[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: default shell
- To: <misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org>
- Subject: RE: default shell
- From: "Q" <q9302894_(_at_)_topaz_(_dot_)_cqu_(_dot_)_edu_(_dot_)_au>
- Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 07:24:46 +1000
- Importance: Normal
How do you turn auto complete and history on for sh.
From: owner-misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org [mailto:owner-misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org]On Behalf Of
Sent: Friday, 1 December 2000 2:30 AM
Subject: Re: default shell
Ragnar Beer <rbeer_(_at_)_uni-goettingen_(_dot_)_de> wrote:
> Coming from Linux one of the first things I did was to install bash
> and make it my default shell. As far as I remember the main reason
> was because sh would not auto-complete by pressing tab.
OpenBSD's sh is really pdksh. Yes, it does complete filenames on
tab. Even if it didn't by default at the time, this has always
been easily configurable.
> Now here comes my question: why was sh chosen as the default shell
> and what are it's advantages over bash?
For scripting purposes, we need a POSIX-compatible shell. Both
pdksh and bash can fill this slot. pdksh is in the public domain
(!), bash is under the GPL. pdksh is smaller and faster. Easy
For interactive use, bash is clearly more featureful. However,
pdksh is probably _sufficient_ for most people. Those who aren't
satisfied with pdksh in this department can still install a
port/package of bash, tcsh, or zsh.
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy_(_at_)_mips_(_dot_)_inka_(_dot_)_de