From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 26 15:20:31 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 419C016A4CE for ; Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:20:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fw.farid-hajji.net (fw.farid-hajji.net [213.146.115.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBEE143D54 for ; Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:20:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cpghost@cordula.ws) Received: from epia2.farid-hajji.net (epia-2 [192.168.254.11]) by fw.farid-hajji.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1F4B4B990; Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:20:33 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:20:57 +0100 From: cpghost@cordula.ws To: Jerry McAllister Message-ID: <20050326152057.GB90180@epia2.farid-hajji.net> References: <200503261512.j2QFCR806008@clunix.cl.msu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200503261512.j2QFCR806008@clunix.cl.msu.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: gert.cuykens@gmail.com cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: .cshrc X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:20:31 -0000 On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 10:12:26AM -0500, Jerry McAllister wrote: > The csh shell of more likely not, tcsh, is more friendly for > interacticve use than the sh shell. Those who like the sh type > syntax nowdays use the derivative bash as their shell. It is also > more interactive friendly than plain sh. BTW, why doesn't sh include readline(3) or some other kind of command line editing capability? The only reason for using bash over sh is for many people the lack of a decent command line editor function in sh. Footprint perhaps? > ////jerry Cheers, -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/