> On Sun, 30 Jul 1995 19:09:06 +0200 (MET DST)  Blaz Zupan wrote:
> > Looking at tcsh I see it is more advanced then the original
> > NetBSD csh. I wonder why we don't replace csh with tcsh.
> > Is it historical reasons? Copyright problems? Or are there
> > any features in csh that are not present in tcsh?
> 
> One can always get tcsh and compile and install it themselves,
> why bloat the source tree?

Let's change the question: Why not include tcsh in the default
distribuition ?  Some may not like tcsh, but other may.  It's
something like choosing between sh, bash, sh5 and ksh, I think. :)

					Jonny

--
Joao Carlos Mendes Luis			jonny@coe.ufrj.br
+55 21 290-4698 ( Job )			jonny@adc.coppe.ufrj.br
Network Manager				UFRJ/COPPE/CISI
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro