Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 08:37:54 -0600 From: Tim Daneliuk <tundra@tundraware.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: why have csh as well as tcsh? Message-ID: <7fbbf871-5e22-b589-0f0d-5b2b89da2a34@tundraware.com> In-Reply-To: <201812261421.wBQELETd006832@sdf.org> References: <201812261421.wBQELETd006832@sdf.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/26/18 8:21 AM, iam@sdf.org wrote: > what's the reason to have two options for shells > during the installation when the manual manages > to the same for both? > _______________________________________________ csh was the default/standard shell in BSD historically. Some years ago, tcsh was created as an extension to csh to add things like command line completion. (The man page has much to say about these.) Rather than ship two binaries, FreeBSD (and many other systems) ship tcsh with a second link to it called 'csh' for backward compatibility so that existing scripts that refer to csh will still work. It may also be the case (I don't know, I have not tested this) that the binary behaves differently if it is started as csh rather than tcsh to act more like "old" csh. Like I said, I've not actually checked this. Incidentally, many Linux distros do the same thing with bash and sh. IIRC bash *does* "downshift" to only old behaviors when started sh. HTH, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------Tim Daneliuk tundra@tundraware.comPGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7fbbf871-5e22-b589-0f0d-5b2b89da2a34>