Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 19:08:16 +0530 From: Mayuresh Kathe <mayuresh@kathe.in> To: Daniel Feenberg <feenberg@nber.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sending Tcsh to packages/ports ... Message-ID: <869a55f05dde045b1947f53ce3c5851f@kathe.in> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.21.9999.1903290725040.71125@mail2.nber.org> References: <64780f09d4251b9641e3bca39000ae2d@kathe.in> <alpine.BSF.2.21.9999.1903290725040.71125@mail2.nber.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2019-03-29 04:59 PM, Daniel Feenberg wrote: > On Fri, 29 Mar 2019, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: > >> Since Tcsh is usually imported, why not send it to packages/ports >> collection? >> I agree that "csh" is an historically important artifact, but do we >> need to still rely on that? >> I have been using "csh" ever since I started using FreeBSD, liked it, >> but it doesn't feel light like plain old "sh" nor is as feature-full >> as "bash". To top that, the installer asks me to choose between "csh" >> and "tcsh" in-spite of being the same binary. > > ed and csh are important for those that use them. I use both, not > always, but enough to see the importance of keeping them in the OS. > There is a fallacious style of argument that decodes to "If a is > better than b, then b is no good and it is a sign of bad character to > use b". There are many cases where the transition costs of moving to > different dependencies will be significant, especially for less well > informed users. What if you had access to your preferred tools via packages/ports? ~Mayuresh
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?869a55f05dde045b1947f53ce3c5851f>