From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Apr 16 3:56:56 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7475F37B988 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 03:56:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA26472 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:56:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id MAA00376 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:56:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de (dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de [139.174.243.252]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 812EA37B513 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 23:24:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from olli@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA65436; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 08:23:28 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olli) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 08:23:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <200004160623.IAA65436@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Reply-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Shells X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-arch In-Reply-To: <8davni$onp$1@atlantis.rz.tu-clausthal.de> Organization: Administration TU Clausthal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: tin/1.4.1-19991201 ("Polish") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/3.4-19991219-STABLE (i386)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In list.freebsd-arch Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group wrote: > With commit of tcsh, I'd like to raise another question. Are there any > plans to replace sh with bash. Granted they're not 100% compatible, > though my only experience with bash vs sh incompatibility was over 6 > years ago on a Linux system, I still think it's a good idea to replace > sh with bash. > > Another point to consider is that most people install who use a Bourne > Shell the bash port, just like Csh users install the tcsh port. I > think fewer people would be inconvenienced by the replacement of sh > with bash than by not doing so. > > Anyone care to comment? Why not zsh? -- Oliver Fromme, Leibnizstr. 18/61, 38678 Clausthal, Germany (Info: finger userinfo:olli@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de) "In jedem Stück Kohle wartet ein Diamant auf seine Geburt" (Terry Pratchett) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message