On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:34:25PM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Chad Perrin <perrin <at> apotheon.com> writes: > > > > 1. You think some measure of popularity of a decision makes it correct. > > No.
Why do you substitute others' email messages for an actual, direct response to my question, then? > > > > 2. You don't like (t)csh. > > No. I just point out it’s not a suitable scripting shell. Who said anything about using it for scripting? The URIs you provided all lead to others talking about what to use as an *interactive* shell. I use tcsh as an interactive shell all the time, and use sh as a scripting shell. Having (t)csh as the default shell in no way means you have to do your admin scripting in (t)csh. > > > > 3. You think your opinions are so self-evident that everybody will just > > immediately understand them, their reasoning, and the best way to proceed > > from there. > > I may have some shortcomings when it comes to getting a point across. You didn't even try to make a point. > > > 1. Is it a good idea to replace (t)csh? > > Probably. (Even Android uses mksh these days.) But that’s up to you > guys. On the other hand, it’s tradition. "Probably." Why? Just saying it's so doesn't make it so. > > But then, I never asked for this (here, I did in other places) either. > See above. What was the point of referring to the "sensible thing", then? > > Anyway, goodnight (and I’ll probably not get back to this thread, > just hope to have brought some thought-provoking impulse). It's not thought-provoking if it doesn't include any thought. If you think you have a compelling argument, you'll have better luck provoking thought by letting us in on it. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
pgp3GC2e85dHU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
