Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 12:21:48 -0600 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: which is the basic differences between the shells? Message-ID: <20100606182148.GB28095@guilt.hydra> In-Reply-To: <20100606175043.GA46089@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com> References: <AANLkTinG745GjOaZKLT1TfKgqVi6VHt9-ciHWQUY57VT@mail.gmail.com> <20100605231715.GD69990@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com> <20100606163136.GA27788@guilt.hydra> <20100606175043.GA46089@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--rS8CxjVDS/+yyDmU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 10:50:43AM -0700, Chip Camden wrote: > On Jun 06 2010 10:31, Chad Perrin wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 04:17:15PM -0700, Chip Camden wrote: > > >=20 > > > I like zsh, because it's sh-compatible, brings in a lot of the good i= deas > > > from csh/tcsh, and the license appears to be copyfree rather than cop= yleft. > >=20 > > Do you use that as your interactive shell, for scripting, or both? >=20 > Interactive only. For scripting, I stick to sh unless it gets too comple= x -- > then I jump to Ruby. I'm curious about why you prefer zsh for an interactive shell. What zsh features would you miss if you used tcsh instead (what I've been using)? I'm always willing to be convinced to try something better. --=20 Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] --rS8CxjVDS/+yyDmU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkwL5zwACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKULUwCgsHqyyi7lA8YkDqgOv1alnzIW i3kAn21XTbJt1pDpgrgew30mxAzIqu+O =PWSy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --rS8CxjVDS/+yyDmU--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100606182148.GB28095>