Sigh. Wouldn't consistency be nice?

Sigh. Wouldn't consistency be nice?

[Bart Schaefer]

This is not really a complaint against zsh, it's just a cry of frustration.

bash% echo `hostname` $HOSTTYPE
zagzig i386

tcsh% echo `hostname` $HOSTTYPE
zagzig i486-linux

zsh% echo `hostname` $MACHTYPE $OSTYPE
zagzig i586 linux


-- 
Bart Schaefer                             Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts            http://www.nbn.com/people/lantern

New male in /home/schaefer:
>N  2 Justin William Schaefer  Sat May 11 03:43  53/4040  "Happy Birthday"

Re: Sigh. Wouldn't consistency be nice?

[Zefram]

>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

Re: Sigh. Wouldn't consistency be nice?

[Hrvoje Niksic]

Zefram (A.Main@dcs.warwick.ac.uk) wrote:
> (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.)

This is because bash does not use autoconf, having its own
autoconfiguration facilities. The bash FAQ states that bash-2.0 will
probably support the GNU autoconf.

-- 
hniksic@srce.hr              |  Student of electrical engineering
hniksic@fly.cc.fer.hr        |  University of Zagreb, Croatia
------------------------------------------------------------------
The IDIOT.  Usually a cretin, morpohodite, or old COBOL programmer
selected to be the system administrator by a committee of cretins,
morphodites, and old COBOL programmers.