On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 10:42:53PM +0000, Peter Corlett wrote: > It seems that the only merit sash has is that it is statically linked. I > find it to be a horrible shell otherwise, and I'd rather not have that as > the default root shell on my boxes. > > I'm not sure you gain much by being able to log in if libc is shafted since > it's pretty much reinstall time by then anyway... Not a bit. I have recovered systems that had libc blown away. I've recovered systems that had all of /usr blown away... sash is handy because not only is it statically linked, but it has many common utilities *built in*, so if you blow away libc, not only do you still have a shell, but you still have the tools that you're likely to need to recover it. Having a shell that is "uncomfortable" as root's shell is not necessarily a bad thing, either. You really shouldn't be spending too much time as root, and, the way I see it, if you're spending enough time there that you need tab completion and other advanced shell features, you're probably doing too much as root. Besides, you can always exec bash if you really need it. noah -- _______________________________________________________ | Web: http://web.morgul.net/~frodo/ | PGP Public Key: http://web.morgul.net/~frodo/mail.html
Attachment:
pgpUc4h5xAwJz.pgp
Description: PGP signature