From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@euclid.skiles.gatech.edu [130.207.146.50]) by melb.werple.net.au (8.7.5/8.7.3/2) with ESMTP id DAA12750 for <mason@werple.mira.net.au>; Sun, 30 Jun 1996 03:52:54 +1000 (EST)
Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id NAA22482; Sat, 29 Jun 1996 13:41:15 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 13:41:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Zefram <A.Main@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <2092.199606291641@tamarind.dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Sigh.  Wouldn't consistency be nice?
To: schaefer@nbn.com
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 17:41:07 +0100 (BST)
Cc: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu
In-Reply-To: <960629092455.ZM5050@candle.brasslantern.com> from "Bart Schaefer" at Jun 29, 96 09:24:53 am
X-Loop: zefram@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
X-Stardate: [-31]7733.47
X-US-Congress: Moronic fuckers
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"bjRFn1.0.9V5.xgMrn"@euclid>
Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu
X-Mailing-List: <zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu> archive/latest/1478
X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu

>bash% echo `hostname` $HOSTTYPE
>zagzig i386
>
>tcsh% echo `hostname` $HOSTTYPE
>zagzig i486-linux
>
>zsh% echo `hostname` $MACHTYPE $OSTYPE
>zagzig i586 linux

Thus conclusively proving that zsh is superior, because its knowledge
of the CPU type is more specific.

(Yes, consistency would be nice.  And I'm surprised that bash, being a
GNU program, didn't produce the same answer as zsh, which gets it from
autoconf.)

-zefram