4 ms·
I'm trying to remember why I was dealing with csh/tcsh so much on MIT's Athena in the late 1990s. Perhaps tcsh was the default shell there (or maybe just on th
by KMag 6y ago
I'm trying to remember why I was dealing with csh/tcsh so much on MIT's Athena in the late 1990s. Perhaps tcsh was the default shell there (or maybe just on the Solaris or IRIX workstations). Maybe some old-timer convinced me early on to change my default to tcsh.
In any case, csh and tcsh have some painful corner-case behaviors [0]
[0] http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
- kkylin 6y agoThat's my memory of Athena from those days as well, though I cannot say why that was. Definitely agree with csh and tcsh being painful. But being the first shell I got to know, I still know it well and better than the alternatives...
- watersb 6y agoBSD default shell was csh in late 80s into at least 1990. Switched to tcsh for the readline editing and history search.
- usr1106 6y agoSame here, tcsh was the thing in the 1990s. I would have claimed bash came only with Linux. That's not true. But it was not very known at the days. I guess only Linux changed that, using it as default shell in many distros. tcsh had the reputation of being more usable than Bourne shell. (The quirks related to programming meant the cautious people used it only interactively.) So Bourne again did never sound like good marketing to me. It took me years to try it even after the years I had not even heard about it.