Zsh Mailing List Archive Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author

Re: Sigh. Wouldn't consistency be nice?

X-seq: zsh-workers 1478
From: Zefram <A.Main@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: schaefer@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Sigh. Wouldn't consistency be nice?
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 17:41:07 +0100 (BST)
Cc: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <960629092455.ZM5050@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> from "Bart Schaefer" at Jun 29, 96 09:24:53 am

>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

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Sigh. Wouldn't consistency be nice?
  - From: Hrvoje Niksic

References:
- Sigh. Wouldn't consistency be nice?
  - From: Bart Schaefer

Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author