[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/10]
Martin Ebourne wrote: > On Sat, 2006-12-09 at 16:43 +0200, Yossi Kreinin wrote: > >>P.P.P.S. why is tcsh located in different places in SuSE and RHEL? I'm not >>saying that one of the locations is right, just that, um, I don't /understand/ >>the person that saw the stupid program located in some stupid place and said >>"hmmm, I know a MUCH BETTER place!". What makes a human move a shell? > > > P.P.P.P.S. Why are you using tcsh anyway? With a choice of perfectly > usable (if not, unfortunately, actually perfect) shells such as zsh or > bash, there's no excuse for using a csh derivative. Heck, there's even > ksh-93 if you're really keen. I use tcsh because other people use it for writing scripts I have to run. Those people use tcsh to write these scripts because these scripts set environment variables, so you must source them, not execute in a sub-shell, and people use tcsh as the interactive shell because that's the default system configuration around here, and so they source scripts from tcsh, so there you are. Why am I using English? Because that's what a lot of people use. There are languages out there which are simpler/shorter/more convenient for me personally, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that you use it, so I have to use it too. If I could choose, I wouldn't use Linux at all. > > As to the location, maybe someone didn't see where it was and decide on > a better place. Maybe two people independently wondered where to put it > and came up with different solutions. > > Of course, one of them therefore must be wrong, and since the shell > should always be in /bin it should be obvious who was the dunce. All is well as long as one uses #!/bin/env tcsh in all scripts (the forked kind, not the sourced kind). Which is not always the case.There's stuff above here
Generated at 22:02 on 27 Dec 2006 by mariachi 0.52