Subject: Re: Packages for NetBSD (Was: Why are there two 4.4BSD dev. groups)
To: Ted Lemon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Eric Hvozda - API <email@example.com>
Date: 01/09/1995 08:06:10
> 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.
That'd be me :-)
I'd rather run csh than tcsh or bash. I know both exist, but I'm more than
happy with csh and I personally don't want the extra features or bloat in
my shell of choice.
One time I had a network provider actually make my shell a tcsh instead of
csh. I can tell the difference. Dambit, if I ask for csh I MEAN csh,
not tcsh :-)
I think things should currently stay as they are; if you want something,
you are responsible to add it. perl is a borderline for me, but I really
don't mind grabbing it and making it myself. I feel the core team has
better things to do with their time than to deal with the coordination of
these extra 'goodies'. However, the idea that non-core people come
forward and create these add ons as post install thing is neat...