Subject: csh vs. tcsh (Oh No! Shell Wars again...)
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Gordon W. Ross <email@example.com>
Date: 08/01/1995 13:11:13
Oh, No! Let's not rekindle the Shell Wars again...
How many shells does an _operating_system_ need anyway?
> From: Joao Carlos Mendes Luis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 16:22:51 -0300 (EST)
> > 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?
> > One can always get tcsh and compile and install it themselves,
> > why bloat the source tree?
> Let's change the question: Why not include tcsh in the default
> distribuition ? Some may not like tcsh, but other may. It's
> something like choosing between sh, bash, sh5 and ksh, I think. :)