>> "cd" can NEVER do anything as a separate command. Is it not
>> completely blazingly obvious to you that it would cd in a SUBSHELL,
>> leaving YOUR shell completely untouched? There has /never/ been a cd
>> command in unix, for that same amazingly obvious reason.
>> No, but your thinking really isn't thinking, is it? It's just
>> superstition and other untested and unthought through beliefs. Not
>> thinking at all. Please don't call it that. When you next want to
>> say "I thought", please don't. Say "I believed", and follow that up
>> with "but now I see that, having thought it through, my belief was
>> unfounded and, indeed, mistaken".
> Okay, now let's compare that to what another person wrote, in response
> to the same article:
> Cd is not a UNIX command in any modern variant. It would not work at
> all if it were. The shell runs commands as child processes. Child
> processes have their own address spaces and can have no effect on
> their parents' environments. So if cd were a command, the child
> process would change to the new directory and terminate, returning
> control back to the parent shell which is waiting for it, leaving the
> parent shell still in the directory it started in. So cd has to be a
> shell builtin running in the shell's own process. All shells do this,
> not just bash.
> You both say, more or less, the same thing, yet one of you seems to go
> out of his way to be as offensive and denigrating as humanly possible.
Yep. Is "denigrating" a word, btw? Oh, I see. Yes it is. Curious. It
looks as though it should not be!
Quote:> Peter, is there /any/ chance of you not taking out all of your
> personal grievances on the poor, unsuspecting public in this news
Hey, he took his grievances out on ME. He viciously attacked RH for
supposedly removing a cd command which he viewed as his right to have,
then he bombarded me with his beliefs, pretending they were facts. He
generally acted pompously and arrogantly, accusing the rest of the
universe of having got it wrong. He dismissed the helpful advice given
him and ignored it at the same time (a neat trick). All in all, he
needed a reality check.
I was happy to give him one.
I figured that ought to get through to him, at least. The original polite
response didn't seem to penetrate his hide.
Quote:> group who actually ask for advice and do not come here to get publicly
> humiliated by your oh-so-superior knowledge?
> Just wondering. Thanks.
I don't have any knowledge.
But nor do I have any beliefs.