From owner-freebsd-current Sun Aug 26 15:44: 5 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from smtp012.mail.yahoo.com (smtp012.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.173.32]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 165DF37B407 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 15:44:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kc5vdj@yahoo.com) Received: from mkc-65-28-47-209.kc.rr.com (HELO yahoo.com) (65.28.47.209) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Aug 2001 22:44:01 -0000 X-Apparently-From: Message-ID: <3B897BB0.5070109@yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 17:44:00 -0500 From: Jim Bryant Reply-To: kc5vdj@yahoo.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i386; en-US; rv:0.9.2) Gecko/20010726 Netscape6/6.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tlambert2@mindspring.com Cc: "Andrey A. Chernov" , Oliver Fromme , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing... References: <20010826015413.C92548@dragon.nuxi.com> <200108261120.NAA07025@lurza.secnetix.de> <20010826154728.A19673@nagual.pp.ru> <3B8966C8.46BD4F84@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Terry Lambert wrote: > I was still grumpy about the change, but that at least was > enough to mollify me into not objecting loudly and persitantly > up to the import. > > Let me get this straight, though: _now_ you are saying that > the system wide defaults and account template defaults will > be whatever the tcsh maintainers say they are, and that any > changes that the tcsh maintainers make with instantly and > magically be imported into FreeBSD? > > I think there are a few logic flaws in your plan to have > people submit their gripes about the defaults to the tcsh > maintainers: > > 1) They set their defaults the way they like them, and > are unlikely to change. > 2) A lot of the people who shut up did so on the premise > that the defaults would cause tcsh to behave like csh > when invoked with that name, and that it was the tcsh > users, NOT the csh users, who would have to change > away from the system defaults to get their desired > behaviour. > 3) FreeBSD does not seem to track tcsh changes quickly > or religiously enough for a lobbying effort to really > be effective. > > While we may be stuck with this bait-and-switch "upgrade", I > think his complaints are not co easily addressed. Certainly, > the "exec" complaint remains valid, in any case: it's a bug > that csh didn't have. Terry, first things first, or is it last things first... I had issued myself a boot to the head because I had simply forgotten to background the startx and issue a logout [been so long since i've done things this way, blah blah blah, boot to the head], This was the second message in this thread, and I asked people to disregard my initial post because of this, shortly after sending the initial message. Since then, this has taken a life of it's own. After reading the ensuing posts, I do have to say that although I don't agree with a lot of the posts against adding more defacto-standard shells to the base distribution [remember the thread about a month ago], I at least now understand one of the base arguments behind the arguments against. I'm not trying to revive that topic, I'm just saying I see what was behind some of the arguments in that thread now. Anyhow, I have other things on my mind right now, such as why installworld is expecting a user named 'bind'... 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