Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 22:34:14 -0400 From: Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: boot banner project Message-ID: <20050505023414.GA4646@pit.databus.com> In-Reply-To: <4279767D.5010203@samsco.org> References: <20050504113817.GD22956@empiric.icir.org> <20050504132429.GA2105@uk.tiscali.com> <5207b55e44478fa93e3689ad79b54f4d@mac.com> <20050504.152439.71089989.imp@bsdimp.com> <ff3ef3b2621f16316effcf296f044d93@mac.com> <4279767D.5010203@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 07:27:25PM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > > OSX used csh by default until the 10.3 series release. You can still > (thankfully) select it. IMHO, csh/tcsh is superior for interactive > use, and bash/ksh is superior for scripting. It's amazing what happens > when you pick the right tool for the job; hammers are vastly superior > at pounding nails, while screw drivers are vastly superior at turning > screws. In my aged and inflexible opinion, whatever shell one is used to is the best tool, and attempts by all parties to assert the superiority of their personal favorites are ridiculous. Since /etc/passwd has included a line for toor for as long as I can remember, I can use ksh and leave root's shell as whatever it is. Then again, I still use vi, so what do I know? -- Barney Wolff http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf I never met a computer I didn't like.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050505023414.GA4646>