From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 1 06:11:14 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAB3A16A4CE for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2005 06:11:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pi.codefab.com (pi.codefab.com [199.103.21.227]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6482543D3F for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2005 06:11:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (pool-68-160-208-232.ny325.east.verizon.net [68.160.208.232]) by pi.codefab.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j016B1I9071881 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 1 Jan 2005 01:11:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <41D63F5C.10702@mac.com> Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 01:12:44 -0500 From: Chuck Swiger Organization: The Courts of Chaos User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Madden References: <20050101032022.GA1890@cmsrtp.com> In-Reply-To: <20050101032022.GA1890@cmsrtp.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.5.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.8 required=5.5 tests=RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL autolearn=disabled version=3.0.1 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on pi.codefab.com cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Programming with Bourne or C shell X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 06:11:14 -0000 Michael Madden wrote: [ ... ] > Are most FreeBSD users still using csh or tcsh has their interactive > shell and sh for programming? I think it would be nice to use the same > interactive and programming shell for consistency. Most FreeBSD shell scripts seem to be written for /bin/sh. Many FreeBSD users seem to pick one of bash, ksh, or zsh for their interactive shell, and just take a bit of care when writing scripts to use syntax which is backward-compatible with /bin/sh. If you're happy with bash, there's no reason not to use with FreeBSD as well. -- -Chuck