--ncSAzJYg3Aa9+CRW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 08:22:05PM +0200, Jaromir Dolecek wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 09:17:46PM +0300, Mindaugas wrote:
> > > FWIW, I liked the idea suggesting to replace our /bin/csh with tcsh.
> > I think it is a good idea. tcsh is compatible with csh - the main
> > NetBSD's shell, it can be friendly and comfortable shell.
>=20
> No, it's not good idea - using tcsh means introducing tcsh
> into base, and I don't think that's a good idea.

Why? We have a "more than simple" sh shell (ksh), why not a "more than=20
simple" csh shell?

Folks really like either sh-style shells or csh-style shells. What is=20
wrong with having both, modulo the discussion about the size of tcsh?

Take care,

Bill

--ncSAzJYg3Aa9+CRW
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFFIV2SWz+3JHUci9cRAn6BAJwKlL3YU4dPWUFqFVg8XJ1oVY0enQCePTTe
rNk93+hP6JJ/EYzzZUXeCx8=
=PirU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--ncSAzJYg3Aa9+CRW--