Johnny Billquist<bqt%softjar.se@localhost> writes:
On 2012-04-10 02:34, Eric Haszlakiewicz wrote:
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 10:05:22PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2012-04-09 20:04, Eric Haszlakiewicz wrote:
And almost all of the scripts in the system are implemented with /bin/sh,
so having the default shell be something that can actually run (pieces of)
those would be nice.
What does the selected shell of an account have to do with in which
language a bunch of scripts are written in?
It's useful if you need examples of how to do things.
I might be dense, but I still fail to see the connection between
what language a bunch of scripts are written in and the login
shell.
One is programs, the other is interactive use by a human. If
there is a connection here, it certainly flew me by.
The connection is straightforward: we shouldn't force users to learn
broken language used only in archaic systems and only in interactive mode.
sh isn't ideal but it is much better in most if not all respects.
It doesn't incorporate archaic non-orthogonal editing facilities that
always get in the way; it allows writing the same commands at prompt
and in scripts, copying them at wish between prompt and scripts without
major rework; it provides more general and more flexible I/O redirection.
There is absolutely no benefit in remembering different syntax, various
limitations and subtle deviations in behaviour of some tools (e.g. nohup),
learning never to forget to escape exclamation marks and so on.
It may have never occured to you if you have grown with csh in time
when it did have features absent elsewhere. These days the situation
is reverse. csh is neither more capable nor more useful. It is not
merely different either. It is alien. User reaction to csh is
definite, they try to change it, and if the latter is not possible
the first command they type after login is this:
bash