Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!umd5!uflorida!gatech!mcnc!rti!sas!bts
From: bts@sas.UUCP (Brian T. Schellenberger)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Why UNIX?
Message-ID: <494@sas.UUCP>
Date: 5 May 88 03:38:57 GMT
References: <908@sandino.quintus.UUCP> <1902@sugar.UUCP>
Reply-To: bts@sas.UUCP (Brian T. Schellenberger)
Organization: SAS Institute Inc, Cary NC
Lines: 18

In article <1902@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
| And because any UNIX shell... even the Version 6 shell (anyone remember?) 
| blows the CLI, or even any of the shells I've seen, out of the water.

I would submit that WShell + conman + ARexx provides much *better* "shell"
features than the version 6 shell.  cshell gives it more competition, but
even there I go to a lot of trouble to try to do things like get substrings.
KSH may be comparable, but I'm not willing to give up csh's {a,b,c}  [that's
AmigaDOS's (a|b|c)] to find out.  Of course, this wonderful stuff puts you
out 100 bucks, which is fairly high by Amiga standards, but that's nothing 
compared to Unix.

All the other replacement shells are doomed to trail Unix since they strive
to imitate it (at least all the others I've seen).
-- 
                                                         --Brian.
(Brian T. Schellenberger)				 ...!mcnc!rti!sas!bts

. . . now at 2400 baud, so maybe I'll stop bothering to flame long includes.