csh on 3b2's?

[David Herron, NPR Lover]

Why do you want the csh there?  

I can think of two reasons only:

1)  Aliases -- but the SysVr2 shell's shell procedures are MUCH MUCH
    better.
2)  History -- But there was some patches posted by somebody at GaTech
    about a year ago (Was it Arnold Robbins???  I don't recall, if so
    he's at Emory now).  The patches are for SysVr2 shell on SysV, same
    shell on 4.2BSD and Bezerkely's Bourne shell on 4.2BSD.  The history
    is different from the csh's mechanism so I haven't gone through
    the trouble of learning it completely but that's mainly because
    I still use csh from time to time...


I find the csh to be badly thought out in general -- I don't understand
why people think it's so neat..  

There *are* a few problems with gsh (that's what I'm calling the sVr2
shell with those patches) but they're really because Arnold (?) doesn't
have time to really debug the thing (and neither do I for that matter).

Fr'instance, occasionally it crashes on me in a similar way to the bug
people have been talking about (Re: memory allocation) when I use history.
Also on BSD systems it doesn't do the same things the csh does with
process groups -- The controlling shell stays in the same process
group as the processes it execs which occasionally causes odd behavior.


-- 
David Herron,  cbosgd!ukma!david, david at UKMA.BITNET, david at uky.csnet