Subject: Re: CVS commit: basesrc/bin/ksh
To: Benedikt Meurer <email@example.com>
From: Frederick Bruckman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/28/2002 09:28:37
On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Joerg Klemenz wrote:
> > Dave wrote:
> > > Given this and my own painful memories of being forced to use ksh, I must
> > > humbly beseech that ksh not be made root's default shell.
> > How many people really use csh this days?
> At least one, me ;-).
> > These traditionalists surly can use chsh
> So where's the difference? Whether csh users can use chsh or ksh users do
> chsh? I guess, its exactly the same, only the other way round 8^).
The real question is, how do we want to represent ourselves to
first-time users? I have used "csh" myself for years, and I currently
favor "ksh" with "set -o vi", but it's no fun explaining how that
works to otherwise knowledgable and intelligent people who are not
proficient with "vi". I've come to believe that "ksh" with "set -o
emacs" would let us present the best "first impression", which is why
I would be happy to see that become root's default shell, and the
default shell for "adduser", too.