Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 01:54:13 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <dev-null@NUXI.com> To: Oliver Fromme <olli@secnetix.de> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing... Message-ID: <20010826015413.C92548@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200108251202.OAA54973@lurza.secnetix.de>; from olli@secnetix.de on Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 02:02:21PM %2B0200 References: <20010824212042.A86744@xor.obsecurity.org> <200108251202.OAA54973@lurza.secnetix.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 02:02:21PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: > Probably because it's just too late. During the initial > discussion, the voices pro and contra were about 50:50 (at > least that was my impression), and finally the pro ones > succeeded, probably because they had more "weight" (this No, it succeeded because the pro's answered all the questions of the cons and provide work arounds. At the time I imported tcsh, I only remember two decenters. > _But_ my vote would be for still having a "real" csh in > /bin, additionally. (And don't tell me that tcsh is a > real csh -- it's not, see below.) By chance have you looked at the csh source in the CSRG SCCS files? How about the tcsh sources from "day 1" in its CVS repository? Tcsh *is* a direct decendent of CSRG csh. Christos Zulas maintined the CSRG csh in the 4.4 days. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010826015413.C92548>