From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 24 23:30:12 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4710106564A for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:30:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 839273@gmail.com) Received: from mail-yx0-f182.google.com (mail-yx0-f182.google.com [209.85.213.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51D798FC0A for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:30:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yxl31 with SMTP id 31so584615yxl.13 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:30:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:reply-to:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lYnH3YQ9rd8h7/1Y+3Dru2ZPUWSlwstBHIOO2RhqEqw=; b=Ez8lzvwrk+RaF6cTGH46qUiT57kfrxhCXKcu47eRf7zXad5+2Xz8iVnS2XA26jye76 9i5RZIwAt9Hc09bN14ES7/kNQs5VWtd+KFCDFD48Kw0tKtYBVso6jgrDcNFjmWwOItNS oACl0msuwMhEsZMX77xXMQJ87gpqhSZAtWYYs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=f2wvao0CAnl3bTiA/emlhV6hC1fABPuvH7JO8evejl9Wy1dKffDcVZ/7oD+gl1Ufw4 kKvBl12vowoKBcZO5H+Vy+areUnjwkSgxYR96YECnoMBObAzHiKn0L+C3mhV2/XGSUZ0 T6oNOIxqa2gfKjG9BapSQeBqbsaX1/J5CAj/c= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.151.154.3 with SMTP id g3mr2714292ybo.239.1298590211224; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:30:11 -0800 (PST) Sender: 839273@gmail.com Received: by 10.150.215.21 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:30:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <21929_1298589484_4D66E72C_21929_309_1_D9B37353831173459FDAA836D3B43499BD35499F@WADPMBXV0.waddell.com> References: <4D61599E.4040008@gmail.com> <20110224234044.0df661c1.freebsd@edvax.de> <20110224225425.GB13490@guilt.hydra> <20110225001301.e4f6d95f.freebsd@edvax.de> <21929_1298589484_4D66E72C_21929_309_1_D9B37353831173459FDAA836D3B43499BD35499F@WADPMBXV0.waddell.com> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:00:11 -0430 X-Google-Sender-Auth: C4KjInbklyRsqJ6V8biP8pP_OBI Message-ID: From: Andres Perera To: Gary Gatten Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Chad Perrin , Polytropon , "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Backtick versus $() X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: 839273@gmail.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:30:12 -0000 On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Gary Gatten wrote: > Everyone is wrong! "pfmsh" is the best at everything, period. =C2=A0It do= es > everything you can possibly think of today and tomorrow. =C2=A0It doesn't > require any upgrades, ever. =C2=A0It's 100% secure. =C2=A0It doesn't use = any > memory or other resources, $hit, it doesn't even need to be installed; > it just "magically" works. you can ignore all you want, but there are shells of different quality, and tcsh is inferior to mksh in everyway there are no interactive features in csh that could justify its inclusion over mksh, and the code is regarded as horrible (as per author and people with eyes) because of the adhoc parser tcsh people fixed a few bugs, but that doesn't change that the intrinsic design is a mess. the tcsh also added stupid redundant builtins like ls-F mksh also has stupid builtins like cat, but it makes up for it by being an extremely solid shell and overall more polished than the horrible turd that is (t)csh