From owner-freebsd-stable Fri Sep 8 0:42:22 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mailhost01.reflexnet.net (mailhost01.reflexnet.net [64.6.192.82]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A67EA37B423 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 00:42:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 149.211.6.64.reflexcom.com ([64.6.211.149]) by mailhost01.reflexnet.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19); Fri, 8 Sep 2000 00:41:15 -0700 Received: (from cjc@localhost) by 149.211.6.64.reflexcom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23879; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 00:42:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cjc) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 00:42:18 -0700 From: "Crist J . Clark" To: "Eric P. Scott" Cc: Neil Blakey-Milner , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NO_TCSH issue Message-ID: <20000908004218.L69158@149.211.6.64.reflexcom.com> Reply-To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu References: <200009080254.TAA52210@mail1.sirius.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <200009080254.TAA52210@mail1.sirius.com>; from eps@sirius.com on Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 07:54:17PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 07:54:17PM -0700, Eric P. Scott wrote: [snip] > What individuals choose as defaults for their personal accounts > is their business. I don't see a problem with having sh, ksh, > zsh, bash, csh, tcsh, _whatever_ available. But I stand by my > opinion that replacing csh with tcsh in 4.1-RELEASE was the > single most ill-conceived action taken by the committers. How many times does it have to be said? The old "csh" in pre-4.0 FreeBSD was actually a stripped down implementation of tcsh. The old "csh" in FreeBSD was not replaced with tcsh. Rather, the old reduced-feature tcsh in pre-4.0 FreeBSD was restored to a fully functional tcsh. -- Crist J. Clark cjclark@alum.mit.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message