Re: tsch and csch
Re: tsch and csch
- Subject: Re: tsch and csch
- From: Justin Walker <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 17:59:10 -0800
On Sunday, December 7, 2003, at 05:21 PM, Doug McNutt wrote:
At 13:32 -0800 12/7/03, Justin Walker wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by a vanilla version,. It's possible (I
have not checked the source) that the two shells are sufficiently
close that they are compiled from the same source, and use the name
by which they are invoked to determine which behavior to provide to
the user.
[snip]
806544 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 540884 Sep 22 16:08 bash
806564 -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 315136 Sep 22 16:08 csh
806531 -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 540884 Sep 22 16:08 sh
806552 -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 315136 Sep 22 16:08 tcsh
806537 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 828780 Sep 22 16:08 zsh
Note that the csh and tcsh shells have identical length and date. Note
the same thing for bash and sh
Yup. That's not unusual.
Note also that they do seem to have different inodes which means that
there is not some hard link involved. That's different from what I
said.
You can also infer that they are not links, since the link count for
each is '1'.
My conclusion is that Apple, not me, has decided that we shouldn't be
using what I call the vanilla versions of sh and csh. bash and tcsh
are what we get unless we go elsewhere to get something else.
I don't think Apple made a specific decision regarding this. I think
that the source base from which Darwin is derived provides the various
shells based as variants of a few source trees. For example, I think
that both 'bash' and 'zsh' have either compile-time or run-time
mechanisms to provide a version of 'sh' that is pretty close to the
"standard" 'sh' (whatever that might be). I think the same is true
with 'tcsh' and 'csh'.
This isn't Apple-specific; it's the way the developers of these shells
have decided to package them (it may actually be the case that 'sh' and
perhaps 'csh' as originally written can't be released as open source
because of license issues).
Why there are copies on the disk rather than hard links is curious.
On 10.3*, bash and sh are identical but distinct files. tcsh and csh
are hard links to the same executable.
On 10.2.8, these four shells are distinct files, but pair-wise
identical.
Why this is the case may relate more to the quirks of the
build/production process than any nefarious plot designed to annoy you.
Of course, I could be mistaken about that.
What I really want is my old familiar MPW shell tuned up for Darwin.
You have a funny way of saying it :-}
Regards,
Justin
--
Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large *
Institute for General Semantics | "Weaseling out of things is
what
| separates us from the animals.
| Well, except the weasel."
| - Homer J Simpson
*--------------------------------------*-------------------------------*
_______________________________________________
x11-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/x11-users
X11 for Mac OS X FAQ: http://developer.apple.com/qa/qa2001/qa1232.html
Report issues, request features, feedback: http://developer.apple.com/bugreporter
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.