Current-Users archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Sysinst default root login shell

On 2012-04-12 18.24, Eric Haszlakiewicz wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 03:19:33PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
You know, any person who is not a total illiterate have little problem
changing their shell, or the shell of the root user. There is nothing
that force you to keep the default.

IMO, having capable and useful defaults is a big part of a usable system.
Sure, I *can* change the shell, just like if /usr/pkg/bin wasn't in the
default .profile (or .cshrc) I *could* add it, or if we weren't using
"less" as the "more" command I *could* install it myself, or if we didn't
have a pkg_add command I *could* go build things myself, but that's time
that could be better spent doing other things.

If you feel that way, why not start with some other system, which already match more of what you expect, instead of breaking another system which works in a defined way that a bunch of other people have come to expect?

This whole request to change the default shell of root is really stupid,
for various reasons. And the arguments for doing the change are so weird
I can't relate to them.

Like I said, I guess I can't be bothered. I've given up. This ain't BSD
anymore, except for the deceptive name. And I've run out of energy

eh?  Is "BSD", and NetBSD in particular, really defined mostly by the shell?
I kind of figured it was more things like careful thought put into the
architecture of various systems, plus a bit of a general style for a whole
set of commands that focuses on avoid unnecessary bits.

BSD is (I would think) defined by the whole set of different details. How much can you change and replace and still have the same system?

trying to improve the world. I'll just recommend anyone who ask me to
just go and install Linux instead, since it's at least coherent in its

Are you really saying csh is better?  I got the impression that your
argument so far was more along the lines that it's more "traditional",
and while that can be useful as a supporting argument, it seems a poor
reason on it's own.

As a generic shell is concerned, and for interactive use, yes, I prefer csh to sh.

Note that I am *not* talking about writing scripts, which is what many people confuse and conflate when talking about shells.


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index