From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 15 04:06:25 2009 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 E1BF91065673 for ; Fri, 15 May 2009 04:06:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from mx01.qsc.de (mx01.qsc.de [213.148.129.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D0FE8FC15 for ; Fri, 15 May 2009 04:06:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from r55.edvax.de (port-92-195-124-142.dynamic.qsc.de [92.195.124.142]) by mx01.qsc.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 988993D30B; Fri, 15 May 2009 06:06:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from r55.edvax.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by r55.edvax.de (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id n4F46GgX011445; Fri, 15 May 2009 06:06:16 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 06:06:15 +0200 From: Polytropon To: Mel Flynn Message-Id: <20090515060615.c20defc6.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <200905142013.02473.mel.flynn+fbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> References: <200905132211.53066.mel.flynn+fbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> <200905142013.02473.mel.flynn+fbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> Organization: EDVAX X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.7 (GTK+ 2.12.1; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: nightrecon@verizon.net, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, utisoft@gmail.com Subject: Re: How to move vi to /bin X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Polytropon List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 04:06:26 -0000 On Thu, 14 May 2009 20:13:02 +0200, Mel Flynn wrote: > sh is worse then csh. But sufficient for administration tasks in maintenance mode. It's not that you spend hours of dialog sessions in SUM. Remember: It's a worst case scenario. If everything fails, the /bin/sh still works, and it helps you get things working again. It's not that I would like to use sh as a dialog shell, there are definitely better ones. But it's the system's standard scripting shell, and sufficient for recovering a defective system. > And I said if you know what you're doing. My root shell > is less prone to break then the standard csh shell, because I compile it > statically (and also on the / partition). That's a completely valid solution - better than just chsh and then trouble. :-) -- Polytropon >From Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...