From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Fri Mar 29 13:38:47 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 679A11568E63; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 13:38:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mayuresh@kathe.in) Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (relay5-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11C0691C2F; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 13:38:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mayuresh@kathe.in) Received: from webmail.gandi.net (webmail27.sd4.0x35.net [10.200.201.27]) (Authenticated sender: mayuresh@kathe.in) by relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5A1D21C000D; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 13:38:16 +0000 (UTC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 19:08:16 +0530 From: Mayuresh Kathe To: Daniel Feenberg Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sending Tcsh to packages/ports ... Reply-To: mayuresh@kathe.in Mail-Reply-To: mayuresh@kathe.in In-Reply-To: References: <64780f09d4251b9641e3bca39000ae2d@kathe.in> Message-ID: <869a55f05dde045b1947f53ce3c5851f@kathe.in> X-Sender: mayuresh@kathe.in User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.8 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 11C0691C2F X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of mayuresh@kathe.in designates 217.70.183.197 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mayuresh@kathe.in X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.46 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.00)[mayuresh@kathe.in]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:217.70.176.0/21]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[kathe.in]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; REPLYTO_ADDR_EQ_FROM(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: spool.mail.gandi.net]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.97)[-0.973,0]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.999,0]; IP_SCORE(-1.07)[ip: (-2.60), ipnet: 217.70.176.0/20(-1.53), asn: 29169(-1.23), country: FR(-0.01)]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[197.183.70.217.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.1]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:29169, ipnet:217.70.176.0/20, country:FR]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(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 13:38:47 -0000 On 2019-03-29 04:59 PM, Daniel Feenberg wrote: > 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. What if you had access to your preferred tools via packages/ports? ~Mayuresh