Sending Tcsh to packages/ports ...

[Polytropon]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 19:08:16 +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> 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?

The core problem is an educated consensus about what should
be the default content of the OS. Access to ports or packages
usually implies that you have (a) the installation media, or
(b) Internet access. In cases where this does not apply, for
reasons like "didn't think about that", "our Internet doesn't
work", "Security! Security! Security!" and more, you should
definitely _not_ be left with an OS that doesn't have a usable
interactive shell or an editor. The mentality of "you can always
install it afterwards" should not be applied to basic OS tools
and demands.



-- 
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...