🚀 go-pugleaf

   From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
   Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:32:33 -0500 (EST)
   X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL20]
   Content-Type: text
   Content-Length: 1142      

   Quoting Brian Fox:
   > You are right, I do not see how that is a bug.  Vis a vis rsh and
   > desireable interactive behaviour, you cannot have your cake and eat it
   > too.

   Of course!  It _is_ impossible for bash to decide whether it is run
   from rsh or not.

   Therefore, I would suggest that rsh be configured or hacked to run
   something other than $SHELL -- $SHELL.rc perhaps.

Suggestions about rsh are always welcome, but do nothing to solve the
particular problem of imitating a badly specified language (sh) on a
fairly poor OS concept (unix).  My suggestion is to use "supdup"
protocol, and never to use rsh.  However, people will continue to use
rsh, so my suggestion is not generally useful.


   > Your example is the one instance where "-c" is specified, the input
   > stream is not a tty, and, for some unspecified reason, you do not wish
   > to run .bashrc.

   If consistency means nothing to you, then of course this inconsistency
   in your creation won't bother you.  I'm just glad I have source code.

If it were up to me, I would not have implemented something as ugly as
"sh" syntax, which is fraught with inconsistencies.  Bash is not my
"creation", it is a necessary evil, and I hope, the least of many.

However, I would like to point out that interactive commands can
always use the `-norc' flag, in the same fashion that csh users use
`-f'.

Brian