Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:19:19 -0700 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful. Message-ID: <20071214201919.GC23649@demeter.hydra> In-Reply-To: <20071214142628.4ef75102@gumby.homeunix.com.> References: <20071214010542.GA19553@demeter.hydra> <20071213192131.Y7985@wonkity.com> <20071214070941.GD20150@demeter.hydra> <20071214142628.4ef75102@gumby.homeunix.com.>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 02:26:28PM +0000, RW wrote: > On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:09:41 -0700 > Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> 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. Thanks for clarifying that point. -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] Kent Beck: "I always knew that one day Smalltalk would replace Java. I just didn't know it would be called Ruby."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071214201919.GC23649>