Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:53:04 -0700 From: Matthew Hunt <mph@astro.caltech.edu> To: Craig Johnston <caj@lfn.org> Cc: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: root's shell Message-ID: <19990601135304.A22884@wopr.caltech.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990601153913.477A-100000@jane.lfn.org>; from Craig Johnston on Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 03:48:09PM -0500 References: <19990601132656.A21962@wopr.caltech.edu> <Pine.GSO.3.96.990601153913.477A-100000@jane.lfn.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 <mph@astro.caltech.edu> * 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990601135304.A22884>