From owner-freebsd-bugs Tue Jun 1 13:53:21 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from wopr.caltech.edu (wopr.caltech.edu [131.215.240.222]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A78DC150AD for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:53:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mph@wopr.caltech.edu) Received: (from mph@localhost) by wopr.caltech.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) id NAA22924; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:53:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mph) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:53:04 -0700 From: Matthew Hunt To: Craig Johnston Cc: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: root's shell Message-ID: <19990601135304.A22884@wopr.caltech.edu> References: <19990601132656.A21962@wopr.caltech.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4i In-Reply-To: ; from Craig Johnston on Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 03:48:09PM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 03:48:09PM -0500, Craig Johnston wrote: > than job control. csh just seems like a gratuitously broken sh > with job control to me. BTW, you do know that FreeBSD sh has job control, right? > Csh just strikes me as having no real reason to exist. > Except of course, tradition. Keep in mind that "tradition" in this context means "huge userbase". In the two academic departments I've worked in, both of which use Solaris machines, *everybody* uses tcsh. I use tcsh, because the admins don't even both installing any other modern shell (with, say, command-line editing). I doubt many of my fellow users know how to set a variable in sh or its kin. My point is this: Just because you don't like csh, and I don't like csh, doesn't mean nobody likes csh. Matt -- Matthew Hunt * Science rules. http://www.pobox.com/~mph/ * To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message