We once upgraded a major research department from csh to tcsh (while also migrating most users to bash). A senior leader complained that when they hit the up arrow, the last command they typed showed up.<p>I explained how to disable readline
<i>In the recent history sh(1) has gain the missing features for it to
become a usable interractive shell:<p>- command completion<p>- ...</i><p>Too much bloat for my tastes.
A die-hard tcsh user myself, I mourn the end of an era, but has anyone done serious scripting in the C shell? I jokingly call it a sin in the eyes of the LORD, but seriously, it really, really sucks compared to even just the POSIX shell. It's probably time for me to finally give into Bash or zsh or something equally modern. Might be nice to get access to all of those shell completion hooks some tools have—not because tcsh doesn't offer custom completions, but because most tools don't target it. And so it goes.
I am not a freebsd user, been on linux since 1992, but most of the time I read something about freebsd users and it seems like they want to be some older unix, like Solaris or True64 or something.
>"This changes also simplifies making tiny freebsd images with only sh(1) as a shell"<p>What's the current process to make extremely small "minimal" freebsd server install?<p>Is it Nanobsd[1], because the unfortunate downside is that the base can't change (I realize that's a feature) and for a web server or database server that might not be ideal.<p>[1] <a href="https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/nanobsd/" rel="nofollow">https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/nanobsd/</a>
So am I reading correctly that they wanted to use sh for a while, and it just finally got needed features? This message says "what" but not "why", and while as a user I prefer sh over csh:), I'm curious why the project switched.
I've been a tcsh user for nearly 30 years, but I also believe /bin/sh should be as minimal and reliable as possible, the Bourne shell (or ash), certainly not a bloated monstrosity like bash or zsh. Even ksh is too big for my taste.
Obligatory "CSH considered harmful" by Tom Christiansen around 1995.<p><a href="http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot" rel="nofollow">http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot</a>
About damn time.<p>Whichever shell you might prefer, it's absurd and infuriating to have one shell as the default for normal users (including the first user created at installation time), and a completely different, not even remotely compatible one for the superuser.