Re: Sysinst default root login shell

[Eduardo Horvath <eeh%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, Eric Haszlakiewicz wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 03:19:33PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> > You know, any person who is not a total illiterate have little problem 
> > changing their shell, or the shell of the root user. There is nothing 
> > that force you to keep the default.
> 
> IMO, having capable and useful defaults is a big part of a usable system.
> Sure, I *can* change the shell, just like if /usr/pkg/bin wasn't in the
> default .profile (or .cshrc) I *could* add it, or if we weren't using
> "less" as the "more" command I *could* install it myself, or if we didn't
> have a pkg_add command I *could* go build things myself, but that's time
> that could be better spent doing other things.

Your preferences may not match those of other people.  You seem to like 
System V unix rather than BSD.  Many people prefer the BSD flavor to 
system V.  If you prefer System V, maybe you should find a unix 
distribution that is closer to System V.

> 
> > This whole request to change the default shell of root is really stupid, 
> > for various reasons. And the arguments for doing the change are so weird 
> > I can't relate to them.
> > 
> > Like I said, I guess I can't be bothered. I've given up. This ain't BSD 
> > anymore, except for the deceptive name. And I've run out of energy 
> 
> eh?  Is "BSD", and NetBSD in particular, really defined mostly by the shell?
> I kind of figured it was more things like careful thought put into the 
> architecture of various systems, plus a bit of a general style for a whole
> set of commands that focuses on avoid unnecessary bits.

"BSD" stands for "Berkeley Software Distribution" and is what was 
distributed by CSRG.  Yes, it's defined by a number of features, and the 
shell is one of the most user visible features.

> > trying to improve the world. I'll just recommend anyone who ask me to 
> > just go and install Linux instead, since it's at least coherent in its 
> > brokenness.
> 
> Are you really saying csh is better?  I got the impression that your
> argument so far was more along the lines that it's more "traditional",
> and while that can be useful as a supporting argument, it seems a poor
> reason on it's own.

Yes, for interactive use I prefer csh variants to bourne shell variants.  
Trying to convince me to switch is a waste of time.  If you plan to start 
some argument about usability, then why not incorporate both tcsh and zsh 
in the base distribution?  Both have unique combinations of features, such 
as zsh's recursive wildcarding, that are not found in other shells that 
are quite useful in certain situations.  

Or if you want to talk about redundancy, why do we have vi, ed, ex, sed, 
and awk?  We only really need one editor, don't we?

unix has a lot of historical baggage.  If you want to change that you 
should switch to another OS.  Trying to force your preferences on others 
is just going to piss them off, and this discussion is beginning to get to 
that point with me.

Eduardo