In Greg Lehey's book "The Complete FreeBSD" he reccomends changing the default shell for users to bash shell. -p. 94
What are the Pro's/Con's of using bash as opposed to the other shells?
On point that no one has mentioned on this list yet is that it is a good idea to have root's shell be entirely contained on the root partition of the system -- ie. not just the executable, but any shlibs it requires as well. There's been a thread over on [EMAIL PROTECTED] about ppp(8) apparently failing because of problems linking libintl -- which actually turned out to be because root's shell had been changed to bash(1).
That's why there is a 'toor' account -- you can use whatever shell you like with that a/c and not fear mucking up important bits of the system.
On the other hand, I take the view that the less done by the super user the better, and discourage myself to use sudo(1) preferentially and to keep su(1) sessions as short as possible by making root's shell as /unfriendly/ as possible.
You could even go as far as Solaris does, where the root shell is /sbin/sh -- a statically linked cut down version of the standard Bourne shell that's got the best chance of still working even on a severely banjaxed system. In FreeBSD terms, that would equate to using /rescue/sh -- mind you although that's statically linked, it's still a fully capable version of /bin/sh.
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 8 Dane Court Manor
School Rd
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Tilmanstone
Tel: +44 1304 617253 Kent, CT14 0JL UK
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
