[Info-vax] CLI editing, was: Re: VMS - Virtual Terminals - A security risk way back yonder OR was that an Old Wives Tale ?

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2016-02-13 19:07, lists at openmailbox.org wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 12:47:43 -0500
> Stephen Hoffman via Info-vax <info-vax at rbnsn.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 9:55:43 AM UTC-5, Johnny Billquist
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To be fair, Linux, BSD, UNix, illumos, OS X, etc, would seem to all
>>> actually be Unix
>
> Linux is certainly not UNIX. The rest are either UNIX or based on UNIX,
> that's true.

That is a rather strict view. Yes, it is true that Linux did not 
originate from the AT&T Unix sources.
But Linux implements the same functionality, and works the same way. So 
I'd say it's a Unix based on that definition. Who cares if some source 
file at one point said "AT&T" at the top or not.

>> and what you are referring to is bash, which have a better support for
>> the command line than does OpenVMS.
>
> I only use bash on Linux. I don't like it but much Linux software won't
> build without it. Elsewhere I use whatever the native shell is, on Solaris
> I use zsh which is actually a lot better shell than bash IMHO. Until you
> have to build a Linux app anyway.

"Native" shell is a strange term. Anyway, for interactive use, why not 
use whatever shell you want? Be it sh, tcsh, zsh or bash (or whatelse). 
When a program is built/installed, it should not care what your 
interactive shell is anyway, and should use whatever interpreter is 
required for its scripts. I've extremely seldom had any problems, and to 
be honest - i use tcsh myself everywhere.

	Johnny

-- 
Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                   ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se             ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol