Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!ulysses!hector!ekrell
From: ekrell@hector.UUCP (Eduardo Krell)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Should ``csh'' be part of the System V distribution?
Message-ID: <10306@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Date: 20 May 88 13:03:22 GMT
References: <10295@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <770@yabbie.rmit.oz>
Sender: netnews@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com
Reply-To: ekrell@hector (Eduardo Krell)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 14

In article <770@yabbie.rmit.oz> rcodi@yabbie.UUCP writes:

>The rest would have just used whatever was going and was advised to
>them by somebody else, who may or may not have evaluated both shells
>either.

Not so. Everyone in my department, for example, came from a BSD environment
(in Universities) where csh was the only shell they ever used (myself
included). They've never heard of ksh and they've never used the bourne
shell either. All of them eventually switched over to ksh and have never
gone back to csh.
    
    Eduardo Krell                   AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ

    UUCP: {ihnp4,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell		ARPA: ekrell@ulysses.att.com