From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Fri Mar 29 11:29:11 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9741A1564848 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:29:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from feenberg@nber.org) Received: from mail2.nber.org (mail2.nber.org [198.71.6.79]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9051F8C6E9 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:29:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from feenberg@nber.org) Received: from mail2.nber.org (mail2.nber.org [198.71.6.79]) by mail2.nber.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x2TBT7Ws073345 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 29 Mar 2019 07:29:07 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from feenberg@nber.org) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 07:29:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Feenberg To: Mayuresh Kathe cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sending Tcsh to packages/ports ... In-Reply-To: <64780f09d4251b9641e3bca39000ae2d@kathe.in> Message-ID: References: <64780f09d4251b9641e3bca39000ae2d@kathe.in> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.9999 (BSF 287 2018-06-16) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-KLMS-Rule-ID: 1 X-KLMS-Message-Action: clean X-KLMS-AntiSpam-Status: not scanned, disabled by settings X-KLMS-AntiSpam-Interceptor-Info: not scanned X-KLMS-AntiPhishing: Clean, 2019/03/27 10:29:33 X-KLMS-AntiVirus: Kaspersky Security 8.0 for Linux Mail Server, version 8.0.1.721, bases: 2019/03/29 03:37:00 #9475119 X-KLMS-AntiVirus-Status: Clean, skipped X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 9051F8C6E9 X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=nber.org; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of feenberg@nber.org designates 198.71.6.79 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=feenberg@nber.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.69 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.96)[-0.958,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; IP_SCORE(-0.01)[country: US(-0.07)]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.29)[0.288,0]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED(-0.20)[79.6.71.198.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.4.2]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[smtp.nber.org]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[nber.org,none]; RCVD_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:26287, ipnet:198.71.6.0/23, country:US]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:29:11 -0000 On Fri, 29 Mar 2019, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: > Since Tcsh is usually imported, why not send it to packages/ports collection? > I agree that "csh" is an historically important artifact, but do we need to > still rely on that? > I have been using "csh" ever since I started using FreeBSD, liked it, but it > doesn't feel light like plain old "sh" nor is as feature-full as "bash". To > top that, the installer asks me to choose between "csh" and "tcsh" in-spite > of being the same binary. ed and csh are important for those that use them. I use both, not always, but enough to see the importance of keeping them in the OS. There is a fallacious style of argument that decodes to "If a is better than b, then b is no good and it is a sign of bad character to use b". There are many cases where the transition costs of moving to different dependencies will be significant, especially for less well informed users. Daniel Feenberg