Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 06:06:15 +0200 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Mel Flynn <mel.flynn+fbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> Cc: nightrecon@verizon.net, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, utisoft@gmail.com Subject: Re: How to move vi to /bin Message-ID: <20090515060615.c20defc6.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <200905142013.02473.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> References: <cb0fa7b70905130021t390bb560r4a1dd64ab3b2e79@mail.gmail.com> <200905132211.53066.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> <b79ecaef0905140338lf7b6968k8e8844550c9268b9@mail.gmail.com> <200905142013.02473.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 14 May 2009 20:13:02 +0200, Mel Flynn <mel.flynn+fbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> 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, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090515060615.c20defc6.freebsd>