Subject: Re: CVS commit: basesrc/bin/ksh
To: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
From: Frederick Bruckman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/28/2002 19:34:33
On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
> > > 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.
> Wouldn't having sysinst set the default root shell, and having ksh be the
> "default" choice, do that also?
Sure. ("sysinstall" already prompts you to choose root's shell.)