.bashrc vs. .bash_profile

[Vram]

On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 18:19 -0400, Matthew S-H wrote:
> 
> On Jul 20, 2005, at 8:18 PM, Vram wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2005-07-20 at 17:32 -0400, Matthew S-H wrote:
> > > I was totally expecting to be wrong.  But I just want to know one
> > > thing:
> > > why is it a bad thing to use a link?
> > 
> > 
> > A link points to a file..
> > 
> > 
> > You can't link two different files together with the "ln" command..
> This wasn't my intent.  Instead of maintaining 2 files, you could just
> put everything in 1 file and then use ln.
> 
> > Change the data in one file and it is changed in the other file
> 
> Isn't this a good thing for those of us who want login/non-login
> shells to be the same?
> 
> > With "ln" there is only ONE file....
> Again, why is this bad??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~Matt


Sorry, I didn't understand the question...

As with everything the answer is for the  Pharisees.


And I quote "Mark G. Sobell" who had Linus Torvolds <hope I spelled that
right> use his book during his College years...



<quote>
Although the numbers of shell types and initialization files might seem
confusing, may bash users have only .bash_profile and .bashrc in their
home directories.  Most of the commands that they want all instances of
bash to execute are place into .bashrc, whereas .bash_profile includes a
command to load and run commands from .bashrc, as well as an assignment
of the string ~/.bashrc to the ENV variable.  This way, .bashrc is
executed, no matter how the Shell gets started
</quote>


Additionally, the owner of bash or this login can put global command it
here.   For example he/she can change umask..


It is not a huge difference but, there is a difference.   The right tool
for the right job..

As system admin on YOUR box you may do ANYTHING...

I, myself, stay will well established practices until I feel I am so
superior that I can disregard the established practices and forge out on
my own. <It hasn't happen yet>


Hope this helps..

Vram