[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 11:13:10AM +0100, Christoph Egger wrote:
> Alan Barrett wrote:
> > Yes, ksh has it. I was talking about sh.
> > Anyway, I suppose this is an answer to my question on the wiki about
> > "why ksh instead of sh".
> Can we make ksh the default shell on the install cd, please?
sh on the i386 install CD is the full deal (!SMALL) so we can enable emacs
mode and tab completion. Is there much payback for making ksh the default
there? I'm not against it but I don't see the motiviation.
[Note you could change root's default from csh to sh, but it's likely that
csh users would lauch a jihad against you because if they install by _hand_
they now have one more thing to change (stupid but likely).]
> OpenBSD removed sh from its tree a long time ago.
> Their /bin/sh is nothing else than
> "ln /bin/ksh /bin/sh"
It's like this on AIX too. I don't think we should do it because it will
break existing scripts and we have people actively maintaining sh.
As for offtopic:
An idea that occurred to me was to have the i386 install CD go "multiuser"
and create VTs. We could use autologin to start sysinst on the first VT and
start a couple of shells on the other VTs. Also the i386 install method
needs to be replicated to amd64. I don't have time do either of these right
Main Index |
Thread Index |