> does root shell have to be csh? i hate it. i'd far prefer bash or tcsh, but
> when i tried using tcsh, cron and other programs that act as root made a
> big fuss and stopped working properly :-(

The answer to your question as asked is that you need to add all shells
you're going to use to /etc/shells, and then they'll be recognized as
valid by the various utilities.

However, there are a few reasons why csh is a *better* shell for root to
have than tcsh, depending on your aesthetic unix-sense :-) Let's say your
system is completely trashed--you have a replacement disk, but you need to
restore your backup tapes onto it. So you're running off your backup root
partition and you don't have a /usr, /usr/local/, or swap.
	* csh has a lower memory profile than tcsh, and works better with
	  no swap.
	* csh doesn't need to access the termcap, so it works better if
	  /usr isn't mounted.
	* csh is statically linked, and tcsh probably isn't.
	* if a user's shell doesn't exist, getty doesn't default to /bin/sh,
	  it just won't let the user log in. So if root's shell is tcsh
	  (in /usr/local/bin), root won't be able to log in.

The same arguments go for sh vs. bash.

> is bash fully comaptible with sh or csh? would *that* be an acceptable
> replacement? does anyone have bash compiled for netbsd? :-)

bash is a superset of sh, just like tcsh is a superset of csh. And yeah,
bash is easy to compile under NetBSD :-)

Hope this clears things up!
	~Ben