On 16 Mar 1999, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> You guys decided we didn't need "toor". I could have made the exact
> same arguments before.

:-)

No, David decided that it's silly (and bad form) for us to ship an
/etc/master.passwd which triggers /etc/security warnings. I strongly
agree. He chose to solve this by removing toor. I disagree with this
solution. So it's not "you guys" (or "us guys") deciding.

I think the whole problem is that shell choice is not really a technical
choice, but more a personal preference choice. And that both decisions
(killing toor and making root use sh) were not discussed beforehand. :-)

I think we should resurect toor. Besides the fact it's a /bin/sh root
account for the sh affectionados, a number of sites have multiple root
accounts. Irregardless of what people may think about it, it is done. I
think having toor around and having /etc/security know how to deal with it
can serve as an example as to how to have /etc/security not squalk about
the established status quo at a site (the thought being that /etc/security
squalking there is like the boy who cried wolf).

I personally think we should teach sysinst to ask what root shell you
want, and switch default root back to /bin/csh, sticking with our
tradition.

Take care,

Bill