[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 2016-02-14 07:08, lists at openmailbox.org wrote:
> 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.

Yes, there is a definition of what is "Unix". And by that definition the 
BSD OSes are also not Unix, so why do you classify them as Unix?

> 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.

As you obviously know, the BSD OSes are not Unix according to this, so 
you are applying a weird double standard when you still call them Unix. 
And OS X is derived (mainly) from FreeBSD, as you also obviously know, 
and as just pointed out, that is then not Unix either.

How about you make up your mind. What do you define as Unix and not?


And yes, I use the name "Unix" in a rather loose sense, which I thought 
was obvious.

>>>> 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.

This is a silly argument. I'm not sure I should continue pointing out 
sillinesses. Byt just fyi, on most systems I know of nowadays, no shell 
is linked static. And most I've checked install all shells in /bin.

	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