Gnome Terminal autocomplete
in [Suse]
|
From: J G Miller on 10 Apr 2010 06:53 Op Zaterdag, 10 April 2010, 11:26:00 +0200, Houghi schreef: > OK, I was indeed confused. However there is no sh on openSUSE: > > houghi(a)penne : l /usr/bin/sh > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 2009-12-16 23:00 /usr/bin/sh -> /bin/bash* There is no separate Bourne shell package, but there ash and zsh are both available for openSUSE and these could be used as replacements for sh with a symbolic link as above with bash. > For me sh is the same as bash, Well it is not, and as the man page states QUOTE If bash is invoked with the name sh, it tries to mimic the startup behavior of historical versions of sh as closely as possible, while conforming to the POSIX standard as well. UNQUOTE > Still curious about what the GP has to say about all this. He probably got bored and wandered off elsewhere.
From: David Bolt on 10 Apr 2010 08:03 On Saturday 10 Apr 2010 11:53, while playing with a tin of spray paint, J G Miller painted this mural: > Op Zaterdag, 10 April 2010, 11:26:00 +0200, Houghi schreef: >> For me sh is the same as bash, > > Well it is not, and as the man page states > > QUOTE > > If bash is invoked with the name sh, it tries to mimic the startup ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > behavior of historical versions of sh as closely as possible, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > while conforming to the POSIX standard as well. > > UNQUOTE It mimics the start-up but for a large number of things, it still behaves like bash: davjam(a)moray:~/sync> sh moray:~/sync> <= press tab twice here Display all 4147 possibilities? (y or n) moray:~/sync> exit davjam(a)moray:~/sync> >> Still curious about what the GP has to say about all this. > > He probably got bored and wandered off elsewhere. Or they're sat back watching the rest of the thread with a smile on their face. Regards, David Bolt -- Team Acorn: www.distributed.net OGR-NG @ ~100Mnodes RC5-72 @ ~1Mkeys/s openSUSE 11.0 32b | | | openSUSE 11.3M4 32b openSUSE 11.0 64b | openSUSE 11.1 64b | openSUSE 11.2 64b | TOS 4.02 | openSUSE 11.1 PPC | RISC OS 4.02 | RISC OS 3.11
From: J G Miller on 10 Apr 2010 09:56 On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:52:45 +0200, Houghi wrote: > Wether it is good to do that is another question. The only problem arises is if somebody has written a script with #! /bin/sh at the top and then used "bashisms" in the script. Why it would be a good thing to do, is for example to have all of the init.d scripts written as /bin/sh and then use a minimalist shell such as ash on the link from /bin/sh. Obviously for user accounts you would want to keep the login shell as bash or for those who prefer it, tcsh.
From: Eef Hartman on 11 Apr 2010 11:04
houghi <houghi(a)houghi.org.invalid> wrote: > Then I misunderstood the following: > <q> > There is no auto-completion <TAB> feature in Bourne shell or C Shell, > </q> > > I understood that there was said that there was no auto-completion in > bash. I re-read it now several times and I still think that is what it > means. So that is the reason that I wrote what I wrote. Bourne Shell is the "original" Unix shell. Bash (Bourne Again SHell) is a much newer and enhanced version of it. C-shell was the original Berkeley Unix shell. The Tenex C-Shell (tcsh) again is a newer and enhanced version of it. In LINUX (as opposed to Unix) you normally will never see the original Bourne and/or C-shell's, bash and tcsh are the common ones (and both DO have filename completion, thouch they do it a bit different). -- ******************************************************************* ** Eef Hartman, Delft University of Technology, dept. SSC/ICT ** ** e-mail: E.J.M.Hartman(a)tudelft.nl - phone: +31-15-278 82525 ** ******************************************************************* |