Sending Tcsh to packages/ports ...

Mayuresh Kathe mayuresh at
Fri Mar 29 13:38:47 UTC 2019

On 2019-03-29 04:59 PM, Daniel Feenberg wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2019, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
>> Since Tcsh is usually imported, why not send it to packages/ports 
>> collection?
>> I agree that "csh" is an historically important artifact, but do we 
>> need to still rely on that?
>> I have been using "csh" ever since I started using FreeBSD, liked it, 
>> but it doesn't feel light like plain old "sh" nor is as feature-full 
>> as "bash". To top that, the installer asks me to choose between "csh" 
>> and "tcsh" in-spite of being the same binary.
> ed and csh are important for those that use them. I use both, not
> always, but enough to see the importance of keeping them in the OS.
> There is a fallacious style of argument that decodes to "If a is
> better than b, then b is no good and it is a sign of bad character to
> use b". There are many cases where the transition costs of moving to
> different dependencies will be significant, especially for less well
> informed users.

What if you had access to your preferred tools via packages/ports?


More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list