shell

shell

[Tom Tromey]

Do any of the overseers really like using tcsh as the shell for root,
alias, listarch, etc, etc?  I find it drives me crazy.  The key
bindings are just different enough that I'm frustrated on every login.
Sometimes I `exec bash', but usually I forget until it is too late.
What if we change it?

Tom

Re: shell

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 03:47:10PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
>Do any of the overseers really like using tcsh as the shell for root,
>alias, listarch, etc, etc?  I find it drives me crazy.  The key
>bindings are just different enough that I'm frustrated on every login.
>Sometimes I `exec bash', but usually I forget until it is too late.
>What if we change it?

YESSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  PLEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!

I absolutely hate using tcsh as the root shell.

I am constantly typing something like:

for f in *.foo; do something; done

followed by a "D'oh!"

I'd actually prefer changing it to zsh but I assume that I'm in the minority
for that.

Btw, if you're making a new mailing list, you might want to check out my
script /home/cgf/mkmail:

mkmail listname projname projdir archive-frequency moderators...

archive-frequence is month, quarter, year.

I've used it to create a couple of mailing lists and it seems to work.

cgf

Re: shell

[Angela Marie Thomas]

> I absolutely hate using tcsh as the root shell.

Clearly Jeff and I are mutants.  Or just old-school BSD hackers.  O:-)

I've gotten into the habit of "exec tcsh" so I don't care.  Of course,
if some kind soul could tell me what I had to do to make bash do proper
file and command completion (i.e. exactly like tcsh O:-) I would be a
pretty happy camper.

--Angela

Re: shell

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 12:08:24PM -0700, Angela Marie Thomas wrote:
>> I absolutely hate using tcsh as the root shell.
>
>Clearly Jeff and I are mutants.  Or just old-school BSD hackers.  O:-)
>
>I've gotten into the habit of "exec tcsh" so I don't care.  Of course,
>if some kind soul could tell me what I had to do to make bash do proper
>file and command completion (i.e. exactly like tcsh O:-) I would be a
>pretty happy camper.

Does putting this in ~/.inputrc help?

Control-r: history-search-backward

cgf

Re: shell

[Tom Tromey]

Chris> Does putting this in ~/.inputrc help?
Chris> Control-r: history-search-backward

If we're going to do that then we should just stick with csh.
C-r working "wrong" (by my long-time bash-using expectations) is one
of the things that I constantly (every login) run into with csh.
Having bash work that way would be worse than running csh.
At least with csh I can easily "exec bash".
(Yes, I could change the bindings.  Doing that interactively sucks.)

Tom

Re: shell

[Angela Marie Thomas]

> Chris> Does putting this in ~/.inputrc help?
> Chris> Control-r: history-search-backward
> 
> If we're going to do that then we should just stick with csh.
> C-r working "wrong" (by my long-time bash-using expectations) is one
> of the things that I constantly (every login) run into with csh.
> Having bash work that way would be worse than running csh.
> At least with csh I can easily "exec bash".
> (Yes, I could change the bindings.  Doing that interactively sucks.)
> 
> Tom

Chris isn't proposing doing that for root.  He's trying to give me
hints as to how to make bash behave like tcsh.

And no, that doesn't quite affect what bugs me the most about bash.
And this isn't the right forum for me to get the info anyway.  O:-)

And 'cause I'm apparently not the only mutant, my memory says that
root has always been csh for BSD systems and sh for SysV systems.
Changing the default on either was generally A Bad Thing, but it
doesn't seem as bad these days.  I think it's more a reflex to not
muck with it much like "sync;sync;halt"  O:-)

It makes sense that Linux would be bash.  Of course then you get
to argue bash1 vs bash2.  Maybe we should make it ash (pokes Chris
with a small tasteless inside joke O:-)

--Angela

Re: shell

[Phil Edwards]

On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 04:52:33PM -0700, Angela Marie Thomas wrote:
> I think it's more a reflex to not
> muck with it much like "sync;sync;halt"  O:-)

Only two 'sync's?  You rebel.  My mentor would thrash me bloody if I used
less than four.


> It makes sense that Linux would be bash.  Of course then you get
> to argue bash1 vs bash2.  Maybe we should make it ash (pokes Chris
> with a small tasteless inside joke O:-)

I don't see any advantage that bash1 has over bash2, given the existence
of ash as a "small, fast sh".  Whether root's shell should be bash2 or
ash is largely academic to me, but I would argue that /bin/sh should be
ash instead of bash, for script speed.  (I dunno what's on sourceware now.)


Phil

-- 
pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com  |  pme at sources dot redhat dot com
devphil at several other less interesting addresses in various dot domains
The gods do not protect fools.  Fools are protected by more capable fools.

Re: shell

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 04:52:33PM -0700, Angela Marie Thomas wrote:
>> Chris> Does putting this in ~/.inputrc help?
>> Chris> Control-r: history-search-backward
>> 
>> If we're going to do that then we should just stick with csh.
>> C-r working "wrong" (by my long-time bash-using expectations) is one
>> of the things that I constantly (every login) run into with csh.
>> Having bash work that way would be worse than running csh.
>> At least with csh I can easily "exec bash".
>> (Yes, I could change the bindings.  Doing that interactively sucks.)
>> 
>> Tom
>
>Chris isn't proposing doing that for root.  He's trying to give me
>hints as to how to make bash behave like tcsh.

Right.  Probably should have been private mail.

>And 'cause I'm apparently not the only mutant, my memory says that
>root has always been csh for BSD systems and sh for SysV systems.
>Changing the default on either was generally A Bad Thing, but it
>doesn't seem as bad these days.  I think it's more a reflex to not
>muck with it much like "sync;sync;halt"  O:-)

Actually, I don't like the control-r behavior in bash but that is
the only thing that bothers me.  I guess I'm half mutated.

>It makes sense that Linux would be bash.  Of course then you get
>to argue bash1 vs bash2.  Maybe we should make it ash (pokes Chris
>with a small tasteless inside joke O:-)

Hey!  Good idea!  Ash!  I insist that we use ash!  I will not accept
any compromises.

cgf

Re: shell

[Jason Molenda]

On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 03:47:10PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Do any of the overseers really like using tcsh as the shell for root,
> alias, listarch, etc, etc?  

This is most likely because of my preference for tcsh.  Change it.
The only reason I don't like bash is because a single key binding
in the filename completion feature is different (in tcsh, you press
C-d to see the list of all matching filenames once you've entered an
ambiguous prefix).

J

Re: shell

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 02:43:31PM -0700, Jason Molenda wrote:
>On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 03:47:10PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> Do any of the overseers really like using tcsh as the shell for root,
>> alias, listarch, etc, etc?  
>
>This is most likely because of my preference for tcsh.  Change it.
>The only reason I don't like bash is because a single key binding
>in the filename completion feature is different (in tcsh, you press
>C-d to see the list of all matching filenames once you've entered an
>ambiguous prefix).

zsh does this, too.  That does always trip me up when I use bash.

cgf

Re: shell

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 05:46:38PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 02:43:31PM -0700, Jason Molenda wrote:
>>On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 03:47:10PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>> Do any of the overseers really like using tcsh as the shell for root,
>>> alias, listarch, etc, etc?  
>>
>>This is most likely because of my preference for tcsh.  Change it.
>>The only reason I don't like bash is because a single key binding
>>in the filename completion feature is different (in tcsh, you press
>>C-d to see the list of all matching filenames once you've entered an
>>ambiguous prefix).
>
>zsh does this, too.  That does always trip me up when I use bash.

By "does this", I mean that CTRL-D "does the right thing".

cgf

Re: shell

[law]

  In message < 20010507144329.A16502@shell17.ba.best.com >you write:
  > On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 03:47:10PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
  > > Do any of the overseers really like using tcsh as the shell for root,
  > > alias, listarch, etc, etc?  
  > 
  > This is most likely because of my preference for tcsh.  Change it.
  > The only reason I don't like bash is because a single key binding
  > in the filename completion feature is different (in tcsh, you press
  > C-d to see the list of all matching filenames once you've entered an
  > ambiguous prefix).
I generally prefer tcsh, but I can live with bash.  So, no objections from
me if y'all change things.
jeff

Re: shell

[Joseph S. Myers]

On 7 May 2001, Tom Tromey wrote:

> Do any of the overseers really like using tcsh as the shell for root,
> alias, listarch, etc, etc?  I find it drives me crazy.  The key
> bindings are just different enough that I'm frustrated on every login.
> Sometimes I `exec bash', but usually I forget until it is too late.
> What if we change it?

If this is being changed, I'd like gccadmin's shell changed to bash as
well.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk

Re: shell

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 10:51:35PM +0100, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>On 7 May 2001, Tom Tromey wrote:
>
>> Do any of the overseers really like using tcsh as the shell for root,
>> alias, listarch, etc, etc?  I find it drives me crazy.  The key
>> bindings are just different enough that I'm frustrated on every login.
>> Sometimes I `exec bash', but usually I forget until it is too late.
>> What if we change it?
>
>If this is being changed, I'd like gccadmin's shell changed to bash as
>well.

Done.

cgf

Re: shell

[Andrew Cagney]

Convention has:
	root csh/tcsh
	toor sh/zsh

and on my local machines, there is the account:
	boor bash


changing the shell to an account as fundamental as root may not be a 
good thing.

	Andrew

Re: shell

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:

> Convention has:
> 	root csh/tcsh
> 	toor sh/zsh
> 
> and on my local machines, there is the account:
> 	boor bash
> 
> 
> changing the shell to an account as fundamental as root may not be a
> good thing.

I'm not sure what convention this is.  On every Linux machine I've
seen, root uses bash.  On old fashioned Unix systems I've seen, root
uses /bin/sh.

Ian

Re: shell

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 11:08:37AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:
>
>> Convention has:
>> 	root csh/tcsh
>> 	toor sh/zsh
>> 
>> and on my local machines, there is the account:
>> 	boor bash
>> 
>> 
>> changing the shell to an account as fundamental as root may not be a
>> good thing.
>
>I'm not sure what convention this is.  On every Linux machine I've
>seen, root uses bash.  On old fashioned Unix systems I've seen, root
>uses /bin/sh.

That is my experience too.

cgf

Re: shell

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On 8 May 2001, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I'm not sure what convention this is.  On every Linux machine I've
> seen, root uses bash.  On old fashioned Unix systems I've seen, root
> uses /bin/sh.

Just for folklore:

  taygeta[50]:~% uname -rs
  FreeBSD 4.3-RELEASE

  taygeta[51]:~% finger root
  Login: root                             Name: Charlie Root
  Directory: /root                        Shell: /bin/csh
  Last login Tue May  8 13:53 (CEST) on ttyv0
  Mail last read Fri Sep 15 12:10 2000 (CEST)
  No Plan.

  (Where /bin/csh is actually /bin/tcsh.)

  taygeta[52]:~% finger toor
  Login: toor                             Name: Bourne-again Superuser
  Directory: /root                        Shell: /bin/sh
  Last login Tue May  8 13:53 (CEST) on ttyv0
  No Mail.
  No Plan.

Gerald
-- 
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/

Re: shell

[Per Bothner]

Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:

> Convention has:
> 	root csh/tcsh
> 	toor sh/zsh

I never heard of that convention.  Root on my RH machine has /bin/sh,
and I don't recall changing it.

The default root on a GNU system should be bash, IMO.
Certainly not any non-Posix-compatible shell.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/per/

Re: shell

[Phil Edwards]

On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 11:19:52PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Convention has:
> 	root csh/tcsh
> 	toor sh/zsh
> 
> and on my local machines, there is the account:
> 	boor bash
> 
> changing the shell to an account as fundamental as root may not be a 
> good thing.

Ironically, they have this argument on comp.unix.solaris all the time.
But there, it's people wanting to know how to change root's shell to
something other than /bin/sh, and lots of people trying to convince them
that changing it to something outside the Bourne family is not a good move,
and that changing it /at all/ is unwise.

Some of those reasons don't apply to Linux, but I always get a bit nervous
when I see a root account with a [t]csh shell.  Guess I'm old school.  :-)


Phil

-- 
pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com  |  pme at sources dot redhat dot com
devphil at several other less interesting addresses in various dot domains
The gods do not protect fools.  Fools are protected by more capable fools.