Talk:tcsh

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

Linux Low‑importance

	Linux portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Naming[edit]

Does anyone know if tcsh is known as the TENEX C-shell or the Turbo C-shell? I've heard it called both, but what is the official ruling? --Curtisf14 15:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The official site, or whoever is developing it nowadays (same thing), doesn't seem to say. Debian votes for TENEX, however, and I can't find even cursory mentions of "turbo". -- Gwern (contribs) 16:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's some variant of TENEX/TWENEX/TOPS-20, most probably TENEX; I was one of the early users/developers. The completion and help features were a deliberate knock-off of the TENEX shell, hence the name. (Many people don't realize it has a ton of builtin help features, including the ability to give completions and suggestions apropos to the particular command/argument being edited.) 12.103.251.203 01:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the c-shell[edit]

Is it worth mentioning that the c-shell has many problems? (for example it's not possible to independently redirect stdout and stderr). Have a look at: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/

Still many systems use the c-shell as their default root shell. Why is this so?

217.229.204.107 13:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main requirement for a root shell is that it depends on as few libraries as possible. So that they can all be on the root mount. You do not want to lose access to the root shell just because some drive didn't mount. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tcsh has many (all?) of the underlying problems with csh fixed, so that concern actually isn't relevant here. 96.254.7.18 (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(????) Sorry, but your statement is a little too bold. Does tcsh address the independent redirect issue (stdout/stderr)? I don't think it ever solved that. To this day I come across tcsh scripts that fire off a temporary BASH invocation when that is needed.Tgm1024 (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation[edit]

Taco-shell is also a valid and popular pronunciation of tcsh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.84.35 (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my claim in the edit comment I now remember that I have heard tcsh pronounced as T-shell. however, the pronounciation TC-shell is much more common in my experience. Both are now listed in the article. Robert Brockway 02:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking back, the most common way I've heard folks refer to the C-Shell is as "csh" ("see-es-AYCH"). Odd. I almost never hear "TC shell" spoken as such. I hear "tcsh" ("tee-see-es-AYCH"). Not sure why, since they weren't referring to the shell invocation, but the shell itself. Tgm1024 (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just commenting to say thanks for the pronunciation guide. I thought it was pronounced similarly to the noise I make when I sneeze. You can imagine how embarrassed I was upon learning it is pronounced "tee-see-es-AYCH" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.186.248.240 (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot[edit]

This screenshot is worthless! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.13.70 (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose almost 7 years ago, you was looking at the same ugly screenshot that i do now. That with heap of repeating garbage urls absolutely not having any deal with demonstrating the shell's specifics or characteristics. I believe it meets the wikipedia's copyright-related requirements though.

77.52.154.61 (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC) closed source non free proprietary[reply]

Default Shell in which Operating Systems?[edit]

tcsh is not the default shell for FreeBSD, I can't speak for other BSD systems and for that reason I haven't updated the main page. User:Andy Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.174.147.168 (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tcsh *IS* the default root shell for FreeBSD (and has been for the last 18 years), as you can easily confirm here:

Revision 1.42.2.1.2.1 (latest) - Fri Nov 11 04:20:22 2011 UTC:

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/etc/master.passwd?rev=1.42.2.1.2.1;content-type=text%2Fplain

Revision 1.1: Sun Jun 20 13:41:37 1993 UTC:

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/etc/master.passwd?rev=1.1;content-type=text%2Fplain

Full CVS history:

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/etc/master.passwd

90.180.11.176 (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some anonymous complaint[edit]

Someone had decided to use a failed up HTML-style comment to talk in the article. Here's his complaint, cut from inside the "THE T IN TCSH" reference tag. -- SnoFox^(t|c) 20:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the idea here is not clear. I didn't understand if tenex had file name completion or command completion or both. if ken was inspired by the command name completion then why did he work on a file name completion feature and command name completion was done by Mike. Please clear the ambiguity in the above sentence.

Fred Sanchez was not Mac OS X's lead engineer[edit]

As one of the engineers there at the time I can say absolutely that Fred was not Mac OS X's lead engineer, that isn't how the project worked. If there was a 'lead' for the entire project it was probably Avie, But over in the kernel team I'd say it was JoeS. Fred did convert many of the *bsd **/*bin projects to Apple's build system. This probably did include tcsh at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.129.224.36 (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]