05-02-2011 01:55 PM
Whatever you use (and in HP-UX, the Posix shell found in '/sbin/sh' or '/usr/bin/sh' is the standard shell most like the Korn shell) do NOT use 'csh'. A classic paper describes the reasons why not to:
05-02-2011 11:43 PM
Keep in mind that most script you will find are either written in bourne or korn shell.
05-03-2011 01:36 AM
That unorthodox shell nexus, to put it mildly, which must have been committed by our SAP admins who installed and set up their SAP bloatware themselves, indeed already posed an unseen tripwire to me (the c-shell-wise uninitiated admin) who when asked to schedule a cronjob for sapadm was haunted back by mysterious redirection phenomena or was initially left puzzled with strange environment effects until he found out that csh uses the special setenv command and syntax with variables all lower case (sic!). Very strange environment indeed for the Bourne Shell Descendants accustomed admin.
05-03-2011 06:10 AM
for a reason.
HP's Posix shell is very good, although not totally portable to Linux bash shell (the HP shell has some more extended syntax and features).
05-03-2011 08:11 AM
Q1: Which is the best shell
A1: It's really down to personal preference, but most folks agreee that csh is _not_ the best shell. Personally I like to use sh (the POSIX shell, not the bourne shell on HP-UX), but ksh is probably slightly more portable between different UNIX flavours.
Q2: Which is recommended to SAP and why?
A2: Well just to confuse things, SAP recommend csh (see SAP Note 202227). You would have to ask SAP _why_ they do this. The note talks about some issues with different implementations of ksh on different platforms, but to be honest I've never seen any serious issues with using ksh or sh with SAP. Note that the SAP note talks about what login shell to use for SAP users - it _does not_ mean you actually have to write shell scripts in csh. You can still write a script in sh or ksh as long as you reference it in the first line of the script appropriately (with a #!/usr/bin/ksh or whatever)
05-04-2011 11:35 AM - last edited on 07-06-2011 10:06 AM by Kevin_Paul
You want a shell that has a history/redo mechanism. And one that allows good scripting.
I was conned into thinking the scummy C shell was better than the borne shell. But when I found out ksh had vi editing for redo, I've never looked back at csh.
And that leads you to your other thread:
05-05-2011 12:28 AM
Unix operates with beer.
05-05-2011 11:39 AM
There will still be times when you have to know the native shell by O/S and you can't get around this.