Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:23:01 -0500 From: Jim Bryant <kc5vdj@yahoo.com> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing... Message-ID: <3B85C895.6020602@yahoo.com> References: <3B857DB1.2050904@yahoo.com> <20010823194003.C5214@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I'm aware of this, I have used tcsh since it first appeared on comp.sources.unix, many moons ago. Because of certain differences, it cannot be used wholesale as a replacement for csh. I'm all for tcsh being in /bin, but I don't think that it's a good idea to replace the industry-standard csh with tcsh as unexpected problems can occur when a csh script expecting csh behaviour ends up breaking due to the subtle differences between csh and tcsh... It's kinda late in the process to be complaining about this, but I just noticed this myself... To complete your sentance: "..., but it's not a drop-in replacement for csh." Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 05:03:29PM -0500, Jim Bryant wrote: > >>Why is csh tcsh? >> >>There are differences... >> >> 4:52:48pm wahoo(6): cmp /bin/csh /bin/tcsh >> 4:59:12pm wahoo(7): >> > > tcsh is the newer version of csh. > > Kris jim -- ET has one helluva sense of humor! He's always anal-probing right-wing schizos! _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com 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?3B85C895.6020602>