David Brownlee writes:
> 	a) perl, tcsh, bash - Perl is just so useful to be able to depend
> 	   on having on a system for scripts etc. And I guess everyone
> 	   who knows about them will pull down tcsh/bash or similar and
> 	   install them for the extra features. How feasible would it be 
> 	   to replace sh & csh with bash & tcsh? Or at least have them

Nope, never...

As one who makes a living writing shell scripts (among other things)
to run on multiple platforms (ah, lets see, NetBSD, SunOS 4.x, HP-UX,
Solaris, UTS, SysVr[34]... you get the idea) nothing irks me more than
systems that don't have standard shells.

While I maintained the pd-ksh for quite a few years, _I_ never write
shell scripts for anything but the bourne shell.  And didn't I just
love having to re-write a bunch of stuff to be ksh compatible because
HPsUX's /bin/sh is about SysVr2 vintage and still has all the
bugs... and /bin/ksh was the only shell they have that works.

If it can't be done easily in bourne shell/sed/awk etc, I use perl.

All I'm saying is, by all means have /bin/{bash,zsh,tcsh,ksh} etc but
leave /bin/sh as it is. 

BTW I think you'll find that by the time they've finished POSIXizing
/bin/sh it will be _almost_ the Korn shell, so you'll have history,
command line editing etc etc.

--sjg