Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 10:52:01 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Summoner <summoner@uswest.net> Cc: John Armstrong <siberian@siberian.org>, freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: What to tell to Linux-centric people?! Message-ID: <19990724105201.I84734@freebie.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <37991278.5324A70B@uswest.net>; from Summoner on Fri, Jul 23, 1999 at 06:10:16PM -0700 References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9907231248470.12396-100000@dragon.ham.muohio.edu> <v0421010eb3be5f14df8c@[216.112.76.84]> <37991278.5324A70B@uswest.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday, 23 July 1999 at 18:10:16 -0700, Summoner wrote: > John Armstrong wrote: >> Just make sure >> root always has a base sh shell for emergencies and your set. > > Excuse my newbieness, but why should I have sh for root? So that if > when screw over my installation again I still have a shell for single > user mode and (hopefully) fix things? Or does base shell mean > something else? The canonical answer is "sh is statically linked, so it doesn't need the dynamic libraries in /usr/lib, and can thus run in single user mode". The problem with this answer is that when you boot in single-user mode, the system prompts you for your shell (and defaults to /bin/sh, whatever your root shell is). The fact is, there is no longer any good reason. Greg -- See complete headers for address, home page and phone numbers finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990724105201.I84734>