Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!amdahl!pyramid!prls!mips!dce
From: dce@mips.COM (David Elliott)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Why csh still wins (was Re: Thank you, Bill Joy!)
Message-ID: <3048@dunkshot.mips.COM>
Date: 4 Sep 88 14:40:08 GMT
References: <2910@dunkshot.mips.COM> <194@cvbnet2.UUCP>
Reply-To: dce@dunkshot.UUCP (David Elliott)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 32

In article <194@cvbnet2.UUCP> aperez@cvbnet2.UUCP (Arturo Perez Ext.) writes:
>Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the main reason people
>continued to use the C shell is because it has job control.  I don't
>have access to a ksh so I don't know anything about it, really.

1. There are System V-based systems without job control but with csh.

2. There are versions of sh, including ksh, that support job control
   on systems with job control (BSD, AUX, etc.).

I'm not sure if you meant it this way, but I've had a lot of people ask
me "Do we have csh on System V? I really like job control".  The shell
only implements a job control interface, the actual job control is done
by the kernel.

Ksh has job control interface support in it, so ksh on a system with
job control will allow you to stop, foreground, and background jobs.

I maintain that the reason people stick with csh is that they are used
to the interface and would prefer not to change.

I'd also like to ask that the person who said that they could do
the function of !$ with less keystrokes would show us.  As a challenge,
please reproduce:

	% ls -l /etc/pass*
	...
	% size !$
	{equivalent to "size /etc/pass*"}

-- 
David Elliott		dce@mips.com  or  {ames,prls,pyramid,decwrl}!mips!dce