Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 09:04:36 +1100 From: Sue Blake <sue@welearn.com.au> To: Phillip Salzman <psalzman@gamefish.pcola.gulf.net> Cc: Annelise Anderson <andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu>, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, Open Systems Networking <opsys@mail.webspan.net>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: X desktop contest? + Desktop Env Message-ID: <19981110090436.07651@welearn.com.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9811092120310.7784-100000@gamefish.pcola.gulf.net>; from Phillip Salzman on Mon, Nov 09, 1998 at 09:22:25PM %2B0000 References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.981109094722.19667A-100000@andrsn.stanford.edu> <Pine.BSF.4.05.9811092120310.7784-100000@gamefish.pcola.gulf.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
--
Regards,
-*Sue*-
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19981110090436.07651>