From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Dec 13 14: 7:21 2000 From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 13 14:07:20 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from dt051n37.san.rr.com (dt051n37.san.rr.com [204.210.32.55]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1372E37B404 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:07:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from slave (Studded@slave [10.0.0.1]) by dt051n37.san.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA77346; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:07:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from DougB@gorean.org) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:07:02 -0800 (PST) From: Doug Barton X-Sender: doug@dt051n37.san.rr.com To: "Donald J. Maddox" Cc: Daniel Bye , "'Cliff Sarginson'" , questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Root and the C Shell In-Reply-To: <3A369F4C.C3FACD17@sc.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Donald J. Maddox wrote: > I really wish you would elaborate on these situations you allude to. > I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm trying to learn something here :) The problem with presenting specific situations is that every time this has happened in the past, there is always a never-ending round of "Yeah, but if you did THIS you could avoid that problem, so it's still ok to switch root's shell." The most important example though is times when single user mode is just not available. You can argue that not having it available is a flaw on its own, and I would agree with that. But if you are in a position where you have to work within the customer's constraints, that's what you have to do. The fact remains that you lose nothing by doing it the safe way, and it guards against any possible weirdness down the road. There will always be people who want to point loaded guns at their foot however, so each to his own. Doug To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message