Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 19:54:17 -0700 (PDT) From: eps@sirius.com (Eric P. Scott) To: Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NO_TCSH issue Message-ID: <200009080254.TAA52210@mail1.sirius.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>How is it not? (with regards to scripts) I use sh for nearly all "serious" shell scripts; I only do the most trivial things as csh scripts, so I doubt I would notice any subtle incompatibilities. csh is my interactive shell of choice, and tcsh is just different enough to cause serious transition shock. What's wrong with small, simple, and functional? Why do I need 609K of feature bloat when a 279K executable does everything I want? Consider also that we're talking about the default shell for root here; the most conservative choice minimizes the possibility of unpleasant surprises. If I'm called in to perform disaster recovery on someone else's server--or worse, asked to perform telephone support--the last thing I want to trip over is some junior sysadmin wannabe's customized .tcshrc that screws up everything even more. What individuals choose as defaults for their personal accounts is their business. I don't see a problem with having sh, ksh, zsh, bash, csh, tcsh, _whatever_ available. But I stand by my opinion that replacing csh with tcsh in 4.1-RELEASE was the single most ill-conceived action taken by the committers. I expect to continue recommending 3.5.1-RELEASE for all new installations where it's hardware-compatible. (Why, oh why, wasn't Adaptec 29160 support back-ported?) -=EPS=- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200009080254.TAA52210>