🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4278@ecs.soton.ac.uk> tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) writes:
>The ones I know of are simply:
>	sh	 csh	 bash	 ksh
>
>Are there others?  Where are they principally available from?

  I would also be interested in knowing what the pros and cons of each
are.  Plus, does anybody know where I would be able to find sources for
each of these shells that would be compatable with an AT&T Unix-Pc
under a SystemV R3.5 environment.

Much Appreciated,
  Ed

In article <4278@ecs.soton.ac.uk> tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) writes:
>I realise this is a bit of an open question, but ...
>
>I would be very grateful for any pointers or hints as to
>where I can find out what different shells exist, and what 
>their various pros and cons are.
>
>The ones I know of are simply:
>	sh	 csh	 bash	 ksh
>
>Are there others?  Where are they principally available from?
>(I've had difficulty locating ksh for SunOS Unix - is it restricted?)
>
>Many thanks,
>		Tim

Here at QMW we have a New And Improved version of csh called gsh
(the guy who wrote it is called George). It is essentially the same
as csh, but with advanced command-line editing facilities and
history retrieval. I'm not sure I can give it to you, it's
copyrighted college...

		Morten.
-- 
====================================================================
Morten Lerskau Ronseth             UUCP:   morten@qmw-cs.uucp
Dept. of Computer Science          JANET:  morten@uk.ac.qmw.cs 
Queen Mary and Westfield College   ARPA:   morten%qmw.cs@ucl-cs.arpa 
Mile End Road                      Easylink:  19019285 
London E1 4NS                      Tlf:       071 975 5220/31/47 
England.                           Dept. fax: 081 980 6533 

In article <4278@ecs.soton.ac.uk> tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) writes:
>I realise this is a bit of an open question, but ...
>
>I would be very grateful for any pointers or hints as to
>where I can find out what different shells exist, and what 
>their various pros and cons are.
>
>The ones I know of are simply:
>	sh	 csh	 bash	 ksh
>
>Are there others?  Where are they principally available from?
>(I've had difficulty locating ksh for SunOS Unix - is it restricted?)
>
>Many thanks,
>		Tim

here's a little known shell ...

nsh:

	NutSHell, the smallest UnixTM shell yet. Version 1.0 (the only
one released so far) includes only 'cd' and 'echo <string constant>'.
GNU-nsh, to be released later this year, is expected to be much more
powerful, with built-in Bourne, Korn and C shell emulators. The executable
is expected to go from 306 bytes to 7Mb with this release, however.



(all this comes with a huge :]. i mean really this is one of the few groups
 i've seen that hasn't had any injected humor. ripped off without permission
 from rec.humor.)


calvin.

In article <43508@sequent.UUCP> calvin@crg1.sequent.com (Calvin Goodrich) writes:
>In article <4278@ecs.soton.ac.uk> tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) writes:
>>
>>The ones I know of are simply:
>>	sh	 csh	 bash	 ksh
>>
>>Are there others?  Where are they principally available from?
>
>here's a little known shell ...
>
>nsh:
>
>	NutSHell, the smallest UnixTM shell yet. Version 1.0 (the only
>one released so far) includes only 'cd' and 'echo <string constant>'.
>GNU-nsh, to be released later this year, is expected to be much more
>powerful, with built-in Bourne, Korn and C shell emulators. The executable
>is expected to go from 306 bytes to 7Mb with this release, however.
>
>(all this comes with a huge :]. i mean really this is one of the few groups
> i've seen that hasn't had any injected humor. ripped off without permission
> from rec.humor.)
>
>calvin.


At the risk of seeming like a braggart, please let me include the
source code to "bsh", the "bull-shell". It is even smaller than the
nsh, since it has only cd as a builtin.  It performs io-redirection and
pipes, however. You may have seen this shell in the 1990 Obfuscated C
comptetition.

		bsh.c (by Byron Rakitzis and Sean Dorward)
--------------------------------CUT HERE----------------------------
# to unbundle, sh this file
# bundled by byron on archone at Thu Oct  4 13:57:32 CDT 1990
# contents of bundle:
#	bsh.c
echo bsh.c
sed 's/^-//' > foo.c <<'end of bsh.c'
-#define D ,close(
-
-char              *c,q              [512              ],m[              256
-],*v[           99], **u,        *i[3 ];f[         2],p; main        (){for
- (m[m        [60]=   m[62      ]=32   ]=m[*      m=124   [m]=       9]=6;
-  e(-8)     ,gets      (1+(    c=q)     )||      exit      (0);     r(0,0)
-   )for(    ;*++        c;);  }r(t,      o){    *i=i        [2]=    0;for
-     (u=v  +98           ;m[*--c]         ^9;m [*c]          &32  ?i[*c
-       &2]=                *u,u-             v^98              &&++u:
-
-	3	)if(!m[*c]){for(*++c=0;!m[*--c];);
-	*	--u= ++c;}u-v^98?strcmp(*u,"cd")?*c?pipe(f),o=f[
-	1	]:
-	4	,(p=fork())?e(p),o?r(o,0)D o)D*f):
-	1	,wait(0):(o?dup2(*f,0)D*f)D o):*i?
-	5	D 0),e(open(*i,0)):
-	9	,t?dup2(t,1)D t):i[
-	2	]?
-	6	D 1),e(creat(i[2],438)):
-	5	,e(execvp(*u,u))):e(chdir(u[1])*2):
-	3	;}e(x){x<0?write(2,"?\n$ "-x/4,2),x+1||exit(1):
-	5	;}
end of bsh.c

In <8806@helios.TAMU.EDU> byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) writes:

others asked about shell collections...
>>>The ones I know of are simply:
>>>	sh	 csh	 bash	 ksh
>>here's a little known shell ...
>>nsh:
>		bsh.c (by Byron Rakitzis and Sean Dorward)

Ncoast.ORG used to have ish, the idiot shell...
ps got "the processor is not doing anything useful"
rm rendered "improper syntax - use 'rm -fr *'
and who got you: Richard Nixon, Jimmy Hoffa, and others...
It was a fun gag to use on a friend....


-- 
A host is a host from coast to coast.....wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu 
& no one will talk to a host that's close............(305) 255-RTFM
Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335
is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335

In article <43508@sequent.UUCP> calvin@crg1.sequent.com (Calvin Goodrich) writes:

| 	NutSHell, the smallest UnixTM shell yet. Version 1.0 (the only
| one released so far) includes only 'cd' and 'echo <string constant>'.
| GNU-nsh, to be released later this year, is expected to be much more
| powerful, with built-in Bourne, Korn and C shell emulators. The executable
| is expected to go from 306 bytes to 7Mb with this release, however.
 
  That's okay, as long as it doesn't get big, like Emacs ;-)
-- 
bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
    sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
    moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me

In article <2507@gmuvax2.gmu.edu>, esaffle@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Greatful Ed) writes:
> In article <4278@ecs.soton.ac.uk> tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) writes:
> >The ones I know of are simply:
> >	sh	 csh	 bash	 ksh
> 
>   I would also be interested in knowing what the pros and cons of each
> are.  Plus, does anybody know where I would be able to find sources for
> each of these shells that would be compatable with an AT&T Unix-Pc
> under a SystemV R3.5 environment.

ksh88 from AT&T compiles straight-up on the unix-pc -- the only tweaks
i made were for the options i wanted.

-- 
Andrew Hay		+------------------------------------------------------+
Ragged Individualist	| 	You just have _N_O idea!  It's the difference    |
AT&T-BL Ward Hill MA	|	between _S_H_O_O_T_I_N_G a bullet and _T_H_R_O_W_I_N_G it!     |
a.d.hay@att.com		+------------------------------------------------------+

In article <1990Oct8.121938.9078@cbnews.att.com> mvadh@cbnews.att.com (andrew.d.hay) writes:
>
>ksh88 from AT&T compiles straight-up on the unix-pc -- the only tweaks
>i made were for the options i wanted.
>
     I have SH already implemented on the PC, as well as KSH....along
many of my FTP sessions I've found numerous sources for BASH and ASH.
The only two it seems I can't find are CSH and (I think) GSH.....
Anyone know where these can be found, or if they are even available.

Ed

tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) writes:
>I would be very grateful for any pointers or hints as to
>where I can find out what different shells exist, and what 
>their various pros and cons are.

Here at the V.U. Amsterdam, we have esh, or Editor Shell (sometimes called
Extended Shell). It has command line editing (user-definable keys),
a history mechanism (built into the command line editor) and job control.

It may be ditributed outside the VU, but i know of no ftp site or whatever
to get it. You may want to contact the author, Sjoerd Mullender
(sjoerd@cs.vu.nl; i'm not even sure that he still works here).
It works *very* well (IMHO as just a student), is 99.9% sh compatible
(in fact, the sources are derived from the sh sources), and quite bug-free
as far as i know. But then again, i'm not an expert on this.

-					Gerben.
--
--- Gerben Vos - Aconet: {BBCBBS,BIGBEN}!Gerben Vos - Internet: gpvos@cs.vu.nl
---- "Meine D-Marken..." -- Helmut Kohl

In article <4278@ecs.soton.ac.uk> tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) writes:
>I would be very grateful for any pointers or hints as to
>where I can find out what different shells exist, and what 
>their various pros and cons are.

>The ones I know of:   sh   csh   bash   ksh

'expect' is a shell intended primarily to control interactive programs.
Using expect, you can program things that can only be done interactively
with other shells.  For example, running telnet, passwd, su, tip, etc,
doing job control, etc.

Don Libes          libes@cme.nist.gov      ...!uunet!cme-durer!libes

In article <7885@star.cs.vu.nl> gpvos@cs.vu.nl (=Vos G P) writes:

[about esh]

>(in fact, the sources are derived from the sh sources), and quite bug-free

This is sufficient to disallow redistribution.  Don't look for this one on
any FTP machines anytime soon.

Chet
-- 
Chet Ramey			``As I recall, Doug was keen on boxing.  But
Network Services Group		  when he learned to walk, he took up puttin'
Case Western Reserve University	  the boot in the groin.''
chet@ins.CWRU.Edu

In article <7885@star.cs.vu.nl> gpvos@cs.vu.nl (=Vos G P) writes:
 > tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) writes:
 > >I would be very grateful for any pointers or hints as to
 > >where I can find out what different shells exist, and what 
 > >their various pros and cons are.
 > 
 > Here at the V.U. Amsterdam, we have esh, or Editor Shell (sometimes called
 > Extended Shell). It has command line editing (user-definable keys),
 > a history mechanism (built into the command line editor) and job control.
Yes, derived from dsh, derived from sh.  I know also about ash, jsh, vsh.
Especially ash is, eh, interesting; some time ago its sources have been
distributed in one of the sources groups I believe.
 > 
 > It may be ditributed outside the VU, but i know of no ftp site or whatever
 > to get it. You may want to contact the author, Sjoerd Mullender
 > (sjoerd@cs.vu.nl; i'm not even sure that he still works here).
No he does not work there anymore, so the address will fail.  Also to obtain
sources you need at least to wave with your Unix source licenses etc, and even
then....  So I think: forget it.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland
dik@cwi.nl

   While we're on the topic ... does anyone have source for tcsh that they
can send me?
-- 
HI ROGER |Nikebo says "Nikebo knows how to post.  Just do it."| silver@xrtll
_________|-----------------------|_______________|------------|_____________
yunexus!xrtll!silver (L, not 1)  | Hi Ho Silver  | costing the net thousands
Silver:  Ever Searching for SNTF |i need a grilf | upon thousands of dollars

In article <7885@star.cs.vu.nl> gpvos@cs.vu.nl (=Vos G P) writes:

   It may be ditributed outside the VU, but i know of no ftp site or
...
   compatible (in fact, the sources are derived from the sh sources),

How are these deals struck?  Or does AT&T not mind?  Is ksh based on
sh also?  Is sh source free?  Does AT&T not own sh copyrights?  What
about places like Berkeley?

These are just questions.  They are not pro- or anti- FSF/GPV flames
of any kind!

Thanks.
--
If you do not receive a reply from me, please resend your mail;
occasionally this site's mail gets delayed.

Neither representing any company nor, necessarily, myself.

I wrote:
>   It may be ditributed outside the VU, but i know of no ftp site or
>...
>   compatible (in fact, the sources are derived from the sh sources),

kpc00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (kpc) writes:
>How are these deals struck?  Or does AT&T not mind?  Is ksh based on
>sh also?  Is sh source free?  Does AT&T not own sh copyrights?  What
>about places like Berkeley?

Sorry, kpc, i wrote this message in my ignorance. Sh is not source free,
as Dik T. Winter pointed out to me in another message in this group:
>                                                              Also to obtain
>sources you need at least to wave with your Unix source licenses etc, and even
>then....  So I think: forget it.

Well, i learned my lesson now: don't post about what you don't know.

-					Gerben.
--
--- Gerben Vos - Aconet: {BBCBBS,BIGBEN}!Gerben Vos - Internet: gpvos@cs.vu.nl
---- "Meine D-Marken..." -- Helmut Kohl

In article <4278@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) writes:
= I realise this is a bit of an open question, but ...
= 
= I would be very grateful for any pointers or hints as to
= where I can find out what different shells exist, and what 
= their various pros and cons are.
= 
= The ones I know of are simply:
= 	sh	 csh	 bash	 ksh
= 
= Are there others?  Where are they principally available from?
= (I've had difficulty locating ksh for SunOS Unix - is it restricted?)
= 

I am coming a little bit late, but nobody so far has mentioned "yas".
I don't know where I got it from, most likely it was published in one
of the source groups. The author, Dave Clemans, claims that "yas" is
near enough to "ksh" to run most "ksh" scripts transparently.

"ash" is quite nice too, if the author could only write some more
documentation :-)

	-mg
-- 
 .-. .-.  .-.  Michael Greim
(   X   )( __) e-mail : greim@cs.uni-sb.de
 \ / \ /  \ /  or     : ...!uunet!unido!sbsvax!greim
  ~   ~    ~