Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 15:21:07 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: obrien@freebsd.org Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Import of tcsh into src/contrib/, replacing src/usr.bin/csh Message-ID: <200004062121.PAA24162@nomad.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <20000406134916.A23265@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <20000406134916.A23265@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> [If you reply to this message -- one line responses will be ignored. I > expect detailed explanation and arguments.] > > > I'm going to be importing tcsh into src/contrib/ and replacing /bin/csh > with tcsh. While I use tcsh, and it's the very first package I install after I build a new system, I disagree with this move. My reasons are as such: 1) Which shells to use is a religion. No matter what you do, the shell you install won't be correct. 2) FreeBSD's base installation is *NOT* intended for you to have a completely/fully functional workstaion. That's what the ports are for. It's meant to be the most basic installation, and if you need more than the basics, install ports. 3) FreeBSD is often used in embedded systems (see PicoBSD), where the smaller size/functionality is *better* to have. Most systems do *NOT* need the additional functionality that csh provides. Also, csh is still used by many sites (bogusly, IMO) for shell scripts, and csh does the job adequately. 4) CSH is provided because it's part of BSD sources, and has been for years and years. If CSH wasn't part of BSD sources for years, I'd argue for it's removal. But, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and that's where we've drawn it. There is no *need* for tcsh any more that there is a need to replace sh with bash or ksh, or whatever. tcsh provides no additional functionality that the system can use, and only provides functionality for users. The FreeBSD base system is intended to make a running system, and is not intended to please every user that should ever use it. Finally, it seems to me that FreeBSD is being used in two main environments as of late. First, is the ISP/workstation environment. In this setup, tcsh certainly doesn't hurt, since neither disk-space or resident memory size is an issue. However, in the second (becoming more and more common) area, size and memory use is a *BIG* deal. That's the embedded system market. PicoBSD is just *one* of those environments. People like Whistle, Juniper, and a host of other folks use FreeBSD as a platform, and 400K is arguably a *BIG* deal on limited media. Plus, the additional memory use, since at this point csh uses less memory than sh, which might be an issue for some embedde systems. The bottom line is that a small CSH implementation that is simple is better for the base system than a feature-rich CSH version that satisfies the needs of interactive users, which are rarely used in embedded system. Robbing Peter to pay Paul isn't a win, especially when Paul is fully capable of going out and finding his own money. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200004062121.PAA24162>