Re: Sysinst default root login shell

[Johnny Billquist <bqt%softjar.se@localhost>]

On 2012-04-10 10.55, David Holland wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:13:41AM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>   >  >plus in the long run the csh family should be allowed to gradually
>   >  >die; there's little to recommend it from a language standpoint...
>   >
>   >  But tcsh is a much nicer (imho) shell for interactive use than sh,
>
> Yes, but not particularly more so than zsh.

Possibly true.

>   >  and I think we are talking about the login shell, and not the shell
>   >  language...
>
> They're not unconnected though.

I fail to see much of a connection. I use tcsh, but I would not dream of 
writing scripts in csh or tcsh because of that. I use sh if I need that.

>   >  I'd say even csh is nicer than sh as an interactive shell.
>
> The genuine Bourne shell, yes; not our sh, which has uses libedit and
> supports filename completion. Granted, the editing in sh does have
> some rough edges; but csh has no editing at all.

csh supports filename completion as well. But right, it does not have 
line editing. But it do have editing, in the form of history 
substitution. And it do have job control (mentioned in another mail as 
something it didn't have).

        Johnny