From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 1 03:38:41 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 90A3516A4CE for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2005 03:38:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ms-smtp-01-eri0.texas.rr.com (ms-smtp-01.texas.rr.com [24.93.47.40]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CA8643D2D for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2005 03:38:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from afabian@austin.rr.com) Received: from turingmachine.mentalsiege.net (cs70112247-52.austin.rr.com [70.112.247.52])j013cXYm010610; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 21:38:33 -0600 (CST) Received: from turingmachine.mentalsiege.net (turingmachine.mentalsiege.net [127.0.0.1])j013cKrH000675; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 21:38:20 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from afabian@turingmachine.mentalsiege.net) Received: (from afabian@localhost)j013cKfI000674; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 21:38:20 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from afabian) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 21:38:20 -0600 From: Adam Fabian To: Michael Madden Message-ID: <20050101033820.GA602@turingmachine.mentalsiege.net> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Madden , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <20050101032022.GA1890@cmsrtp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050101032022.GA1890@cmsrtp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Programming with Bourne or C shell 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, 01 Jan 2005 03:38:41 -0000 On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 09:20:22PM -0600, Michael Madden wrote: > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/ > > Are most FreeBSD users still using csh or tcsh has their interactive > shell and sh for programming? I think it would be nice to use the > same interactive and programming shell for consistency. It's been my impression (in other words, this is all speculation based on my statistically-insignificant interaction with other FreeBSD users, reading the mailing list, etc.) that most FreeBSD users have Bourne shells (bash, ksh93, pdksh) for interactive use and scripting. Old-school users occasionally use tcsh for interactive use, and almost no one scripts anything with csh/tcsh. I wouldn't read too much into the defaults of any program. Lots of good UNIX programs have relatively poor defaults, in my experience. In any case, you will always have some Bourne-based shell on anything vaguely UNIX-ish, but may not have a csh-based shell. -- Adam Fabian (afabian@austin.rr.com)