From owner-freebsd-newbies@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 27 15:09:59 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-newbies@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAF5A16A4CE for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:09:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ns1.tiadon.com (SMTP.tiadon.com [69.27.132.161]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 999C843D5D for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:09:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kdk@daleco.biz) Received: from [69.27.131.0] ([69.27.131.0]) by ns1.tiadon.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:10:02 -0500 Message-ID: <417FBA47.5030504@daleco.biz> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:09:59 -0500 From: "Kevin D. Kinsey, DaleCo, S.P." User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20041023 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stevan Tiefert References: <417F90AD.9080801@arcor.de> In-Reply-To: <417F90AD.9080801@arcor.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Oct 2004 15:10:03.0084 (UTC) FILETIME=[08D868C0:01C4BC37] cc: freebsd-newbies@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Decision to csh X-BeenThere: freebsd-newbies@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Gathering place for new users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:10:00 -0000 Stevan Tiefert wrote: > Hello mailing-list, > > which philosophy is behind the decision to use csh for root an not sh > like the other users? I mean > that the root has to manage the configuration-scripts written in the > language of sh not of csh. > The difference of the script-languages between csh and sh are > tremendous, isn't it? > > With regards > Stevan Tiefert > It is both historical and quite in alignment with the FreeBSD 'ethos', if you will. Consider this quote from a mail message in April, where Matthew Seaman (a quite knowledgeable fellow) states: ************************************************************************** Actually, root's shell has been set to csh(1) for as long as there has been a FreeBSD: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/etc/master.passwd?rev=1.1&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup I think I've seen one of the elder gods mention that root's shell was csh all the way back to 4.2-BSD. Cheers, Matthew *************************************************************************** Now, as for the reasons behind the history, I can only guess, as I'm a relative newbie. IMVHO, /bin/sh is just darned inconvenient for sys-admin stuff, which is why somebody invented bash. But, FreeBSD had already chosen csh, and bash is GNU/GPL*, and why discuss another bikeshed? If scripts are written correctly, they don't care what your shell is anyway ... As for script-writing, I take it that most people learn sh simply for shell-scripting and quite apart from their daily CLI usage... and perhaps a few people script things in PERL, ruby, even PHP instead of sh on occasion as well; it might be considered a separate activity. My $.02, KDK *Probably this one is the most important issue.