Upgrading to FreeBSD 3.2 etc

Richard Smith richard
Wed Sep 1 08:52:06 BST 1999

Mark Ovens wrote:
> [treading carefully in the minefield of religious wars]
> I guess it's what you're used to. I got introduced to UNIX on a
> Sun386i (yes, an INTEL 386 in a Sun box - it showed just what a
> pig's ear M$ made of exploiting the power of Intel's first 32-bit
> chip) about 10 years ago. Of course csh is the default shell on
> Suns, and I've used it that long I know my way around it, ``!!''
> history and all.
> I've read numerous posts expounding the virttues of bash. zsh etc
> but never felt the need to change because I've not found anything
> I can't do with csh (my Sun at work has ~300 aliases set up (I can
> remember ~90% of them)), but I agree that for a newbie from the
> DOS/Win world other shells would be more intuitive, arrow key
> history etc.

Exactly. There's no point in trying to learn to be productive with a new
tool (shell, editor), when you're already perfectly productive with the
one you know, even if someone else _does_ say "it sucks" for them.

A lot of the traditional unix tools (vi, emacs) are designed for CLI
because that's all there was. The newcomer, perhaps used to CUA and
pull-down menus, is overwhelmed by all these magic key sequences they
now have to learn, and that's after deciding _which_ tool to learn.

I use emacs, but only with the CUA extension (I can't use emacs at the
CLI), and I use zsh because I have configured it to "feel" like 4DOS/NT
(a v.good replacement shell for that other popular operating system).


- who tries to save files in MS-Word using C-x C-s, and tries to exit
using C-x C-c, the former does at least accomplish the objective :)

More information about the Ukfreebsd mailing list