Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mira.net.au!inquo!news.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!somsky From: somsky@dirac.phys.washington.edu (William R. Somsky) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: /bin/sh isn't Bourne shell Date: 1 Feb 1996 18:42:19 GMT Organization: University of Washington Lines: 25 Message-ID: <4er1ib$rnv@nntp5.u.washington.edu> References: <4ekrik$rlf@eccles.dsbc.icl.co.uk> <DM1x4C.GML@deshaw.com> <4eo70i$o7j@eccles.dsbc.icl.co.uk> <xcdg2cvangz.fsf@woodlawn.uchicago.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: dirac.phys.washington.edu In article <xcdg2cvangz.fsf@woodlawn.uchicago.edu>, Soren Dayton <csdayton+usenet@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote > Our friend, ejr@dickens.bra01.icl.co.uk (Ed Randall), wrote: > > [...] > > > Or are you now going to tell me that the POSIX specification >+> says that "root" > > must use "/bin/csh" as the default (i.e. like it installs) ??! > > I will confess that this _really_ pisses me off too. > Not saying that it might not be a problem, but what _is_ the problem with "/bin/csh" as root's default shell? If it's a matter of personal preference or "the way it's always been done", I can certainly understand it (whether I may or may not agree with it). Is there any difficulty w/ having root's login shell being different than /bin/sh other than it not being what a person logged into/su'd to root might expect? ________________________________________________________________________ William R. Somsky somsky@phys.washington.edu Department of Physics, Box 351560 B432 Physics-Astro Bldg Univ. of Washington, Seattle WA 98195-1560 206/616-2954