Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 13:30:22 +1000 From: Sue Blake <sue@welearn.com.au> To: Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/contrib/tcsh - Imported sources Message-ID: <20000416133021.P3179@welearn.com.au> In-Reply-To: <8dap2t$1ome$1@bigeye.rhein-neckar.de>; from Christian Weisgerber on Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 12:05:17AM %2B0200 References: <200004150441.VAA23755@freefall.freebsd.org> <8dap2t$1ome$1@bigeye.rhein-neckar.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 12:05:17AM +0200, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> David E. O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote:
>
> > Import the latest version of the 44BSD C-shell -- tcsh-6.09.
>
> I'm unhappy about this for a reason that hasn't even been mentioned
> in the monster thread that clogged -arch:
(And who would have thought to look for it there anyway.)
> Including tcsh in the base system means that people will use it.
> csh clearly isn't good enough for people to use, and when they
> looked around for a better interactive shell, many found their way
> to proper sh-ish shell like bash or ksh. Now they will stay with
> tcsh instead. And they will write (t)csh scripts. Importing tcsh
> gives new life to a shell family that should die, die, die.
>
> From a shell advocacy point of view, importing tcsh was the very
> worst thing that could happen.
Absolutely! This kind of shell does not belong in the base system.
There are many dangers, and everyone knows how bloody shell wars can
become once someone's favourite is given the limelight. Either include
them _all_ or Leave them all in ports where they belong!
This looks like a poorly thought out hasty move based on some old
timers' rigid preferences rather than on appropriateness as a base for
the greatest range of user types. It might look like that to others, too.
Take it out, shove it in some RedHat style FreeBSD if you like, but not
in the base system. I like my minimal installs usable but unbloated.
Our slightly enhanced version of sh achieves that.
The people who have most difficulty changing their initial shell (due
to shortage of both FreeBSD and UNIX experience) ask for the up
arrow to give command history, and for commandline editing. Both of
these can be achieved with the Bourne shell with a decent .profile
(which we've had fixed just recently). The people who dummy-spit about
needing tab completion generally have enough UNIX experience to go sort
themselves out with their own familiar shell.
Also, from a pedagogical perspective there are strong arguments for at
least starting out with a Bourne style shell rather than teaching one
style for scripts and another for interactive use. I'd go out of my way
to avoid teaching beginners on a tcsh system.
A well set up sh is perfectly adequate as a default shell.
There's some good reasons for considering bash too, but I'd like some
safe easy way to remove it from my more minimal installs.
Just because we all agree that csh is bad, doesn't mean that any
person's favourite full featured shell should be rushed into the base
system.
--
Regards,
-*Sue*-
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000416133021.P3179>