* Justin Wells said: > > Oops, you're right, and I knew that. Someone else said that, and it > must have infected my brain. :)) > Of course you can have whatever you like as roots shell. > > I think either having sash as roots shell, or having a static ash with > sash available somewhere would be reasonable. The attraction of ash is > that it's a Bourne shell, so old-time Unix users may be more comfortable And it's POSIX-compliant and has much lower memory footprint that bash, even as compared to a dynamically linked one. > with that when they connect with root. Obviously the advantage of sash is > it has all those tools built in. > I really think it doesn't matter what roots shell is, providing there is > a way to get on as root, or become root, at the times when you need the > static stuff. Exactly. sash is for the command-line operations and for the basic tools it has built in and ash is for the scripts which need POSIX-compliant and fully capable interpreter. marek
Attachment:
pgp60UXSdgTMw.pgp
Description: PGP signature