Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
On 26-Aug-01 Kris Kennaway wrote: On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 01:20:23PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: Our csh still behaves differently like any /bin/csh on any other system that I know, and can't be easily made to behave like them. This is an assertion. Where is your supporting evidence? In his previous message that you didn't read. Geez, I'm a tcsh user myself but his point is not all that obscure. He mentioned wanting Esc to do instant filename completion. (Or history, can't remember which). Another one he referred to is clearly documented in the tcsh manpage that no one seems to read: (+) While csh(1) expands, for example, `!3d' to event 3 with the letter `d' appended to it, tcsh expands it to the last event beginning with `3d'; only completely numeric arguments are treated as event numbers. This makes it possible to recall events beginning with numbers. To expand `!3d' as in csh(1) say `!\3d'. IOW, to obtain backward compatibility, you have to change your input. That's not really all that backward compatible since the original interface is broken. I agree with Andrey that getting the tcsh maintainers to provide backwards compatibility via a command-line option (or have it triggered when it is called as csh rather than tcsh) would be the ideal solution. Kris -- John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc Power Users Use the Power to Serve! - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrey A. Chernov writes: : Complaints _are_ easily addressed, tcsh author is responsible and fix all : thing that I report to him. If you complain about 'upgrade' problem, i.e. : we don't have latest tcsh, ask our tcsh maintainer for upgrade. I'm our tcsh maintainer, btw. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 02:02:21PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: Probably because it's just too late. During the initial discussion, the voices pro and contra were about 50:50 (at least that was my impression), and finally the pro ones succeeded, probably because they had more weight (this No, it succeeded because the pro's answered all the questions of the cons and provide work arounds. At the time I imported tcsh, I only remember two decenters. _But_ my vote would be for still having a real csh in /bin, additionally. (And don't tell me that tcsh is a real csh -- it's not, see below.) By chance have you looked at the csh source in the CSRG SCCS files? How about the tcsh sources from day 1 in its CVS repository? Tcsh *is* a direct decendent of CSRG csh. Christos Zulas maintined the CSRG csh in the 4.4 days. -- -- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 11:10:53PM -0500, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: Then please enumerate them so that they can be given due attention. This is exactly the sort of detailed feedback that was requested when we first raised the issue of switching over, and nobody could come up with any concrete differences that would cause harm, so the deed was done. It blew beets all over the startup script for ROM 2.4 MUD's. Error output?? Script?? We really cannot make things better w/o suffient information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: _But_ my vote would be for still having a real csh in /bin, additionally. (And don't tell me that tcsh is a real csh -- it's not, see below.) By chance have you looked at the csh source in the CSRG SCCS files? How about the tcsh sources from day 1 in its CVS repository? Tcsh *is* a direct decendent of CSRG csh. Christos Zulas maintined the CSRG csh in the 4.4 days. No doubt about that, but that's not the point. Did you read what i wrote further down in my message (what I referred to by see below)? Our csh still behaves differently like any /bin/csh on any other system that I know, and can't be easily made to behave like them. When I wrote real csh, I meant a csh which exhibits the traditional behaviour and user interface (look and feel, if you prefer) of a csh. tcsh does not. Someone used to work with a real csh simply can't be happy with tcsh, especially if he has to change frequently between using FreeBSD and other systems. It's a real PITA. Regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH Co KG, Oettingenstr. 2, 80538 München Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. All that we see or seem is just a dream within a dream (E. A. Poe) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 13:20:23 +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: Our csh still behaves differently like any /bin/csh on any other system that I know, and can't be easily made to behave like them. When I wrote real csh, I meant a csh which exhibits the traditional behaviour and user interface (look and feel, if you prefer) of a csh. tcsh does not. Someone used to work with a real csh simply can't be happy with tcsh, especially if he has to change frequently between using FreeBSD and other systems. It's a real PITA. I understand your thoughts, but I think you write them to the wrong list. Csh now maintained by tcsh people and known under tcsh name. If you want to restore tradition behaviour at some points, write complaints to tcsh developers instead. -- Andrey A. Chernov http://ache.pp.ru/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 01:50:33AM -0500, Jim Bryant wrote: For 5.0, I maybe the black sheep in saying this, but I'd like to see /bin/csh be the real thing for 5.0. By all means, leave tcsh in /bin, but for the sake of backwards compatability, IMHO `ln /bin/tcsh /bin/csh` was a bad idea. Frankly, this isn't going to happen. We went through all this months ago: please just accept the will of the community and drop the matter. Kris Frankly, this exact statement is the sort of reason I didn't try to weigh in on this issue myself when it happened, or any of a dozen other issues. Adding tcsh is fine, renaming it to csh breaks things. That's like renaming less to more... oh wait, we already did that. The argument isn't to not add new software, it's not even to not drop old software. Add tcsh is fine. Get rid of csh is fine. Just don't call tcsh csh, without making sure the csh call is 100% compatible with the last version of csh shipped. If tcsh were csh, then it would be named csh. Guess what? It's named tcsh because it is NOT csh. It's better to have _nothing_ in /bin/csh and be done with it. If that had been done, I'd have been saved several hours of work and research personally to find out why scores of scripts broke, including some things as simple as login prompts that had embedded escape sequences. I won't say anything more on this issue, and probably on no others as I am fairly sure that it won't be listened to. I will just say that I have been using FreeBSD since 2.0-snap, and have been a consistent advocate of it. I have spent many thousands of dollars having merchandise made (pens, cards, etc), which I gave away free in an effort to bring in users. I have converted my entire company to FreeBSD, and I am now seriously looking at alternatives to FreeBSD. Perhaps net or open, perhaps linux, perhaps forking my own distribution. The motto used to be do it right, not do it the way WE want it on OUR machines, and screw the people who don't make the decisions or cause to much trouble to ignore. If you want to know why the user community is so quiet, you need to ask yourself. If you were spoken to this way, if your preferences and needs were consistently ignored on the basis this is a volunteer project, neener!, how likely would you be to bother commenting? I realize I'll probably get flamed for this, but at this point, I no longer care. I won't be paying to have any more pens or cards made, I won't be making any more deals with companies to get free resources for this community, and I may begin transitioning my network soon. I can't keep spending more time fixing this kind of silly cruft than I did installing the os. [ Name : Christine F. Maxwell] [ ICQ : #45010616 ] [ EMail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] [ IRC : Kaila ] [ Home : http://www.cfm.o-o.org/ ] [ BBS : http://www.aci.o-o.org ] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
The motto used to be do it right, not do it the way WE want it on OUR machines, and screw the people who don't make the decisions or cause to much trouble to ignore. It still is. And recognising that csh has evolved over the last decade is part of doing it right. What you're really saying is you didn't do what *I* think is right, and I'm packing up my toys and going home. That's your perogative, but it's hardly the mature stance to be taking. -- ... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt] V I C T O R Y N O T V E N G E A N C E To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
On Sun, 26 Aug 2001, Mike Smith wrote: The motto used to be do it right, not do it the way WE want it on OUR machines, and screw the people who don't make the decisions or cause to much trouble to ignore. It still is. And recognising that csh has evolved over the last decade is part of doing it right. No, doing it right would have been including tcsh and deprecating csh, then dropping it later as has been done with other things. Naming linking it to csh broke things for people who weren't informed it was happeneing, and then had to go and spend hours tracking down the problem and fixing it. What you're really saying is you didn't do what *I* think is right, and I'm packing up my toys and going home. No, what I am saying is I am a long time user who is getting fed up with THIS type of comment and attitude, and that I might as well go find an alternative that Does it right instead of continuing to put up with having this sort of commentary lobbed at people who dare to voice their opinions. That's your perogative, but it's hardly the mature stance to be taking. Read over your response. What did it have to do with my issues? Nothing. It was a defensive reaction, resorting to name calling because you had nothing logical to refute with. Do you call THIS mature? [ Name : Christine F. Maxwell] [ ICQ : #45010616 ] [ EMail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] [ IRC : Kaila ] [ Home : http://www.cfm.o-o.org/ ] [ BBS : http://www.aci.o-o.org ] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 02:57:31PM -0500, Kaila wrote: On Sun, 26 Aug 2001, Mike Smith wrote: Naming linking it to csh broke things for people who weren't informed it was happeneing, and then had to go and spend hours tracking down the problem and fixing it. How could you be uninformed about this change? The csh vs. tcsh bikeshed happen 16 months ago in the freebsd-current mailing list. Speaking up 16 months later is an unusual way to let the developers know you have an opinion on this change. -- Steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 01:20:23PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: Our csh still behaves differently like any /bin/csh on any other system that I know, and can't be easily made to behave like them. This is an assertion. Where is your supporting evidence? Kris PGP signature
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
Andrey A. Chernov wrote: When I wrote real csh, I meant a csh which exhibits the traditional behaviour and user interface (look and feel, if you prefer) of a csh. tcsh does not. Someone used to work with a real csh simply can't be happy with tcsh, especially if he has to change frequently between using FreeBSD and other systems. It's a real PITA. I understand your thoughts, but I think you write them to the wrong list. Csh now maintained by tcsh people and known under tcsh name. If you want to restore tradition behaviour at some points, write complaints to tcsh developers instead. I've been using csh since the early 80's. I can even *gasp!* write csh scripts fairly easily, and do substitution based changes to commands far faster than cursor up 10 times and edit the command. I bitched about this, too, when the switch was being made, but was assured that the system wide defaults and account template defaults would be adjusted to provide traditional behaviour on FreeBSD. I was still grumpy about the change, but that at least was enough to mollify me into not objecting loudly and persitantly up to the import. Let me get this straight, though: _now_ you are saying that the system wide defaults and account template defaults will be whatever the tcsh maintainers say they are, and that any changes that the tcsh maintainers make with instantly and magically be imported into FreeBSD? I think there are a few logic flaws in your plan to have people submit their gripes about the defaults to the tcsh maintainers: 1) They set their defaults the way they like them, and are unlikely to change. 2) A lot of the people who shut up did so on the premise that the defaults would cause tcsh to behave like csh when invoked with that name, and that it was the tcsh users, NOT the csh users, who would have to change away from the system defaults to get their desired behaviour. 3) FreeBSD does not seem to track tcsh changes quickly or religiously enough for a lobbying effort to really be effective. While we may be stuck with this bait-and-switch upgrade, I think his complaints are not co easily addressed. Certainly, the exec complaint remains valid, in any case: it's a bug that csh didn't have. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 14:14:48 -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: While we may be stuck with this bait-and-switch upgrade, I think his complaints are not co easily addressed. Certainly, the exec complaint remains valid, in any case: it's a bug that csh didn't have. Complaints _are_ easily addressed, tcsh author is responsible and fix all thing that I report to him. If you complain about 'upgrade' problem, i.e. we don't have latest tcsh, ask our tcsh maintainer for upgrade. -- Andrey A. Chernov http://ache.pp.ru/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
It still is. And recognising that csh has evolved over the last decade is part of doing it right. No, doing it right would have been including tcsh and deprecating csh, then dropping it later as has been done with other things. This is what was done. The old csh is deprecated, but still available. Naming linking it to csh broke things for people who weren't informed it was happeneing, and then had to go and spend hours tracking down the problem and fixing it. This is what happens when software is upgraded. It's what they call the price of progress. Most people don't seem to mind it until it impacts them personally, and then they tend to overreact. What you're really saying is you didn't do what *I* think is right, and I'm packing up my toys and going home. No, what I am saying is I am a long time user who is getting fed up with THIS type of comment and attitude, and that I might as well go find an alternative that Does it right instead of continuing to put up with having this sort of commentary lobbed at people who dare to voice their opinions. Opinions were voiced. A decision was made, based on those opinions. Anytime there's more than one opinion, there are going to be losers when the decision is made. The key to surviving is to accept the decision and move on, not make it out to be some grand injustice and then use it to somehow enhance the validity of your argument. That's your perogative, but it's hardly the mature stance to be taking. Read over your response. What did it have to do with my issues? What issues? You haven't raised anything concrete that hasn't already been addressed in this thread. Nothing. It was a defensive reaction, resorting to name calling because you had nothing logical to refute with. Do you call THIS mature? I'm attempting to explain to you how to survive in this situation. The lesson is free, but like most advice, if you abuse the giver, they're prone to walk away and leave you be. -- ... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt] V I C T O R Y N O T V E N G E A N C E To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
Steve Kargl wrote: On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 02:57:31PM -0500, Kaila wrote: Naming linking it to csh broke things for people who weren't informed it was happeneing, and then had to go and spend hours tracking down the problem and fixing it. How could you be uninformed about this change? The csh vs. tcsh bikeshed happen 16 months ago in the freebsd-current mailing list. Speaking up 16 months later is an unusual way to let the developers know you have an opinion on this change. The bikeshed was not cross-posted to -stable or -hackers, and someone did an MFC on the change, thus bypassing any discussion about getting the change into -stable? Or the natural progression of version changes pushed the change event into the next release, with no real notification, and no csh is deprecated; used tcsh instead message for one major release (i.e. there was no formal deprecation during which people could change their csh scripts)? -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
Kris Kennaway wrote: On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 01:20:23PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: Our csh still behaves differently like any /bin/csh on any other system that I know, and can't be easily made to behave like them. This is an assertion. Where is your supporting evidence? Hit TAB? -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 03:01:33PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 01:20:23PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: Our csh still behaves differently like any /bin/csh on any other system that I know, and can't be easily made to behave like them. This is an assertion. Where is your supporting evidence? Hit TAB? Controllable behaviour. Next? Kris P.S. It's already been established (and quite blindingly obvious) that tcsh has different defaults than csh, that's not the issue here. PGP signature
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
Kris Kennaway wrote: On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 03:01:33PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 01:20:23PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: Our csh still behaves differently like any /bin/csh on any other system that I know, and can't be easily made to behave like them. This is an assertion. Where is your supporting evidence? Hit TAB? Controllable behaviour. Next? Hit a single ESC? PS: I've got a million of 'em... er, 256 of 'em... 8-) 8-) -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
Terry Lambert wrote: I was still grumpy about the change, but that at least was enough to mollify me into not objecting loudly and persitantly up to the import. Let me get this straight, though: _now_ you are saying that the system wide defaults and account template defaults will be whatever the tcsh maintainers say they are, and that any changes that the tcsh maintainers make with instantly and magically be imported into FreeBSD? I think there are a few logic flaws in your plan to have people submit their gripes about the defaults to the tcsh maintainers: 1)They set their defaults the way they like them, and are unlikely to change. 2)A lot of the people who shut up did so on the premise that the defaults would cause tcsh to behave like csh when invoked with that name, and that it was the tcsh users, NOT the csh users, who would have to change away from the system defaults to get their desired behaviour. 3)FreeBSD does not seem to track tcsh changes quickly or religiously enough for a lobbying effort to really be effective. While we may be stuck with this bait-and-switch upgrade, I think his complaints are not co easily addressed. Certainly, the exec complaint remains valid, in any case: it's a bug that csh didn't have. Terry, first things first, or is it last things first... I had issued myself a boot to the head because I had simply forgotten to background the startx and issue a logout [been so long since i've done things this way, blah blah blah, boot to the head], This was the second message in this thread, and I asked people to disregard my initial post because of this, shortly after sending the initial message. Since then, this has taken a life of it's own. After reading the ensuing posts, I do have to say that although I don't agree with a lot of the posts against adding more defacto-standard shells to the base distribution [remember the thread about a month ago], I at least now understand one of the base arguments behind the arguments against. I'm not trying to revive that topic, I'm just saying I see what was behind some of the arguments in that thread now. Anyhow, I have other things on my mind right now, such as why installworld is expecting a user named 'bind'... jim -- ET has one helluva sense of humor! He's always anal-probing right-wing schizos! _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
Peter Wemm wrote: Jordan Hubbard wrote: Because of certain differences, it cannot be used wholesale as a replacement for csh. Then please enumerate them so that they can be given due attention. This is exactly the sort of detailed feedback that was requested when we first raised the issue of switching over, and nobody could come up with any concrete differences that would cause harm, so the deed was done. We switched for several reasons: 1: csh script interface sucks 2: csh user interface sucks 3: tcsh user interface is one of the better ones. csh is not a serious scripting language and hardly anybody ever uses it as one in scripts that have sufficient complexity to notice the difference. As far as user interfaces go, tcsh is as close to a superset as you can get. That was a step up for the majority of users who actually use it and it is still close enough that built-in finger knowledge works as expected. We made genuine csh available as a port in case somebody *has* to have it for actual scripting that was impossible to tweak to run under tcsh. (see ports/shells/44bsd-csh). Cheers, -Peter Okay, at least this is the closest I've come to hearing an explaination... I was never arguing the utility of tcsh as an interactive shell, hell, like I said, I've ran it since it first appeared on comp.sources.unix.[misc?] many years ago, and use it as my shell of choice on any platform. My question was on the need to turn it into csh, when just including it in the /bin directory as tcsh was enough. I have been reading up on some of the old well-known diffs, and apparently many HAVE been fixed over the years, but as the gentleman who explained his experience earlier in this thread will attest, not all are fixed. For 4.4, the point is moot, if this is the way it is, this is the way it will ship [next week?]... For 5.0, I maybe the black sheep in saying this, but I'd like to see /bin/csh be the real thing for 5.0. By all means, leave tcsh in /bin, but for the sake of backwards compatability, IMHO `ln /bin/tcsh /bin/csh` was a bad idea. jim -- ET has one helluva sense of humor! He's always anal-probing right-wing schizos! _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 01:50:33AM -0500, Jim Bryant wrote: For 5.0, I maybe the black sheep in saying this, but I'd like to see /bin/csh be the real thing for 5.0. By all means, leave tcsh in /bin, but for the sake of backwards compatability, IMHO `ln /bin/tcsh /bin/csh` was a bad idea. Frankly, this isn't going to happen. We went through all this months ago: please just accept the will of the community and drop the matter. Kris PGP signature
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 11:10:53PM -0500, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: So yes, there's a difference. But, on the flip side, I think that the fact that it's been this long without anybody screaming majorly (after the initial shakedown, of course) kinda sums it up. Probably because it's just too late. During the initial discussion, the voices pro and contra were about 50:50 (at least that was my impression), and finally the pro ones succeeded, probably because they had more weight (this is not a democracy anyway). After the change was done and committed, chances to revert it were even smaller. I'm well aware that this discussion now is probably very useless. I'd like to write down my concerns anyway, just to show that there _is_ indeed anybody screaming. If you don't want to read my nagging, stop reading now. :-) I'm not so much opposed to having tcsh in the base, and even in /bin (I'm not using it anyway). Sure, there is the bloat argument, but we also have perl in the base, which is much more of a bloat. (Perl is another story.) _But_ my vote would be for still having a real csh in /bin, additionally. (And don't tell me that tcsh is a real csh -- it's not, see below.) Those who voted for replacing csh with tcsh probably haven't really used csh as their login shell recently, otherwise they would have noticed that it is not a full replacement. There are differences in defaults, yes, but are there differences which can't be fixed by setting options? That's what's being asked. I think that a /bin/csh should behave like a traditional /bin/csh by default already, without having to go through the (large!) tcsh manpage in search for the right options. FWIW, a few csh users have complained to me that the user interface behaves completely different, e.g. filename completion, entering of tabs, certain types of history expansions (!2foo) etc., and they haven't been able to make it behave like a real csh using tcsh options. (If someone knows, for example, how to make it accept a single Esc for filename completion without a delay, please let me know.) I will probably just install the 4.4BSD csh over /bin/csh to get rid of those complaints. I for myself don't really care much, I don't use csh or tcsh (anymore). In singleuser mode I definitely prefer /bin/sh over those nowadays. But I think that users who want a real (i.e. traditional) csh should be able to get one, without having to get used to a user interface that's different from all other systems (Solaris, Tru64, ...). Sure, I could install it as a port (after I have found out that such a port exists -- it's not documented anywhere), but installing or copying the port into /bin isn't exactly a clean solution. Not having a real /bin/csh on a BSD system is like removing /usr/games. Sacrilege. ;-) Just my 2 Euro Cents. Regards Oliver PS: Should we redirect this to -chat? Or perhaps better yet, to private mail. (No Reply-To set, so it's your decision, but please let me know because I'm not normally looking at the -chat folder.) -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH Co KG, Oettingenstr. 2, 80538 München Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. All that we see or seem is just a dream within a dream (E. A. Poe) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
Thus spake Jim Bryant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): It's kinda late in the process to be complaining about this, but I just noticed this myself... That's why it is in the ports collection. Alex -- WELCOME DATACOMP! To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
From: Jim Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing... Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:23:01 -0500 Because of certain differences, it cannot be used wholesale as a replacement for csh. Then please enumerate them so that they can be given due attention. This is exactly the sort of detailed feedback that was requested when we first raised the issue of switching over, and nobody could come up with any concrete differences that would cause harm, so the deed was done. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 09:46:00AM -0700, a little birdie told me that Jordan Hubbard remarked From: Jim Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Because of certain differences, it cannot be used wholesale as a replacement for csh. Then please enumerate them so that they can be given due attention. This is exactly the sort of detailed feedback that was requested when we first raised the issue of switching over, and nobody could come up with any concrete differences that would cause harm, so the deed was done. It blew beets all over the startup script for ROM 2.4 MUD's. It's a crappy script (who the hell scripts in csh anyway? furrfu), but it took me a good half hour to figure out what caused it to suddenly stop working. I always mean to rewrite it in sh, but I ended up just copying in a /bin/csh.realcsh and pointing it over. So yes, there's a difference. But, on the flip side, I think that the fact that it's been this long without anybody screaming majorly (after the initial shakedown, of course) kinda sums it up. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix Systems Administrator |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Specializing in FreeBSD |http://www.over-yonder.net/ The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I haven't figured out how to light the middle yet To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 11:10:53PM -0500, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: So yes, there's a difference. But, on the flip side, I think that the fact that it's been this long without anybody screaming majorly (after the initial shakedown, of course) kinda sums it up. There are differences in defaults, yes, but are there differences which can't be fixed by setting options? That's what's being asked. Kris PGP signature
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
Jordan Hubbard wrote: Because of certain differences, it cannot be used wholesale as a replacement for csh. Then please enumerate them so that they can be given due attention. This is exactly the sort of detailed feedback that was requested when we first raised the issue of switching over, and nobody could come up with any concrete differences that would cause harm, so the deed was done. We switched for several reasons: 1: csh script interface sucks 2: csh user interface sucks 3: tcsh user interface is one of the better ones. csh is not a serious scripting language and hardly anybody ever uses it as one in scripts that have sufficient complexity to notice the difference. As far as user interfaces go, tcsh is as close to a superset as you can get. That was a step up for the majority of users who actually use it and it is still close enough that built-in finger knowledge works as expected. We made genuine csh available as a port in case somebody *has* to have it for actual scripting that was impossible to tweak to run under tcsh. (see ports/shells/44bsd-csh). Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
Why is csh tcsh? There are differences... 4:52:48pm wahoo(6): cmp /bin/csh /bin/tcsh 4:59:12pm wahoo(7): jim -- ET has one helluva sense of humor! He's always anal-probing right-wing schizos! _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
Search the freebsd-arch archives. Big long hairy discussion, culminating in the import of the most recent csh, tcsh. Old csh is available as ports/shells/44bsd-csh. On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 05:03:29PM -0500, Jim Bryant wrote: Why is csh tcsh? There are differences... 4:52:48pm wahoo(6): cmp /bin/csh /bin/tcsh 4:59:12pm wahoo(7): jim -- ET has one helluva sense of humor! He's always anal-probing right-wing schizos! _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message -- Michael Lucas [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.blackhelicopters.org/~mwlucas/ Big Scary Daemons: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/q/Big_Scary_Daemons To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 05:03:29PM -0500, Jim Bryant wrote: Why is csh tcsh? There are differences... 4:52:48pm wahoo(6): cmp /bin/csh /bin/tcsh 4:59:12pm wahoo(7): tcsh is the newer version of csh. Kris PGP signature
Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing...
I'm aware of this, I have used tcsh since it first appeared on comp.sources.unix, many moons ago. Because of certain differences, it cannot be used wholesale as a replacement for csh. I'm all for tcsh being in /bin, but I don't think that it's a good idea to replace the industry-standard csh with tcsh as unexpected problems can occur when a csh script expecting csh behaviour ends up breaking due to the subtle differences between csh and tcsh... It's kinda late in the process to be complaining about this, but I just noticed this myself... To complete your sentance: ..., but it's not a drop-in replacement for csh. Kris Kennaway wrote: On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 05:03:29PM -0500, Jim Bryant wrote: Why is csh tcsh? There are differences... 4:52:48pm wahoo(6): cmp /bin/csh /bin/tcsh 4:59:12pm wahoo(7): tcsh is the newer version of csh. Kris jim -- ET has one helluva sense of humor! He's always anal-probing right-wing schizos! _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
