On Monday 28 July 2008 08:48:52 pm Florin Iucha wrote: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 03:35:42PM -0500, Munir Nassar wrote: > > Troy.A Johnson wrote: > > >>>> Josh Paetzel <josh at tcbug.org> 7/28/2008 9:49 AM >>> > > >> > > >> On Monday 28 July 2008 07:25:51 pm John Hoffoss wrote: > > >> If it's any help, I don't take linux ( or most linux users ) seriously > > >> either. > > > > > > With so many charming ambassadors like our friend Josh, > > > I wonder why the *BSDs aren't more popular. ;-) > > > > Because the BSD fundies take every opportunity to troll? :) > > No, it's because they use vi and not vim! > > Cheers, > florin Well, not to drift dangerously factual, but in one of the more popular BSDs, FreeBSD, /usr/bin/vi is really a hardlink to /usr/bin/nvi, /bin/sh is really ash, not even hard linked, just gratuitously renamed. /bin/tcsh is a hardlink to /bin/csh but you get different behavior if you invoke it as tcsh vs. csh. awk in the base system is one-true-awk, but if you install gnu awk from ports you end up with a binary called gawk. grep in the base system is gnu grep, but it's not called ggrep or gnugrep or anything like that. more is a hardlink to less, but you get traditional more behavior if you invoke less as more instead of less. I think my point is that even the most fearsome of luddites would find a 70's era UNIX horribly unproductive and uncomfortable to use, and I wouldn't let some hard core FreeBSD user bag on you cause he uses vi and you use vim, or that his /bin/sh isn't really bash, unless of course he's bagging on you cause vim and bash aren't actually backwards compatable with the original tools.... -- Thanks, Josh Paetzel PGP: 8A48 EF36 5E9F 4EDA 5A8C 11B4 26F9 01F1 27AF AECB -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20080728/058dc526/attachment-0001.pgp