Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 17:12:49 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: "Chris D. Faulhaber" <jedgar@fxp.org> Cc: Jonathan Fortin <jonf@revelex.com>, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sh? Message-ID: <20000116171249.L508@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10001161926130.48730-100000@pawn.primelocation.net>; from jedgar@fxp.org on Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 07:27:00PM -0500 References: <Pine.BSO.4.21.0001161858240.11142-100000@revelex.com> <Pine.BSF.4.10.10001161926130.48730-100000@pawn.primelocation.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Chris D. Faulhaber <jedgar@fxp.org> [000116 16:51] wrote: > On Sun, 16 Jan 2000, Jonathan Fortin wrote: > > > > > q most ppl use zsh/bash/csh. > > > > Please state your question in the form of a question. I think he wants to know why we use 'sh' instead of one of the more popular shells. Just FYI csh _is_ available in the base system as /bin/csh, and we use our 'sh' because afaik it's the only thing available under BSDL that satisfies our standards. zsh would be nifty (BSDL + 'sh like') but afaik it doesn't aim to be a complete 'sh' replacement. -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000116171249.L508>