.csh_alias - Re: What good is the default .alias file?
On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 22:23:31 -0500 (CDT), Nathan E Norman wrote:
>:>It is good because it contains csh/tcsh aliases, not bash aliases. A
>:>slightly different beast.
>:
>:Ahhhhh.
>:Next question.....why is it not named .csh_alias ?
>
>Well, most likely because the C Shell was the first to support aliases.
>At that time the bourne shell didn't support much in the way of the
>features we're used to now. So, the logical decision was to name the
>file .alias, since it would be such a great feature that noone would
>ever have to design or use another shell ...
: P
Well I'd like to put a vote in to rename it .csh_alias in the future. Seems
like good practice to me, and I will be changing it on my system.
I also plan to make up a .bash_alias file, and put a little for loop in
.bash_profile to execute it.
I'm a firm believer in providing some (easily commented out) features with
the generic user account. My new users get treated to a nice color prompt,
color enabled ls alias (as well as others), and a simple test webpage.
If they don't like it, let them put a few hash marks in their profile, and
rm thier html dir. It's easier then staring at a '$' for hours on end
wondering what to do next. Been there when I was a DOS monkey. Didn't like
it, and it turned me off to Unix immediately.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Elite MicroComputers 908-541-4214 http://www.psychosis.com/emc/
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: