. I strongly prefer the syntax of tcsh. It just makes more sense to me.

Collapse -

you mean

by Jaqui In reply to bash on Linux, tcsh on So ...

that the distro you use doesn't allow you to have a shell different from bash?
if the default shell was tcsh then they should have tcsh bootscripts.

you would still need bash, for working on the kernel or modules. but you can run linux without having bash running.

Collapse -

Is that what I said?

by stress junkie In reply to you mean

Now you've got me thinking. That's always dangerous. I could only imagine that what I wrote means what you said if there were a language with all of the same words of English but all of the words had different meanings. One of us hasn't been taking his medication. :-)

Collapse -


by Jaqui In reply to Is that what I said?

that's what I was asking.

you said that your linux bootscripts are bash scripts so you use bash, also it keeps you current with bash scripting.

but whenever I've used a different shell the bootscripts were for the default shell, not bash.

Collapse -

I'll look into that

by stress junkie In reply to naw,

I'm going to build a Linux box this week. I'll check into this. :-)

Collapse -

Bash and Ksh

by jdclyde In reply to shell

Bash on the linux boxes and Ksh on the single SCO Box.

Bash because it is default and just works well.

The Korn shell gave many of the features now taken for granted with the newer Bash. This is an older box running legacy apps. Don't touch it or you might break it!

Needless to say, when it is time to move the apps to a newer server, the apps will all get ported over to a linux server as we all know what has happened to SCO. (figures too, because that is what I got my cert in! MACE )

SCO USED to have the greatest support site around. If you had a problem the answer was right on their site! After the Caldera buyout they wanted to make a fortune off the SCO license AND the support information. Now they don't have either and we will never setup another SCO box.

Collapse -

The default or what is portable

by WES_UNIX In reply to shell

I tend to use the system default or the shell which will be the most portable without having to load anything extra on the system, so

Linux - BASH - default/portability
Solaris - ksh - portability
HP-UX - posix - default/portability - posix is almost always compatable with ksh too.
AIX - ksh - portability

Even when I am working in BASH for example I still tend to only write in a way that is portable and thus could be run in ksh or posix too. So, normally I do not use any of the "special" features of the shell.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Collapse -


by Jaqui In reply to The default or what is po ...

ksh a bash plus shell?
with all the same features of bash, plus extras?
I haven't used it myself, but I seem to remember reading the description of it and it said it's capable of using any bash script as-is.

Related Discussions

Related Forums