Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 15:37:17 -0800 From: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> To: Adam <amvandemore@gmail.com> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org>, <sjg@juniper.net> Subject: Re: Importing mksh in base Message-ID: <15662.1548545837@kaos.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <CA%2BtpaK3i3fOZ-maSwhCGJ0GScv-suwf7-1214YnZH-Ne8Ktcig@mail.gmail.com> References: <20190125165751.kpcjjncmf7j7maxd@ivaldir.net> <CA%2BtpaK3i3fOZ-maSwhCGJ0GScv-suwf7-1214YnZH-Ne8Ktcig@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Adam <amvandemore@gmail.com> wrote: > I do not wish to have a bash like root shell since imo its interactive mode I don't know why eveyone is fixating on bash. ksh is *not* bash. A /bin/sh compatible shell with good user interaction, is great. You can cut/paste lines from shell scripts to test interactively rather than have to first spawn /bin/sh > isn't that great. I don't think conformity is a great argument for change > in this regard. I don't see any other advantage to this change. I could > be wrong but I also think it might be incorrect to say bash is the default > root shell on other BSD's. I don't think anyone said that. ksh is one of the options for root shell on netbsd - has been for at least a decade or so. I've always used ksh as root shell. > If there is some change to the root shell, I'd rather see it to be zsh > which does have a good interactive mode. FWIW I never liked zsh - seemed a bit like bash - trying to be a hybrid of every shell that ever was. Believe it or not, some people do not like csh at all, and will use anything else. --sjg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15662.1548545837>