On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Khepri wrote:
> Eben King wrote:
>
>
> >>HA! I thought there were only 3 or 4! Are those
> >>all in a standard kernel?
> >
> >
> > They're not in the _kernel_. but many of them are available. "ls /bin/*sh"
> > just for kicks. Some others aren't installed by default but can be.
>
> I see that now that I 've been reading through the LFS website....I
> thought the shell was part of the kernel ala DOS
?? COMMAND.COM is the shell, some hidden files (IBM???.COM in IBMDOS,
something else in MSDOS) comprise the "kernel". The shell is not usually
replaced but can be. See NDOS.COM (part of Norton Utilities, or it used to
be).
> but now I see the shells are programs that interface to the kernel...
Other programs do that too. Any time a program asks to open a file, or wait
for a keypress, or draw a character on the screen it could validly be said
to "interface to the kernel". I don't know of a qualitative difference that
makes one program a shell and another not, except for design intent.
> So I would do well to learn say..Emacs and VI or VIM..
emacs vs vi is a religious war. I use vim, my friend uses emacs. We don't
try to convert each other.
> I've already started with VIM and I have a book on bash so I'll start
> thereand develop some proficiency then consider others..I'm just curious
> if most people used tcsh or korn or what?
I used to use (pd)ksh, because ksh was on the computers at work and I wanted
a similar environment at home, but now I use bash.
--
-eben ebQenW1@EtaRmpTabYayU.rIr.OcoPm home.tampabay.rr.com/hactar
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool;
and he who dares not is a slave. -Sir William Drummond
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:34:54 EDT