Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 07:29:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Feenberg <feenberg@nber.org> To: Mayuresh Kathe <mayuresh@kathe.in> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sending Tcsh to packages/ports ... Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.21.9999.1903290725040.71125@mail2.nber.org> In-Reply-To: <64780f09d4251b9641e3bca39000ae2d@kathe.in> References: <64780f09d4251b9641e3bca39000ae2d@kathe.in>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. Daniel Feenberg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.21.9999.1903290725040.71125>