From owner-freebsd-security  Sun Jan 16 16:50:17 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBCCD1516E
	for <freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 16:50:15 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net)
Received: (from bright@localhost)
	by fw.wintelcom.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA18014;
	Sun, 16 Jan 2000 17:12:49 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 17:12:49 -0800
From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>
To: "Chris D. Faulhaber" <jedgar@fxp.org>
Cc: Jonathan Fortin <jonf@revelex.com>, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: sh?
Message-ID: <20000116171249.L508@fw.wintelcom.net>
References: <Pine.BSO.4.21.0001161858240.11142-100000@revelex.com> <Pine.BSF.4.10.10001161926130.48730-100000@pawn.primelocation.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10001161926130.48730-100000@pawn.primelocation.net>; from jedgar@fxp.org on Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 07:27:00PM -0500
Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

* Chris D. Faulhaber <jedgar@fxp.org> [000116 16:51] wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2000, Jonathan Fortin wrote:
> 
> > 
> > q most ppl use zsh/bash/csh. 
> > 
> 
> Please state your question in the form of a question.

I think he wants to know why we use 'sh' instead of one
of the more popular shells.

Just FYI csh _is_ available in the base system as /bin/csh, and we
use our 'sh' because afaik it's the only thing available under BSDL
that satisfies our standards.  zsh would be nifty (BSDL + 'sh like')
but afaik it doesn't aim to be a complete 'sh' replacement.

-Alfred


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message