[H-GEN] Bash vs Tcsh..

[Mark J. Suter]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sun, 22 Feb 1998, Byron Ellacott wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Feb 1998, Brad Marshall wrote:
> 
> > So far, we have had 2 volunteers for the bash vs tcsh panel.  If there is
> > no further interest, the panel will have to be canceled, and we'll have
> > to think of another topic.  So, please, if you are interested at all in a
> > bash vs tcsh debate, please mail me. 
> I unfortunately know too little about tcsh to participate in such a
> debate .. I don't recall if I've already mentioned that I'd feel far
> more competent in a bash vs ksh debate or not, but I'll mention it
> now. :)

I would agree with you.  ksh is a superior scripting language when
compared to ksh.  The reason that bash and tcsh were chosen is that
they represent the commonly available choices from the two major groups
(in many respects, ksh is very much like bash).

As I currently see it, there should be a panel `bash vs tcsh' with
Raymond Smith and I on the winning side and Robert Brockway and
Citizen X for tcsh.  Hopefully, Citizen X will come forward soon and
Bradley can schedule a date for the defeat of tcsh.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Suter.

- -- Mark John Suter | I know that you  believe  you understand
suter at humbug.org.au  | what you think I said, but I am not sure
PGP encryption is OK | you realise that what you  heard  is not
Ph: +61 7 3891 2085  | what I meant.                  anonymous

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
Comment: Public key available from http://student.uq.edu.au/~cs331007

iQCVAgUBNPKriXBbxiOCJ17ZAQG7MgQAg10ke+ElxrU/IMq0dY1HUQAPV5Ocs2A2
PWgc7649SVjw2Ik4FEwjMg4xGafrY80hoO4HD28dkc7prtnlgpXgrj/nSyw/kvrY
RyAlZxyNH0i1xuT5DRvEkh8SkoEKL+iYCRqyq0cJ7lsksCEtbPPLmzRmid7dIP+k
aNsYtaqQ+gQ=
=OLVO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

----------------------- HUMBUG General List --------------------------------
echo "unsubscribe general" | mail majordomo at humbug.org.au # To Unsubscribe