Re: A bit of Linux advice yet again??

Noons <nsouto_at_optusnet.com.au.nospam> wrote in message news:<Xns9316D357AE01Emineminemine_at_210.49.20.254>...
> Tim X <timx_at_spamto.devnul.com> wrote in
> news:87smv744xl.fsf_at_tiger.rapttech.com.au and I quote:
>
>
>
> > corenv (For csh shells). One thing I've never understood is why Oracle
> > makes such extensive use of csh and even tcsh for shell scripts - even
> > 13 years ago when I first started unix, the rule of thumb was to only
> > ever use csh/tcsh as an interactive shell and stick to sh for all
> > scripts (or perhaps ksh).
>
>
> Yes, very much the same here. Never understood why one would
> bother with the csh. Even for interactive: most of the stuff
> it did over and above sh is readily available in ksh. And
> ksh is vanilla to make compatible with any bourne scripts.
>
> I guess it must have been one of those old "Berkeley vs AT&T"
> fights: csh seemed to be the thing for Berkeley people.

I got the impression it was more globally due to the use of C programming in universities. Then the kiddies would get out in the world and do what they knew from class. I saw one big-time product with multiple levels of csh calling sh calling csh caling sh, including the ocassional script labelled .csh with a #!/bin/sh at the start...

ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-hierarchy/comp/answers/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot

jg

--
@home is bogus.
Or was it the other way 'round?