Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!caip!princeton!allegra!ulysses!burl!clyde!cbosgd!osu-eddie!karl
From: karl@osu-eddie.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste)
Newsgroups: net.unix
Subject: Re: Gripes about /bin/sh AND /bin/csh
Message-ID: <1924@osu-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Jun-86 15:40:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: osu-eddi.1924
Posted: Mon Jun  9 15:40:24 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Jun-86 00:28:23 EDT
References: <931@uwvax.UUCP> <1913@osu-eddie.UUCP> <143@prairie.UUCP> <107@ora.UUCP>
Organization: OSU
Lines: 26

In article <107@ora.UUCP> tim@ora.UUCP (Tim O'Reilly) writes:
>I agree that the response wasn't the kindest.  But it did match the 
>agressive tone of the original posting, which basically implied that
>UNIX is brain-damaged, and "why the hell should I be using this stupid
>OS?"

That was largely why my response gained its (unintentional) character
of supposed arrogance.

>If the original posting had in fact been the kind of simple request
>for help that you claim it was, I am sure it would have received a
>more acceptable response.

Exactly.  It was particularly offensive to me in that it contained
patently false assertions, with, uh, commentary to go with it.
Uppermost in my mind in this area was the claim that command
substitutions using backquotes "just isn't there," followed by the
additional complaint that it would be nice to have shorthand
mechanisms available, when in fact they already exist in both csh and
sh (by aliases and variables, respectively).

If you need help, then ask for *help*; don't criticize before you know
what the @#$% you're dealing with.  It is obvious that the original
poster did not.
-- 
Karl Kleinpaste