On Thu, 14 May 2009 20:13:02 +0200, Mel Flynn <mel.flynn+fbsd.questi...@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, ... _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
