[9fans] Re: rc

[9fans] Re: rc

[erik quanstrom]

> On Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 03:29:16AM -0700, Randolph Fritz wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 12:21:58PM +0200, boyd.roberts@ca-indosuez.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > used the unix rc for years;  well written, solid as a rock.
> > > 
> > 
> > I've switched, myself.  I rewrote one script in rc and decided it was
> > time. :)  Now if only mk would become standard on Unix...
> > 
> Amusingly, Linux came out originally with RC as its shell, and that led
> me to the original Plan 9 papers, and from there to Plan 9.  I presume
> I'm the only one who got here _that_ route!?

that's not my recollection. in 1992 i talked michael k johnson into letting
me use his pre-1.0 linux box to port rc because -- as far as we could tell --
nobody'd done it.

there were some signal problems with my port (the awk script that munched some
system headers to generate a list of signals didn't work with linux's
odd header structure). and this port never made it off michael's box.

my memory's fading but i believe that bash and ash were installed on
michael's box at the time. bash development preceeded rc development by
about 18 months, as i recall.

erik

Re: [9fans] Re: rc

[Lucio De Re]

On Tue, Jul 18, 2000 at 05:52:21PM +0000, erik quanstrom wrote:
> 
> that's not my recollection. in 1992 i talked michael k johnson into letting
> me use his pre-1.0 linux box to port rc because -- as far as we could tell --
> nobody'd done it.
> 
Curious.  If Linux hadn't had rc when I first encountered it (really
early days - 1992 seems already late, what with Linux sitting in the
0.xx for quite a while), I wouldn't have met Plan 9 that soon.

But it is from memory.  Bash may well have been an option, but in the
Minix filesystem, it would have been a real hog.  Specially if GCC was
still growing up at the time :-)

I hope I'm not distorting history.

++L