Subject: Re: csh vs. tcsh
To: Blaz Zupan <email@example.com>
From: Eric S. Hvozda <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/31/1995 04:45:30
On Sun, 30 Jul 1995 19:09:06 +0200 (MET DST) Blaz Zupan wrote:
> Looking at tcsh I see it is more advanced then the original
> NetBSD csh. I wonder why we don't replace csh with tcsh.
> Is it historical reasons? Copyright problems? Or are there
> any features in csh that are not present in tcsh?
Because some of us don't want to use a shell that's even more bloated?
While I have played with tcsh from time to time, I find that it's
out of the box defaults wherever I have used it are quite annoying;
and quite frankly, I don't use any of the goodies it has.
csh has been _exactly_ the same everwhere I've used it save
DECs OSF/1 on the AXP ( '^foo' doesn't remove 'foo' from the last
command; you must use '^foo^'; yes, I find it annoying).
I have not found this to be true of tcsh, once again due to out
of the box defaults.
One can always get tcsh and compile and install it themselves,
why bloat the source tree?