From owner-freebsd-bugs Tue Jun 1 13: 7:29 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from wopr.caltech.edu (wopr.caltech.edu [131.215.240.222]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B652614ECD for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:07:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mph@wopr.caltech.edu) Received: (from mph@localhost) by wopr.caltech.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) id NAA21646; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:07:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mph) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:07:14 -0700 From: Matthew Hunt To: Craig Johnston Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: root's shell Message-ID: <19990601130714.B21176@wopr.caltech.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4i In-Reply-To: ; from Craig Johnston on Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 03:00:53PM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 03:00:53PM -0500, Craig Johnston wrote: > Root's shell is csh. This is a bug. You have strange notions of "bug". > Is there any reason for this besides tradition? Why even bother > with csh anymore? If we're gonna give root a shell with job control, > why not ksh, or anything but csh? You get sh and csh in the base system. You don't get ksh. The default, therefore, will be sh or csh. I guess it's BSD tradition to prefer csh and family for interactive shells, so it's csh instead of sh. I happen to change it to sh, myself. > Isn't it time for csh to go? Why should it? You can change it to whatever the hell you want to. Or you can leave it alone, and use "su -m" and get whatever fancy shell you like, be it bash, tcsh, ksh, or zsh. -- Matthew Hunt * Science rules. http://www.pobox.com/~mph/ * To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message