Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!oberon!sdcrdcf!trwrb!cadovax!gryphon!sarima From: sarima@gryphon.CTS.COM (Stan Friesen) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: Should ``csh'' be part of the System V distribution? Keywords: csh==Berkeley shell, should it be in System V or not? Message-ID: <4065@gryphon.CTS.COM> Date: 18 May 88 01:36:14 GMT References: <2599@usceast.UUCP> <2601@usceast.UUCP> Reply-To: sarima@gryphon.CTS.COM (Stan Friesen) Organization: Trailing Edge Technology, Redondo Beach, CA Lines: 31 Posted: Tue May 17 18:36:14 1988 In article <2601@usceast.UUCP> still@cs.scarolina.edu (Bert Still) writes: > >Ok, it's been a little while since we had a real good "religious war" here in >comp.unix.wizards, and I have this strange feeling that this might turn into >one of those... however, here we go. (In the classic style of debate.) > >RESOLVED that csh should be included as a part of System V in the same sense > that the ``vi'' editor, and TCP/IP have been included. > >TRANSLATION: I have heard several vendors of System V based UN*X state that > the Berkeley shell is not provided as a part of their > distribution because they do not perceive a need in the user > community for csh. > > > Anyone out there have an opinion? I *refuse* to use the Bourne Shell since it lacks a history mechanism, which I consider imperative in an *interactive* shell. The Korn Shell has a history mechanism, so it MAY be acceptible. That is if the history mechanism is easily used. I am somewhat concerned that it does not provide a quick and dirty way of snagging the one or more of the arguments of the previous command though. I find I use that capability in csh more than I use the editing capability. Certainly the *editing* capability in the Korn Shell is very nice. So, all in all, I would prefer to see the C-shell on any system I work on. But I would be willing to at least try the Korn Shell if I had to. -- Sarima Cardolandion sarima@gryphon.CTS.COM aka Stanley Friesen rutgers!marque!gryphon!sarima Sherman Oaks, CA