Re: sh(1) and ksh(1) default PATH

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 02:03:49AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
 > So, for example if the shell were to not start with line editing
 > enabled (to borrow from one of the recent issues) a moron user
 > with complain about how useless it is, and moan a lot, and that's
 > about it.   A user who is merely inexperienced will wonder why
 > that is, and perhaps decide to have a look in the documentation for
 > the shell, which will tell them that "set -E" (or set -o emacs) or
 > set -V (or set -o vi) will enable it.   Then they'd try that, and
 > discover that it does work.   Next would be how to make that happen
 > automatically, so back to the man page to learn about the startup
 > scripts that the shell runs.

An inexperienced user has no basis upon which to make any such
conjectures. There's no rational reason to suppose line editing exists
but is disabled by default for some unfathomable reason; the logical
conclusion is that if it doesn't work, it's not supported. And then
they tell a thousand of their facebook friends that NetBSD sucks.

That is only a reasonable line of thinking for a user who already
knows enough about Unix and NetBSD to realize that (a) this feature is
thirty-odd years old and they entitled to expect it; (b) NetBSD is not
thirty years "behind"; and (c) in 2022 NetBSD still ships with some
assembly required and it's expected to have to tinker with the config
to get acceptable results.

 > There's a proverb something about giving a fish vs teaching fishing that
 > is probably relevant here.

Are you really suggesting that the default config should be broken to
force people to learn how to change it?

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost