Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 14:50:13 +0200 From: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai <asmodai@wxs.nl> To: Bob Bishop <rb@gid.co.uk> Cc: obrien@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Import of tcsh into src/contrib/, replacing src/usr.bin/csh Message-ID: <20000409145013.O1996@daemon.ninth-circle.org> In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20000407094800.00ac2970@gid.co.uk>; from rb@gid.co.uk on Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 10:00:12AM %2B0100 References: <20000406134916.A23265@dragon.nuxi.com> <4.3.1.2.20000407094800.00ac2970@gid.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-On [20000407 12:05], Bob Bishop (rb@gid.co.uk) wrote: > >At 13:49 06/04/00 -0700, David O'Brien wrote: >>I'm going to be importing tcsh into src/contrib/ and replacing /bin/csh >>with tcsh. [etc] > >On principle, please don't do it. I'd go so far as to vote for having >/bin/sh as root's default shell. If people want to use whacky shells and >set fire to their ass they are free to do so, but I seriously doubt the >wisdom of encouraging them. I agree with your statement. I can see no technical reason to support either tcsh or csh as root's shell. To substantiate: - I have gone through our system supplied scripts, and as far as I was able to find, none of them were dependant on csh. Even if csh scripts were present they should be rewritten for /bin/sh, in order to be as consistent as possible with the rest of the system. - Every argument in favor of keeping csh either has seemed to be a personal subjective reason or a dubious filesize argument. To summarise some things that passed our eyes in the thread: - Embedded Systems. Effectively, embedded systems are pretty customised because they need to be small in size as well as be functional. This idea would support the argument of retiring csh to the ports system and just have sh as the only shell in the base system. That opens the way for easily customising the sources by using the ports or just using /bin/sh since it is fast, small and reliable. - Usefulness. Which obviously demands an explanation of ``useful''. The word and its meaning in the context will probably always be subjective as no-one can agree on a common set of ``usefulness''. If you look at the common case in which root's shell would be used it would be for emergency cases 99% of the time. The other 1% of the time one would do best to use su -m to get root privileges and keep one's shell along with all the features one needs. - The csh UI. If Linux users cannot comprehend the reasons why our default shell(s) do not have featurism bloat, it should not be a goal in itself to replace the shell. This merely indicates that the way the FreeBSD system is set up is substantially different from the point of view Linux users have with regards to complete systems. - Hype. With Linux being the next hot thing out there, are we going to compete with it in terms of creeping featurism and bloat? FreeBSD should be chosen because people know it is technically correct, both internally as well as in its provisional infrastructure. Not because we sport the latest featurerich version of either csh/tcsh/ksh/zsh/bash for our root user. And our provisional infrastructure, e.g. ports, allows for easy installing of the shell someone wants. - Old habits. Being used to a certain set-up and configuration is not a reason that a certain change should be put off. It may even be argued that doing so is actually negative on new developments. Changing root's default shell to sh (just as the default for normal users) decreases maintenance time on our default profile/login/shell skeleton files, since we can simply take a normal user's skeleton files and adjust them. Let the choice of a shell be a configuration issue for the user. The arguments in favour of replacing csh with tcsh are IMHO not relevant. Replacing it with /bin/sh seems to make a lot more sense. I refer to Nate's statement that FreeBSD's default install is a default, how spartan and sober it may be, which people can adore with pretty, shiny things by themselves. To quote Nate on that (one of the first mails in the thread): ``2) FreeBSD's base installation is *NOT* intended for you to have a completely/fully functional workstaion. That's what the ports are for. It's meant to be the most basic installation, and if you need more than the basics, install ports.'' Note that Nate refers to completely/fully functional as the functionality which a fully customised environment provides to its user, not the functionality of the operating system. If people are so anxious to have their $FAVOURITE_SHELL for root, what is stopping them from installing it from ports? -- Jeroen Ruigrok vd Werven/Asmodai asmodai@[wxs.nl|bart.nl|freebsd.org] Documentation nutter/C-rated Coder BSD: Technical excellence at its best The BSD Programmer's Documentation Project <http://home.wxs.nl/~asmodai>; In every stone sleeps a crystal... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000409145013.O1996>