Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!bu.edu!m2c!jjmhome!acestes!paradis
From: paradis@acestes.UUCP (Jim Paradis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Never ending search for a shell...
Message-ID: <166@acestes.UUCP>
Date: 25 Mar 91 23:30:43 GMT
References: <1991Mar24.121842.45883@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>
Reply-To: paradis@acestes.UUCP (Jim Paradis)
Organization: Alberichs Rings & Things
Lines: 36

In article <1991Mar24.121842.45883@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> kenc@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:
>What is BASH like?  

I'd say that it combines the interactive capabilities of tcsh with the
programming capabilities of Bourne shell.  Some would call this the
best of both worlds 8-)

>Should I get it?  

Depends... I certainly like it!

>Does it offer much improvement over the default bin/sh? 

Depends what you mean by "improvement" 8-)  It has lots more features, but
then again it also takes up lots more memory.  Don't even think of trying
it unless you have a 386 or 68000... I couldn't imagine trying to shoehorn
it into 64K+64K except by removing so many features that it turns back into
good old /bin/sh again 8-)

>(If nothing else, a history mechanism, so I don't have to
>retype a 60 character line, due to one mistake in typing.....UGH!)

BASH is like tcsh in this regard... you can use "!" commands to
recall history events, and you can also use emacs-style commands
to page through the history list and edit the current command line.

I use BASH on my MINIX box at home and csh on my ULTRIX box at work...
I have very little trouble switching from one to the other (which is
more than I can say for switching from csh to sh!).  It's getting to
the point, though, where I like BASH so much I just might port it to
the ULTRIX box 8-)


-- 
Jim Paradis                  UUCP:  harvard!m2c!jjmhome!acestes!paradis
9 Carlstad St.               AT&T:  (508) 792-3810
Worcester, MA 01607-1569     ICBM:  42deg 13' 52",  71deg 47' 51"