From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


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)

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)
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.) 01:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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:

Still many systems use the c-shell as their default root shell. Why is this so? 13:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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


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

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)


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

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. (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC) closed source non free proprietary

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 (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

tcsh *IS* the default root shell for FreeBSD (and has been for the last 18 years), as you can easily confirm here:
Revision (latest) - Fri Nov 11 04:20:22 2011 UTC:;content-type=text%2Fplain
Revision 1.1: Sun Jun 20 13:41:37 1993 UTC:;content-type=text%2Fplain
Full CVS history: (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

nobody cares about who was a lead engineer in osx, nor about the existence of such a lead there, nor how that thing worked. this is mainly because this article is about tsch, and not about the annoying, noisy declarations of self promoted 'uniqueness' of apple things and how not like they all have been made like that above. but also because of insignificance of that osx, hey, this topic maybe interesting only to apple fans, but they are so f###ing dumb that they even don't understand what the OS is, not to mention how it is developed, all they need to know, that apple is unique, nevermind what this really means. any other people have not any interest of what that thing 'was worked'. instead of putting such a garbage here, it will be better, if someone sitting on the real computer, not some overpriced iCrap or this shitty android tab which i am sitting on, just put the normal screenshot wich would illustrate the shell in work, instead of the current useless garbage output of some zealot's masturbation with his crappyx distro. (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC) gedzi