Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:07:14 -0700 From: Matthew Hunt <mph@astro.caltech.edu> To: Craig Johnston <caj@lfn.org> Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: root's shell Message-ID: <19990601130714.B21176@wopr.caltech.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990601145738.29878A-100000@jane.lfn.org>; from Craig Johnston on Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 03:00:53PM -0500 References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990601145738.29878A-100000@jane.lfn.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 <mph@astro.caltech.edu> * 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990601130714.B21176>