From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Nov 9 14:24:29 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA29901 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 14:24:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA29894 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 14:24:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA08991; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 23:24:11 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id XAA17138; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 23:24:10 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <19981109232410.01531@follo.net> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 23:24:10 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund To: Sue Blake Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: X desktop contest? + Desktop Env References: <19981110090436.07651@welearn.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1i In-Reply-To: <19981110090436.07651@welearn.com.au>; from Sue Blake on Tue, Nov 10, 1998 at 09:04:36AM +1100 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, Nov 10, 1998 at 09:04:36AM +1100, Sue Blake wrote: > On Mon, Nov 09, 1998 at 09:22:25PM +0000, Phillip Salzman wrote: > > > > The default shells are because of an attempt to keep ``standard''. > > Although, I believe we should also include tcsh or bash... but I think > > they are under GPL license. Well, I think bash is. > > There's a few newbies and 386 users who have discovered the virtues of > the plain old sh with 'set -o emacs' turned on. The one and only > essential is the up arrow for command history, and I reckon that's the > real reason why many of new installers wish it had bash. All the other > shell features can go jump for the first few months, but command > history is essential and csh doesn't cut it, not by a long shot. > > When it's time to learn more, it's also time to learn about scripts and > what better way than to be able to use the same syntax on the command > line. Why would I ever need more than sh? After nearly a year it still > serves every purpose I know of, *and* the man page is more digestable. It lacks completion. That's the most important part. That's IMHO essential. Apart from that, I like the ability of zsh to do more advanced pattern matching, but that isn't as essential as as the lack of completion (and every shell I know of except zsh lack full completion - zsh can complete _everything_ - globs, shell escapes, history escapes, cvs - you name it, zsh can complete it :-) Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message