In message <Pine.A41.4.05.9903151628030.22850-100000@macro.Stanford.EDU>, Bill 
Studenmund writes:
>No, it's not. I believe both changes were inappropriate. We've had root
>using csh since 1993 and a toor account for that long. We shouldn't be
>changing these defaults willy-nilly. Especially as both of our *BSD
>cousins still use csh. :-)

Yes, but I for one wish they didn't.  :)

>This intuition is a matter of personal opinion. :-) I'm not trying to tell
>you that you should love csh, just that some of the things csh does
>are/might be more intuitive to some users than what sh does. :-)

Agreed.  I tend to set root's shell to an 'sh', because I use ksh, so if
I try to type in a script at the prompt, that's the syntax I do.

>Part of my concern was that it was just done. Shell preference is IMMENSLY
>personal. I think the detante we had, with both csh and sh available was
>appropriate. If we don't provide both, one camp or another will be peeved.
>:-) I think we should peeve neither.

Perhaps we should add this to system installation-time configurables?

>Though I do agree with David that we shouldn't ship an /etc/master.passwd
>which fails the security tests. But /etc/security already knows about toor
>& root as specific special cases. I think a better solution would be to
>just teach /etc/security fully that both toor & root are legit root
>acounts. :-)

I dunno.  I actually really dislike having a second account with uid 0.  At
least as a default.

-s