Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!unixhub!shelby!csli!poser
From: poser@csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Kolstad's Konjecture
Message-ID: <17937@csli.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 27 Feb 91 04:07:32 GMT
References: <1991Feb22.211643.12151@linus.mitre.org> <1991Feb25.184544.20726@convex.com> <14378@ulysses.att.com>
Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U.
Lines: 9

In article <14378@ulysses.att.com> kpv@ulysses.att.com (Phong Vo[drew]) writes:
>csh didn't make it because it wasn't compatible to sh.

Hmm. I certainly don't know the statistics, but I don't think I've EVER
met anybody outside of AT&T who uses sh rather than csh. I used sh
when I was at Bell, and almost immediately switched to csh when I came
to Stanford. Is it really correct to say that "csh didn't make it"?

Bill