On Fri, 18 Feb 2005, Chad Perrin wrote:
> Khepri wrote:
> >
> > I see that now that I 've been reading through the LFS website....I
> > thought the shell was part of the kernel ala DOS but now I see the
> > shells are programs that interface to the kernel...
> >
> > I was under the impression that VI was "built-in" also, and I see that's
> > not the case either...LOL
> >
> > So I would do well to learn say..Emacs and VI or VIM..and then a couple
> > of the shells, bash of course and..???
> >
> > 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?
...
> vi vs. vim: These days, unless you find yourself at a really old
> system, vi means vim. Anything vi, generally speaking, works flawlessly
> in vim.
All that is true. If you do any work on Solaris machines, it looks a bit
different (no syntax highlighting) and may work a bit different (but I
haven't uncovered that yet). Also, if you try to use an editor through
an SSH connection, your terminal may be messed up, and control keys may
not work at all. This includes the arrow keys, as they send some
sequence starting with escape (^[). Under such circumstances, emacs
won't work at all, and you'll have to use h/j/k/l to move around in vim.
...
> All unix shells (as far as I'm aware) are close to interchangeable, but
> there are some syntax differences that will trip you up if you're not
> careful.
(t)csh is entirely unlike (ba,k,pdk)sh. I haven't used (a,z)sh enough to
comment on them.
-- -eben ebQenW1@EtaRmpTabYayU.rIr.OcoPm home.tampabay.rr.com/hactar PISCES: Try to avoid any Virgos or Leos with the Ebola virus. You are the Lord of the Dance, no matter what those idiots at work say. -- Weird Al, _Your Horoscope for Today_
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:37:00 EDT