Slashdot Mirror


Apple Switches tcsh for bash

gklinger writes "AppleInsider is reporting that Apple has switched from tcsh to bash in the the latest developer build (7B44) of Mac OS X 10.3 (Panther). There is speculation that the switch was made to appeal to Linux users. Experienced users get pretty religious about their shells so what remains to be seen is how diehard tcsh users will react." I don't know about appealing to Linux users in particular, but I just don't know many people who prefers tcsh these days, on any platform. It seems like everyone is using bash or zsh.

7 of 265 comments (clear)

  1. Re:*CSH IS DYING by computerme · · Score: 4, Insightful

    you can do updates from the command line...

    as for emacs...

    I found this:

    http://www.porkrind.org/emacs/

    In under three seconds. Geez...

    And btw, It already is REAL unix, and not only is it the highest volume shipping version of unix on the planet, but apple did what NO other software company has been able to do in the 30+ year history of unix. The made it usable by the masses.

    Care to give them at least an ounce of credit now?

  2. Re:One of my biggest girpes about OS X by computerme · · Score: 5, Insightful

    yes you can. Some people just like to complain. It makes them feel better or something...

  3. Couldnt anyone that really cares... by ErisCalmsme · · Score: 5, Insightful

    just install whatever shell they wanted to use anyway? Im sure anyone that has shell scripting in mind also knows how to install their own shell the correctly right?

    --
    Chaos is Divine *
  4. I use tcsh as my interactive shell. by molo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    tcsh works perfectly well as an interactive shell. It has some severe problems when it comes to scripting, so I do my scripting in portable bourne shell.. but tcsh is perfectly functional as an interactive shell. I use it under linux, solaris, aix, hpux, and cygwin without issue.

    That said, I'm not surprised that apple change to a bourne-compatible shell. Bourne has been the unix standard for a long time, so changing to this makes sense. It means that all of the unix examples out there will work out of the box and not have to be translated into csh syntax. This is probably a good thing. People can still exec tcsh if they like.

    -molo

    --
    Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
  5. Would someone please tell me... by cryptochrome · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's so great about bash and/or zsh? Now that I've gotten used to tcsh I'm not sure why it should change. They all seem pretty much the same to me, except the do the same things in slightly different ways.

    If you ask me, the default shell should be whichever one with a history that loads the fastest. Many os x users only use terminal.app for the occasional foray into command-line-only commands (like me). Waiting for your shell to load are precious seconds wasted.

    --

    ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

  6. How diehard tcsh users will respond: by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful


    bash-2.04$ chsh /bin/tcsh

  7. Now, about "ps" by The+Bum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a mild gripe, but I'd like to see a version of "ps" that follows the Linux conventions for arguments. I work with three *nix operating systems: OS X, Linux, and HP-UX. The arguments are mostly the same between Linux and HP-UX, e.g. "ps -ef" for a listing of all processes. I invariably try typing that same command in OS X, only to remember, after being told that the arguments are invalid, that the equivalent command is "ps -ax". Annoying!