From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 14 14:47:02 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB4C516A420 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:47:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd06+RF=f0ba0234@mlists.homeunix.com) Received: from turtle-out.mxes.net (turtle-out.mxes.net [216.86.168.191]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF26E13C467 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:47:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd06+RF=f0ba0234@mlists.homeunix.com) Received: from mxout-04.mxes.net (mxout-04.mxes.net [216.86.168.179]) by turtle-in.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B54F6163F8C for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:26:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from gumby.homeunix.com. (unknown [87.81.140.128]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E35D0501 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:26:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:26:28 +0000 From: RW To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20071214142628.4ef75102@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <20071214070941.GD20150@demeter.hydra> References: <20071214010542.GA19553@demeter.hydra> <20071213192131.Y7985@wonkity.com> <20071214070941.GD20150@demeter.hydra> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.12.3; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful. X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:47:03 -0000 On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:09:41 -0700 Chad Perrin wrote: > Hmm -- fair answer. I was kind of thinking that on FreeBSD I should > maybe do such work in csh as the standard shell, but it occurs to me > that I'd probably be pretty hard-pressed to find a FreeBSD system > without sh on it. csh isn't the standard shell, it's just the default login shell for root. All of the installed shell scripts are for sh, and the sysinstall default for ordinary users is sh. I think it's just the case that sysinstall doesn't have normal user setup page for the root account, so it's sets a sensible default shell for interactive use.