Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 16:00:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Linh Pham <lplist@q.closedsrc.org> To: "David J. Kanter" <djkanter@northwestern.edu> Cc: FreeBSD questions <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Is the C-shell (csh) a bad shell? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007181557060.11935-100000@q.closedsrc.org> In-Reply-To: <20000718175345.A95605@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I personally don't think csh is a bad shell, but I tend to prefer tcsh over csh. Bash may be an easier shell to learn and to learn how to write shell scripts for. sh (the original Bourne schell) is pretty much universal, bash and csh are very common on many UNIX installations. I know many people on AIX use ksh (Korn shell, which can be installed using the ports... it's called pdksh). // Linh Pham // // Proud supporter of FreeBSD and OpenBSD // FreeBSD - http://www.freebsd.org // OpenBSD - http://www.openbsd.org /* "Oregon, n.: Eighty billion gallons of water with no place to go on Saturday night." */ On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, David J. Kanter wrote: > I'd like to learn a shell fairly well and chose csh because it's in the base > FreeBSD system (a little graybeard character) and I found good documentation > on it written by William Joy. But I've read some things that it's a "bad" > shell. > > Is it? > > It seems that, at some level, all shells are essentially equal. But when > shells start to divide is csh left in the dust? What about the shells I've > read rave things about: Korn and Bash. > > I've got C++ experience, so maybe that's why I chose csh too. > -- > David Kanter > djkanter@northwestern.edu > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0007181557060.11935-100000>