Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 24th Oct 2005 04:14 UTC, submitted by Eric
Permalink for comment 50508
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-08
"A shell must be standard to be useful"
Sorry, but that's not true. Standars are nice but a good shell is a GOOD shell regardless of being standard or not. Also, the sh "standard" was not "created", when sh was born there was not "standard". There's no technical reason why MSH can't become a new "standard"
Plus, there're tons of linux shells that won't work in BSDs or even between distributions. How useful are standars when you can't use your script in two different computers, which is one of the objectives of being a standard?