Subject: Re: CVS commit: basesrc/bin/ksh
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Benedikt Meurer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/28/2002 16:46:19
On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Joerg Klemenz wrote:
> > > 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.
Ok, so what about simply changing roots shell to be ksh/sh and toors
shell to be csh? It should be fine for everyone (except that it breaks
with BSD Unix tradition :-).
And on the seventh day, He exited from append mode.