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

[lists at openmailbox.org]

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:24:10 +0100
Johnny Billquist via Info-vax <info-vax at rbnsn.com> wrote:

> 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.

There is a definition for what UNIX is and just because an OS supports
POSIX or is similar to UNIX doesn't make it UNIX. A toyota landcruiser is
still not a Jeep even though it tries to be one.

Solaris and IBM's USS/OE (insert this year's name) are certified UNIX OS.
The 4 main BSD UNIX all contain BSD UNIX source code as you know. OS/X is
based on FreeBSD as you likely also know. Linux claims to be all new code,
that's the point of all the lawsuits. So Linux isn't UNIX, it isn't
designed like UNIX (I would say it is not architected like UNIX but really
Linux isn't architected at all) and nobody can realistically claim Linux is
UNIX. About all you can claim is Linux is a UNIX-like OS and then not many
people will argue with you. There is no point in saying a disfunctional
clone is the same thing as the original. Shame on you, of all people. You
should know better.

> >> 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.

There are default shells on various UNIX OS. That's the shell that comes
with the installation, what is documented in the man pages for that OS as
installed, and is usually in the root filesystem and is usually a static
executable. There is a longstanding UNIX rule not to change root's shell
because if you have to run single-user mode and fix something as root and
you have a nonstandard shell or a shell that resides on an inaccessible
filesystem or needs libraries from an inaccessible filesystem you will have
problems. Solaris is unusual in that it provides zsh in the base install
as a statically linked executable in the root filesyetem so it is safe to
use as a root shell. Good thing too because the default shell in Solaris is
atrocious.

Anyway sure, other than that, use whatever shell you like. Nobody said you
shouldn't.