From owner-freebsd-questions Sun Apr 15 15:14:52 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from ptavv.es.net (ptavv.es.net [198.128.4.29]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2644A37B440 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 15:14:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from oberman@ptavv.es.net) Received: from ptavv.es.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ptavv.es.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f3FMEfc31901; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 15:14:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200104152214.f3FMEfc31901@ptavv.es.net> To: "Ted Mittelstaedt" Cc: "Joe Heuring" , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: shells In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 14 Apr 2001 23:19:09 PDT." <000301c0c573$fba0bc60$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 15:14:41 -0700 From: "Kevin Oberman" Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" > Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 23:19:09 -0700 > Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG > > Most of the core FreeBSD developers prefer the C shell. There's > no real technical reason for their preference, they just like > it better. To be more precise, I think they prefer it as an interactive shell. I doubt many of them routinely write csh scripts. Also, on FreeBSD, csh is REALLY tcsh which is far newer and far more powerful than the old csh. It's also standard from platform to platform where every vendor seems to have their own hacks on csh, some of them highly incompatible. Finally, tcsh is pretty much upwards compatible from csh. If you can do it under csh, it will work the same under tcsh. And tcsh has many features that any modern shell has and csh does not including filename completion, command completion, more flexible prompts, and many others. R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message