From owner-freebsd-current Sun Aug 26 14:14:42 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5230E37B403 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 14:14:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from mindspring.com (dialup-209.245.135.64.Dial1.SanJose1.Level3.net [209.245.135.64]) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA12354; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 14:14:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3B8966C8.46BD4F84@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 14:14:48 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Reply-To: tlambert2@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony} (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Andrey A. Chernov" Cc: Oliver Fromme , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing... References: <20010826015413.C92548@dragon.nuxi.com> <200108261120.NAA07025@lurza.secnetix.de> <20010826154728.A19673@nagual.pp.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "Andrey A. Chernov" wrote: > > When I wrote "real csh", I meant a csh which exhibits the > > traditional behaviour and user interface ("look and feel", > > if you prefer) of a csh. tcsh does not. Someone used to > > work with a "real csh" simply can't be happy with tcsh, > > especially if he has to change frequently between using > > FreeBSD and other systems. It's a real PITA. > > I understand your thoughts, but I think you write them to the wrong list. > Csh now maintained by tcsh people and known under "tcsh" name. If you want > to restore tradition behaviour at some points, write complaints to tcsh > developers instead. I've been using csh since the early 80's. I can even *gasp!* write csh scripts fairly easily, and do substitution based changes to commands far faster than "cursor up 10 times and edit the command". I bitched about this, too, when the switch was being made, but was assured that the system wide defaults and account template defaults would be adjusted to provide traditional behaviour on FreeBSD. I was still grumpy about the change, but that at least was enough to mollify me into not objecting loudly and persitantly up to the import. Let me get this straight, though: _now_ you are saying that the system wide defaults and account template defaults will be whatever the tcsh maintainers say they are, and that any changes that the tcsh maintainers make with instantly and magically be imported into FreeBSD? I think there are a few logic flaws in your plan to have people submit their gripes about the defaults to the tcsh maintainers: 1) They set their defaults the way they like them, and are unlikely to change. 2) A lot of the people who shut up did so on the premise that the defaults would cause tcsh to behave like csh when invoked with that name, and that it was the tcsh users, NOT the csh users, who would have to change away from the system defaults to get their desired behaviour. 3) FreeBSD does not seem to track tcsh changes quickly or religiously enough for a lobbying effort to really be effective. While we may be stuck with this bait-and-switch "upgrade", I think his complaints are not co easily addressed. Certainly, the "exec" complaint remains valid, in any case: it's a bug that csh didn't have. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message