Subject: Re: Packages for NetBSD (Was: Why are there two 4.4BSD dev. groups)
To: matthew green <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Ted Lemon <email@example.com>
Date: 01/08/1995 19:46:37
> the shells, well, no. if you do one, you need to do them all,
> and that's just too many.
DEC and Sun both ship versions of the C shell that support filename
completion. I don't know of anybody who runs csh instead of tcsh by
choice - in general it's because they don't know tcsh is out there.
If they were given tcsh instead of csh, they'd be perfectly happy, and
might not even notice for a while.
I can't think of a good justification for standardizing on bash (GPL
aside), since it's such a wild departure from the Bourne shell, but I
don't see any reason for standardizing on plain csh instead of tcsh...
I too agree on shipping perl standard - doing meaningful install
scripts in Bourne shell is certainly possible, but who has the time to
hack that stuff? If we could count on perl being present, I suspect
a lot more would happen on that front.
Ted Lemon firstname.lastname@example.org
+1 415 477 5045
Fight to preserve your freedom to program: Join the League for
Programming Freedom! For info, contact email@example.com.