modifying user data under leopard

[Glenn Carnagey]

On Oct 31, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Chad Leigh -- ObjectWerks wrote:

>
> On Oct 31, 2007, at 2:47 PM, LuKreme wrote:
>
>> On 31-Oct-2007, at 13:19, Chad Leigh -- ObjectWerks wrote:
>>> Plus, I feel all dirty and scummy and Linux-y when I use bas
>>
>>
>> bash is "Bourne Again Shell" and has nothing to do with linux.
>
> Sure it does.  Since it is the default and expected shell on Linux  
> and all the communists use it, it has a lot to do with Linux.   I  
> never claimed it was part of the Linux project or came about  
> because Linux.  Only that using it made me feel "Linux-y"
>
>> Yes, it is a gnu project, based on Jason Bourne
>>
>> ...(no, that can't be right, that's the guy in the Ludlum books...  
>> erm... wrack my brain... Sam?  no.  Crud. Something with an 'S' I  
>> think.  Something very much like Sam, but not quite.)  OK,  
>> starting over,
>>
>> ...based on Mr. Bourne's 'bourne shell' which was the UNIX  
>> standard from about 5 minutes after it was written sometime in the  
>> 1970's until now. bash represents a super-set of sh (Bourne Shell  
>> was just sh, not bsh), and is completely compatible with the sh  
>> command set (well, just about). In fact, on most computers, there  
>> is no /bin/sh, it is simply an alias to /bin/bash, and bash  
>> behaves slightly differently when invoked as 'sh' to maintain  
>> maximum compatibility.
>
> Not on BSD computers by default (not including OS X).  sh is sh and  
> bash you have to install later.

When Linux was young and way too flaky to use for servers, you sat a  
FreeBSD box in the corner and forgot about it, due to the Insanely  
Great Uptime.  Literally years.  People that administered these  
machines almost universally used tcsh.   Before that if you ran SunOS  
clusters (think Solaris 1.0, Sparc 1/1+/2 days), the first things you  
installed after your terminal server were tcsh, less, top, screen.   
bash, what's that?  ;-)   The time period happens to coincide  
approximately with the highpoint for Usenet, Mosaic killing gopher  
and turning into Netscape, and AOL joining the Internet and the  
subsequent explosion, so there are a lot of old fogey Unix SAs out  
there with this background.


> When I program a shell script, I use sh.  For my interactive use,  
> tcsh is better for me.

Same here.  But I inherit other people's bash scripts all the time,  
so I've had to get used to it, and that's fine.

>> When i was at UCSC the big thing was ksh (Korn Shell) which I  
>> thought, until quite recently, was a pun on "Bourne Shell" rather  
>> than being eponymous for the creator, some guy named Mr. Korn. ksh  
>> is probably the best programming shell out there, and it, like  
>> bash, is fully compatible with the original Bourne shell. AT USCS  
>> the default shell was csh, which all the geeks changed to ksh  
>> (bash didn't exist then, I am Old™) and the REAL geeks changed to sh
>
> Well, I am probably about that Old™ too.  My first unix use was  
> really old BSD running on a variety of machines around 84-88 and  
> then 88-89 I used some Ultrix and even got DEC training on it (I  
> worked at DEC 88-93, mainly on that superior VMS system ;-) but had  
> 90-91 off on a leave of absence to try and graduate after years of  
> night school at BU ...)

> I've been using FreeBSD on the server side since 96 after a very  
> small amount of flirting with Linux when it was brand new.

my background is similar, even did the flirting probably around the  
same time.  My first exposure were MVS on Vax and Unix on DEC  
Pyramids.  Supermarc... Superwylber... run!  x_x   But my  
introduction to the CLI was actuually CP/M on Osbornes.  Late '80s/ 
Early '90s I was an academic sysadmin, I happened to be at U of  
Chicago, until about '95, when I caught the entrepreneurial flu, my  
first two companies in the early/mid nineties ran on FreeBSD.

g./