Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 11:15:54 +0200 From: Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org> To: "Eric P. Scott" <eps@sirius.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NO_TCSH issue Message-ID: <20000908111554.A52410@mithrandr.moria.org> In-Reply-To: <200009080254.TAA52210@mail1.sirius.com>; from eps@sirius.com on Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 07:54:17PM -0700 References: <200009080254.TAA52210@mail1.sirius.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu 2000-09-07 (19:54), Eric P. Scott wrote: > csh is my interactive shell of choice, and tcsh is just different > enough to cause serious transition shock. What exact transition problems have you experienced? I'm sure if you actually contributed a list of changes, I can generate a csh.cshrc for all the old-timers who want it to work "exactly the way it always did". I could change the source so it acted the way you want, and yet we can provide an excellent UI to users of FreeBSD for only 300k! > What's wrong with small, simple, and functional? Nothing. That's one of the reasons 44bsd-csh was kept. > Why do I need 609K of feature bloat when a 279K executable does > everything I want? Everything _you_ want. Heck, I could do without all those aliases. Let's remove alias support from csh in FreeBSD! I don't even use csh, let's remove it totally! > Consider also that we're talking about the default shell for root > here; the most conservative choice minimizes the possibility of > unpleasant surprises. If I'm called in to perform disaster > recovery on someone else's server--or worse, asked to perform > telephone support--the last thing I want to trip over is some > junior sysadmin wannabe's customized .tcshrc that screws up > everything even more. And how does this differ from some junior sysadmin wannabe's customized .cshrc? If he's a junior sysadmin wannabe, you're going to have to tell him to type 'csh' anyway. Now just tell him to type 'csh -f', and it won't do any 'l33t K-r4d ~/.tcshrc reading. > But I stand by my opinion that replacing csh with tcsh in 4.1-RELEASE > was the single most ill-conceived action taken by the committers. Well. Firstly, this wasn't an action taken in a void by the evil committers who do everything behind the backs of the users. This was brought up on 6 April on a public forum, and the concensus was that it was worthwhile. Now, yet again, if you have a problem with the way things work when csh is invoked as 'csh', then report it, and don't bring it up arbitrarily on a mailing list. If you report it, we can fix it. It can function again the way you like. If you don't report it, then you don't get to complain. > I expect to continue recommending 3.5.1-RELEASE for all new > installations where it's hardware-compatible. (Why, oh why, > wasn't Adaptec 29160 support back-ported?) That's your decision. If you think the 300k hit is too big, and you can't be bothered to use the 44bsd-csh package, and you don't appreciate the fact we now have a _maintained_ csh-compatible csh with a UI that non-guru's can use, and you can't take the time to actually report your problems to the proper forums at all, and you're willing to live without numerous improvements and optimizations that have and will occur in the future _just_ because you can't be bothered putting in the effort to get it fixed, then that's what you think. Not much I can do about it, really. Neil -- Neil Blakey-Milner Sunesi Clinical Systems nbm@mithrandr.moria.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000908111554.A52410>