Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #90165 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-19 21:20 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-08-24 19:08 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 161 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
/dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-19 21:20 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 23:53 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-19 23:42 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-20 00:59 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-20 03:59 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-20 10:10 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-20 18:15 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-20 23:30 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 01:18 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-21 09:52 +0200
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-21 08:12 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-21 11:16 +0200
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-21 22:57 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-22 06:17 +0200
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 21:50 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2026-08-24 17:42 +0300
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-24 23:53 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:27 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-08-23 00:56 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-23 04:01 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-23 03:37 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:50 +0200
Re: /dev/tcp vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-08-23 22:28 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 09:35 +0200
Overwriting with random data (was: Re: /dev/tcp) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 11:10 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 20:34 +0200
Re: Overwriting with random data Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 20:57 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 22:26 +0200
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:39 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 08:45 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 21:39 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-26 18:08 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-28 00:49 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-28 00:59 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:36 +0200
Re: Overwriting with random data Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 15:19 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 03:33 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 09:18 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 17:34 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 01:52 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-27 12:11 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-28 01:00 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 22:16 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 08:32 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-28 03:34 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-28 00:58 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-28 00:53 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:12 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 00:09 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 08:52 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-28 01:02 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-28 00:48 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 00:37 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 00:31 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 09:45 +0200
Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 12:52 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 12:50 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-20 13:50 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-20 13:02 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-20 18:26 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 13:54 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 22:57 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-22 21:47 +0200
The hammer is best (Was: /dev/tcp) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-08-22 23:50 +0000
Re: The hammer is best (Was: /dev/tcp) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-23 04:28 -0400
Re: The hammer is best Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 10:14 +0100
Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:55 +0200
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:16 +0100
Re: The hammer is best Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-23 21:20 +0200
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 02:18 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 11:26 +0100
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:06 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:18 +0100
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 00:51 -0400
Re: The hammer is best Joed Oakes <lost@noway.home.invalid> - 2026-08-23 19:42 -0400
Re: The hammer is best Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-23 23:56 +0000
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 02:25 -0400
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-24 01:14 +0000
Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 09:50 +0200
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 00:56 -0400
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 00:53 -0400
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-24 06:42 +0000
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 23:34 -0400
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 04:08 +0000
Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:29 +0200
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 18:52 +0000
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 04:19 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 09:29 +0100
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 17:03 +0000
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 21:31 +0100
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 22:18 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 11:28 +0100
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:07 -0400
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 06:39 +0000
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:23 +0100
Re: The hammer is best Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-25 18:26 +0000
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 20:05 +0100
Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 21:43 +0200
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 08:35 +0100
Re: The hammer is best Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-25 20:21 +0000
Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 23:14 +0200
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 19:08 +0000
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 04:38 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 10:22 +0100
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 17:26 +0000
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 00:00 -0400
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:44 -0400
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 01:49 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:20 +0100
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 01:23 -0400
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-23 22:16 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-21 13:41 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-21 22:58 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 22:28 -0400
ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-24 13:56 +0100
Bash vs. ksh - Does it matter? And the 'vi' mode thing... (Was: ksh (was: /dev/tcp)) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-08-24 14:57 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-24 21:08 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-08-24 21:28 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 01:11 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-25 13:25 +0100
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-25 21:58 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-26 13:34 +0100
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-27 02:23 +0000
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:40 -0400
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 01:40 -0400
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:25 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 06:52 +0000
Re: ksh The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:27 +0100
Re: ksh Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-25 18:26 +0000
Re: ksh Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-25 22:03 +0000
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 04:04 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 18:00 +0000
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:17 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-27 15:22 +0000
Re: ksh The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-27 17:55 +0100
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 23:14 -0400
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 22:43 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 04:17 +0000
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-28 03:18 -0400
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 02:35 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 18:17 +0000
Re: ksh Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-08-25 09:56 +0200
Re: ksh "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:24 +0200
Re: ksh Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-25 20:36 +0200
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 04:23 +0000
Re: ksh "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-26 10:04 +0200
Re: ksh Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 10:03 +0100
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 21:50 -0400
Re: ksh The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:27 +0100
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 02:43 -0400
Re: ksh Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-25 22:01 +0000
Re: ksh "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-26 01:32 +0200
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 21:46 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 04:25 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-20 18:22 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 13:57 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-23 06:37 -0700
Re: /dev/tcp Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 14:49 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 16:13 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-23 22:31 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 19:08 +0100
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 21:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) |
| Message-ID | <116l35b$4nha$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90535 |
On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 13:25:12 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote: > Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 13:56:32 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote: >> >>> I use bash as a fallback when ksh isn't available, but a few >>> things in its vi mode don't quite work the same way. >> >> By “vi mode” do you mean “GNU readline”? > > As others have pointed out, I'm referring to how history editing > works after you "set -o vi" in POSIX-conforming shells. You were specifically talking about bash, though. What sort of things did you find “don’t quite work the same way”?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 13:34 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) |
| Message-ID | <h333mm-qcg.ln1@ID-313840.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90573 |
Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 13:25:12 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote: > >> Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 13:56:32 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote: >>> >>>> I use bash as a fallback when ksh isn't available, but a few >>>> things in its vi mode don't quite work the same way. >>> >>> By “vi mode” do you mean “GNU readline”? >> >> As others have pointed out, I'm referring to how history editing >> works after you "set -o vi" in POSIX-conforming shells. > > You were specifically talking about bash, though. My post was mostly about ksh, with a comparison of ksh and bash at the end (the only bit you quoted). > What sort of things did you find “don’t quite work the same way”? I recall finding that repeating an R command with "." didn't work at all in bash, but I reported that one to Chet and it was fixed at some point. Mostly I think the remaining differences come down to "look and feel". For example, if I give a repeat count before a command, bash changes my shell prompt to "(arg: N)" then changes it back when it executes the command, which I find distracting. In ksh the behaviour has exactly the same feel as in the vi editor. -- Geoff Clare <netnews@gclare.org.uk>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 02:23 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) |
| Message-ID | <116o734$14ar5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90630 |
On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 13:34:25 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote: > My post was mostly about ksh, with a comparison of ksh and bash at > the end (the only bit you quoted). That was the only part I was asking about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 03:40 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <G6-dnTlsRIBrdBL3nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90656 |
On 8/26/26 22:23, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 13:34:25 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote: > >> My post was mostly about ksh, with a comparison of ksh and bash at >> the end (the only bit you quoted). > > That was the only part I was asking about. Ksh is good, Bash is good. Not gonna get drawn into 'shell wars'. Use what best syncs with YOUR brain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 01:40 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <G6-dnQBsRIBPUBL3nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90630 |
On 8/26/26 08:34, Geoff Clare wrote: > Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 13:25:12 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote: >> >>> Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 13:56:32 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote: >>>> >>>>> I use bash as a fallback when ksh isn't available, but a few >>>>> things in its vi mode don't quite work the same way. >>>> >>>> By “vi mode” do you mean “GNU readline”? >>> >>> As others have pointed out, I'm referring to how history editing >>> works after you "set -o vi" in POSIX-conforming shells. >> >> You were specifically talking about bash, though. > > My post was mostly about ksh, with a comparison of ksh and bash at > the end (the only bit you quoted). There's nothing WRONG with ksh ... gets it done pretty much as good as bash. But it's become 'uncommon'. In theory I could stick to ancient shells and COBOL for stuff - but it's just not worth it. "Modern" isn't ALWAYS bad. Note, you CAN write almost anything in COBOL if you want, even deep 'system' utils. But 'C' is much better. DO remember when 'C' was the Great NewFangled Lang for my PDP-11. Linux, you CAN still get 'B' compilers and even ones for the predecessors. Did a few examples, they CAN get shit done. 'C' is "nicer" though. Never found much use for 'D' ... just seems to look like 'C' but with much shittier syntax. DO install it however, Just In Case. Same for a few of the 'modern' langs. There IS a point where the proverbial wheel HAS been invented.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 02:25 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <UaqcnZ45f_v9qBD3nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90452 |
On 8/24/26 08:56, Geoff Clare wrote: > c186282 wrote: > >> On 8/21/26 08:41, Geoff Clare wrote: >>> >>> According to https://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/061 the feature was >>> added to bash in version 2.04 and was "Copied from / Inspired by" ksh93. >>> >>> It certainly works in the versions of ksh93 I have. >> >> You run ksh93 ??? >> >> Not too many Kornies left these days :-) > > Ksh has been my preferred interactive shell since I first started using > SVR4-based systems in the late 80's. Well, we like what we like. But for a LONG LONG time, most everybody goes with Bash. DO have a c-shell installed, always do, but have not USED it for anything in 20 years. Also always install a FORTH ... but again haven't USED it for anything in 20+ years. Always install a COBOL too ... HAVE used it to make a few odd things - but mostly to "keep my hand in", nothing important. > Prior to that I used something called wash, short for Warwick Shell > (a version of Bourne Shell with added interactive history, written by > some folks - students I assume - at Warwick University in the UK). > Wash's history mechanism used control characters for all the editing, > which as a vi user I hated. Once I discovered ksh's vi mode I never > looked back. > > I use bash as a fallback when ksh isn't available, but a few things > in its vi mode don't quite work the same way. No. Anyway, for an interpreted script lang these days, PYTHON. Massively better in every way than the old shit. Ya usually need ONE of the old script langs to RUN Python however, but there are shortcuts. Some kind of "Bash-E", ONLY meant to start other scripts, would not be a bad idea.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 06:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <nf4sd4F5rktU46@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90491 |
On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 02:25:36 -0400, c186282 wrote: > DO have a c-shell installed, always do, but have not USED it for > anything in 20 years. Also always install a FORTH ... but again > haven't USED it for anything in 20+ years. https://wellys.com/posts/rp2040_forth/ I briefly thought about playing with this -- very briefly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 12:27 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <116ju6j$3l7js$13@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90496 |
On 25/08/2026 07:52, rbowman wrote: > On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 02:25:36 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> DO have a c-shell installed, always do, but have not USED it for >> anything in 20 years. Also always install a FORTH ... but again >> haven't USED it for anything in 20+ years. > > https://wellys.com/posts/rp2040_forth/ > > I briefly thought about playing with this -- very briefly. I was paid to retype around 200 pages of 8086 assembler from a magazine scan in to create a FORTH interpreter. I think it took about 3-4 weeks. I raised my mental hat to the idea of it, but I was never tempted to use it By that time C compilers, 32 bit chips and many megabytes of RAM were cheap enough to make it not my first choice. -- No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 18:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <J7ljS.3$UGU.0@fx46.iad> |
| In reply to | #90523 |
On 2026-08-25, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 25/08/2026 07:52, rbowman wrote: > >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 02:25:36 -0400, c186282 wrote: >> >>> DO have a c-shell installed, always do, but have not USED it for >>> anything in 20 years. Also always install a FORTH ... but again >>> haven't USED it for anything in 20+ years. >> >> https://wellys.com/posts/rp2040_forth/ >> >> I briefly thought about playing with this -- very briefly. > > I was paid to retype around 200 pages of 8086 assembler from a magazine > scan in to create a FORTH interpreter. > I think it took about 3-4 weeks. > I raised my mental hat to the idea of it, but I was never tempted to use it > > By that time C compilers, 32 bit chips and many megabytes of RAM were > cheap enough to make it not my first choice. I found a CP/M version of Forth and got it running on my IMSAI. I'm currently trying to resurrect that box - if I get it going then maybe I can play with it some more. I did manage to write a Sieve of Eratosthenes... Forth love if honk then -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | In this world there are \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | two kinds of people: X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | 1. Those who can extrapolate / \ if you read it the right way. | from incomplete data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 22:03 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <116l3em$4nha$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90551 |
On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 18:26:49 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > I found a CP/M version of Forth and got it running on my IMSAI. Apart from the nostalgic retrocomputing flavour, I can’t think of anything important you can learn from using Forth today. PostScript, on the other hand ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 04:04 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <shWdncRO7NioAxP3nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90551 |
On 8/25/26 14:26, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-08-25, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> On 25/08/2026 07:52, rbowman wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 02:25:36 -0400, c186282 wrote: >>> >>>> DO have a c-shell installed, always do, but have not USED it for >>>> anything in 20 years. Also always install a FORTH ... but again >>>> haven't USED it for anything in 20+ years. >>> >>> https://wellys.com/posts/rp2040_forth/ >>> >>> I briefly thought about playing with this -- very briefly. >> >> I was paid to retype around 200 pages of 8086 assembler from a magazine >> scan in to create a FORTH interpreter. >> I think it took about 3-4 weeks. >> I raised my mental hat to the idea of it, but I was never tempted to use it >> >> By that time C compilers, 32 bit chips and many megabytes of RAM were >> cheap enough to make it not my first choice. > > I found a CP/M version of Forth and got it running on my IMSAI. > I'm currently trying to resurrect that box - if I get it going > then maybe I can play with it some more. I did manage to write > a Sieve of Eratosthenes... > > Forth love if honk then FORTH has/had a specific PLACE in things. It was best for small CPUs, not much mem or speed. It'd typically come burnt into a PROM. One small step above ASM. Alas, to be MOST effective, a FORTH interpreter had to be CUSTOMIZED for a specific CPU - and writ in ASM. Know people, mostly 'scientific', who are fluent in FORTH. It was THE best solution for awhile for 'devices' back in the day. One, a displaced relative, we sometimes exchange FORTH jokes. Some of the current space probes, even Mars rovers, still have FORTH built in. It has it's place and function. It's NOT dead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 18:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <nf8nu4FprcuU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90609 |
On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 04:04:49 -0400, c186282 wrote: > Alas, to be MOST effective, a FORTH interpreter had to be CUSTOMIZED > for a specific CPU - and writ in ASM. Only a very small core functionality is in assembler. You cal get Loeliger's 'Threaded Interpreted Languages' at archive.org. It's a general guide to TILs rather than being FORTH specific. iirc his example is in Z-80 ASM.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 03:17 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <G6-dnT1sRIAfeRL3nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90639 |
On 8/26/26 14:00, rbowman wrote: > On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 04:04:49 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> Alas, to be MOST effective, a FORTH interpreter had to be CUSTOMIZED >> for a specific CPU - and writ in ASM. > > Only a very small core functionality is in assembler. You cal get > Loeliger's 'Threaded Interpreted Languages' at archive.org. It's a > general guide to TILs rather than being FORTH specific. iirc his example > is in Z-80 ASM. Do a real-world comparison ... CPU cycles -> Desired Effect. A customized FORTH really IS faster/tighter. Remember THAT from the old days. Anyway, imagine you have been called upon to do software for like a Mars probe/rover. It's almost Black Art. If you want to have some easy 'versatility' you will surely include a FORTH interpreter in there somewhere - the latest probes STILL DO. But, for BEST effect, it has to be a FORTH that's been micro-customized for the EXACT processor. GFORTH just won't be nearly as good. As I said somewhere, a relative WAS deeply involved in scientific stuff back when FORTH ruled - and DOES understand what I'm saying here. There ARE funny "FORTH jokes/refs" that can be included in conversation. Said relative is mostly 'out of my sphere', but we both DO get little "FORTH jokes" :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 15:22 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <nfb31cFprcuU22@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90663 |
On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 03:17:02 -0400, c186282 wrote: > Do a real-world comparison ... CPU cycles -> Desired Effect. A > customized FORTH really IS faster/tighter. > Remember THAT from the old days. It's an interpreted language. It has some unique advantages but fast and tight isn't among them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 17:55 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <116pq64$1l9sg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90686 |
On 27/08/2026 16:22, rbowman wrote: > On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 03:17:02 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> Do a real-world comparison ... CPU cycles -> Desired Effect. A >> customized FORTH really IS faster/tighter. >> Remember THAT from the old days. > > It's an interpreted language. It has some unique advantages but fast and > tight isn't among them. Its very tight, and in a sense it is precompiled the moment you type it in. Its not necessarily ideal for modern processors with look ahead caches: It was designed for the most tight code to run on an 8 bit micro. And it is. Tighter than assembler by dint of the fact that EVERYTHING is effectively a subroutine. As I said, having to implement it made me gaze in wonderment at how the core kernel worked and pay my respects. BUT it was already 16 bit micros by then and it didn't make any sense vis à vis C... -- "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them" Margaret Thatcher
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 23:14 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <wxednYk-UqrZYA33nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90689 |
On 8/27/26 12:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 27/08/2026 16:22, rbowman wrote: >> On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 03:17:02 -0400, c186282 wrote: >> >>> Do a real-world comparison ... CPU cycles -> Desired Effect. A >>> customized FORTH really IS faster/tighter. >>> Remember THAT from the old days. >> >> It's an interpreted language. It has some unique advantages but fast and >> tight isn't among them. > > Its very tight, and in a sense it is precompiled the moment you type it in. Trying to tell him :-) > Its not necessarily ideal for modern processors with look ahead caches: > It was designed for the most tight code to run on an 8 bit micro. > And it is. Tighter than assembler by dint of the fact that EVERYTHING is > effectively a subroutine. Agreed, it will not take good advantage of modern processors and all their optimization tricks. It will likely confuse the CPU, run below its theoretical optimum speed and use more power than it ought to. So many predictive branches will have to be thrown away. > As I said, having to implement it made me gaze in wonderment at how the > core kernel worked and pay my respects. BUT it was already 16 bit micros > by then and it didn't make any sense vis à vis C... Well, the 'interpreted' nature did have good advantages back in the day. As I said somewhere, if you had a big telescope up on a mountaintop and, with luck, a 110 baud connection of some kind, you could pretty easily see what was going on AND edit the pgm remotely. Even BASIC is a lot fatter than FORTH - so weak/small control boards, FORTH made sense. Hmm ... wonder if low-end chips like for Ards and such would be most efficient with FORTH these days, cycle-by-cycle, watt-for-watt ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 22:43 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <zX6dnaeqj-daaA33nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90686 |
On 8/27/26 11:22, rbowman wrote: > On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 03:17:02 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> Do a real-world comparison ... CPU cycles -> Desired Effect. A >> customized FORTH really IS faster/tighter. >> Remember THAT from the old days. > > It's an interpreted language. It has some unique advantages but fast and > tight isn't among them. Umm ... it was popular for what would now be largely classed as 'micro-controller'-strength boards. It could be burned into a ROM. So yea, by any modern standard, it was 'small' and at least reasonably 'tight'. Easier and a bit more clear than ASM. As for speed, EVERYTHING was slow back then. In the academic realm it was often used to control instrumentation, from little stuff to big telescopes. You could live-edit the pgms over a super low speed serial link to a mountaintop, or space probe. Really don't love 'stack-oriented langs', too much like one of those evil RPN calculators. But, they CAN have their place.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 04:17 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <nfcgecFprcuU31@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90715 |
On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 22:43:19 -0400, c186282 wrote: > Umm ... it was popular for what would now be > largely classed as 'micro-controller'-strength boards. It could be > burned into a ROM. So yea, > by any modern standard, it was 'small' and at least reasonably > 'tight'. Easier and a bit more clear than ASM. As for speed, > EVERYTHING was slow back then. https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/performance.html The comparison is slightly dated. Hint: gcc 2.6.3 was 1994. My history with FORTH is even more so. I used a Z80 version to develop a couple of applications, I guess you could call them, for Sprague Electric, A fun one was controlling a robot arm that would pick up a capacitor, place it in a test rig, and then remove it when the test was done. As they say when you've seen one FORTH implementation, you've seen one FORTH implementation. The end result was an almost natural language that the QA engineers could use. The next brush was with an 8048 ICE that used FORTH for the interface. No, not the immigration cops. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-circuit_emulation The final use was for a test rig for an aircraft fuel measurement and management system. The onboard software was not FORTH but the test rigs were. Like the above the goal was to create a very natural interface for the test technicians. That one used the TMS9900. Gotta be rad hard when the Russkies attack. I think that was about '84. The fun part was I got to go to the FORTH conference at the Rochester Institute of Technology and meet Charlie Moore. RIT had one of the earliest BS degrees in CS and had worked with FORTH. Slightly more attractive than Charlie I also got to see an Emmy Lou Harris concert in the evening. https://vfxforth.com/flag/forth.html https://www.forth.com/swiftforth/ Both of those are commercial and rather expensive. They're quite a bit different from the classic threaded FORTH I'm familiar with. > Really don't love 'stack-oriented langs', too much like one of those > evil RPN calculators. But, they CAN have their place. I still have my HP 16C. It was fun leaving it laying around and watching unsuspecting people try to use it. Being a programming calculator it has binary, octal and hex modes. Even if the victim figured out how to enter 123 456 + they might not get the result they expected. We used a modified version of nenscript to format reports. IF a PS printer was available all was good, otherwise it had to fork out to ghostscript to create a file for the printer in question. It was a joy to maintain. I'm not sure how it relates to GNU enscript. Nenscript was placed in public domain by Computers Sciences of Australia probably when Stallman was still trying to grow a beard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 03:18 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <wxednbs-UqrYqwz3nZ2dnZfqnPoAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90722 |
On 8/28/26 00:17, rbowman wrote: > On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 22:43:19 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> Umm ... it was popular for what would now be >> largely classed as 'micro-controller'-strength boards. It could be >> burned into a ROM. So yea, >> by any modern standard, it was 'small' and at least reasonably >> 'tight'. Easier and a bit more clear than ASM. As for speed, >> EVERYTHING was slow back then. > > https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/performance.html > > The comparison is slightly dated. Hint: gcc 2.6.3 was 1994. My history > with FORTH is even more so. I used a Z80 version to develop a couple of > applications, I guess you could call them, for Sprague Electric, A fun one > was controlling a robot arm that would pick up a capacitor, place it in a > test rig, and then remove it when the test was done. As they say when > you've seen one FORTH implementation, you've seen one FORTH > implementation. The end result was an almost natural language that the QA > engineers could use. Don't compare FORTH to 'C'. Different things, different applications. A good FORTH was writ in ASM and tuned for a particular chip. Hey, NASA still uses it for its probes ...... > The next brush was with an 8048 ICE that used FORTH for the interface. No, > not the immigration cops. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-circuit_emulation How much was lost in the 'emulation' ? > The final use was for a test rig for an aircraft fuel measurement and > management system. The onboard software was not FORTH but the test rigs > were. Like the above the goal was to create a very natural interface for > the test technicians. That one used the TMS9900. Gotta be rad hard when > the Russkies attack. FORTH really isn't "natural" ... but it's easier than ASM and more immediately flexible than a compiled lang. > I think that was about '84. The fun part was I got to go to the FORTH > conference at the Rochester Institute of Technology and meet Charlie > Moore. RIT had one of the earliest BS degrees in CS and had worked with > FORTH. Slightly more attractive than Charlie I also got to see an Emmy Lou > Harris concert in the evening. > > https://vfxforth.com/flag/forth.html > https://www.forth.com/swiftforth/ > > Both of those are commercial and rather expensive. They're quite a bit > different from the classic threaded FORTH I'm familiar with. > >> Really don't love 'stack-oriented langs', too much like one of those >> evil RPN calculators. But, they CAN have their place. > > I still have my HP 16C. It was fun leaving it laying around and watching > unsuspecting people try to use it. Being a programming calculator it has > binary, octal and hex modes. Even if the victim figured out how to enter > > 123 456 + they might not get the result they expected. Heh ... yea ... better set the right mode ! Found other 'programmers calculators' that were a lot more friendly. > We used a modified version of nenscript to format reports. IF a PS printer > was available all was good, otherwise it had to fork out to ghostscript to > create a file for the printer in question. It was a joy to maintain. > > I'm not sure how it relates to GNU enscript. Nenscript was placed in > public domain by Computers Sciences of Australia probably when Stallman > was still trying to grow a beard. Oh well, I'll still stump for FORTH in certain hardware/software conditions. Really is NOT bad at all - and a lot faster than you claim IF properly tuned to the target chip. Actually, FORTH nearly pre-dates CPU chips ... about 1970 or '71. Not sure even "Pong" existed yet - and it's chip wasn't really a CPU in the modern sense. Most computers were big boards of discrete transistors rigged as logic gates. Remember the IBM 360 ... full of those little "chips" ? Pry 'em open and what would you find packed inside ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 02:35 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <ZfqcnXBt_dT4FBP3nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90523 |
On 8/25/26 07:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 25/08/2026 07:52, rbowman wrote: >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 02:25:36 -0400, c186282 wrote: >> >>> DO have a c-shell installed, always do, but have not USED it for >>> anything in 20 years. Also always install a FORTH ... but again >>> haven't USED it for anything in 20+ years. >> >> https://wellys.com/posts/rp2040_forth/ >> >> I briefly thought about playing with this -- very briefly. FORTH was VERY valuable when CPU power was very low and comms links were very slow. Have a cousin in the research trade who is an expert FORTH programmer, we sometimes trade FORTH jokes. It's not AS important now ... but some US space and planetary probes STILL use it to some degree. Runs on a very small/minimal ROM-based interpreter, a step above ASM. When I started fooling with micro-controllers FORTH was the neat-o viable option. Burnt it into EPROMS. Yea, remember the ones with the "windows" ? Had to make a UV-B/C box to erase them ? :-) If you are trying to get yer PIC or PICO to do the most shit in the least space/CPU while still being semi-comprehensible then FORTH is STILL a viable option. Sometimes the oldies ARE goodies. > I was paid to retype around 200 pages of 8086 assembler from a magazine > scan in to create a FORTH interpreter. > I think it took about 3-4 weeks. > I raised my mental hat to the idea of it, but I was never tempted to use it > > By that time C compilers, 32 bit chips and many megabytes of RAM were > cheap enough to make it not my first choice. When 8-bit and 110-baud ruled the world, FORTH looked a lot better. IMHO it STILL has a place for minimal/tight environs. As said, NASA still has it in space/Mars probes. Not sure what, or how much, it applies but it's THERE and doing SOMETHING. ANYHOW, by sheer habit, I *still* always install a FORTH on every box I own. IF I see a need/niche, well, then it's THERE. PREF dedicated over the GNU version. Also install a COBOL and FORTRAN ... but VERY rarely do anything with them except to "keep my hand in". Never let old skills completely deteriorate, ya never know. Now, these days, if you're GOOD with COBOL you can earn LOTS of money without hardly trying. SO many corporate/govt apps were writ in the 60s in COBOL and it's now unaffordable to replace them. So, if you know any COBOL ........ FORTRAN is still a little more common, esp in the academic/engineering universe. SO many GREAT, heavily tested/verified, math/stat solutions !!! Note how Python copied FORTRAN "list"-handling/parsing stuff. Only "old" thing I really tend to use, from the PDP-11 days, 'C'. Shit, I remember when it was the Great New Thing :-) Hmm ... once tried to write a FORTH-ish interpreter in 'C'. Soon realized that to get the maximum effect it has to be done for a very SPECIFIC chip, in ASM. Abandoned the project.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web