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.
