<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Hot About Linux &#187; shell programming</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.hotaboutlinux.com/category/shell-programming/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.hotaboutlinux.com</link>
	<description>For Those Who Like to Dig Deeper</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:46:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
<atom:link rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com" />
	<atom:link rel="hub" href="http://superfeedr.com/hubbub" />
			<item>
		<title>Command Order of Precedence</title>
		<link>http://www.hotaboutlinux.com/2009/02/command-order-of-precedence/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hotaboutlinux.com/2009/02/command-order-of-precedence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:11:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bill Anderson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[shell programming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bash]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[KornShell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ksh]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hotaboutlinux.com/?p=15</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The common misconception is that the shell always searches the PATH variable to find a command. The truth is that the shell may never get to the PATH variable before it has a name match. Before confusing the issue, let&#8217;s look at a simple example. If there is an alias that reads which=&#8217;whence -a&#8217;, and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hotaboutlinux.com/2009/02/command-order-of-precedence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The man Command Lies (Sometimes)</title>
		<link>http://www.hotaboutlinux.com/2009/02/the-man-command-lies-sometimes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hotaboutlinux.com/2009/02/the-man-command-lies-sometimes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:37:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bill Anderson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[shell programming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bash]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[KornShell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ksh]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hotaboutlinux.com/?p=12</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There are man pages with typographical errors, but that is not the issue of this post. Assuming you are using ksh or bash, how do you answer these questions: Is the man page for awk correct? Is the man page for pwd correct? If you answered yes to both questions, you are wrong, but for [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hotaboutlinux.com/2009/02/the-man-command-lies-sometimes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trapped in Bourne Shell</title>
		<link>http://www.hotaboutlinux.com/2009/02/trapped-in-bourne-shell/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hotaboutlinux.com/2009/02/trapped-in-bourne-shell/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 05:06:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bill Anderson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[shell programming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bash]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ksh]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hotaboutlinux.com/?p=7</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bash and KornShell offer features that are more powerful, and often, more efficient than Bourne Shell. Yet, I constantly see back tics (accent graves), instead of the easier to read format of $(&#8230;). I see the use of the expr command for math calculations in stead of (( &#8230; )). Even higher on the list [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hotaboutlinux.com/2009/02/trapped-in-bourne-shell/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>KornShell&#8217;s Bad Rap</title>
		<link>http://www.hotaboutlinux.com/2009/01/kornshells-bad-rap/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hotaboutlinux.com/2009/01/kornshells-bad-rap/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:29:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bill Anderson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[shell programming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Add new tag]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[KornShell]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hotaboutlinux.com/?p=3</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There are a number of myths surrounding KornShell that give it a bad rap. A history that few know about just adds to the confusion.  Can you answer the following questions: The Bourne Again Shell (bash) has its origin in which shell? UNIX uses which version of KornShell? Linux uses which version of KornShell? Who [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hotaboutlinux.com/2009/01/kornshells-bad-rap/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
