On 8/31/07, Roland Mainz <roland.mainz at nrubsig.org> wrote: > Minor update for shells (quoted lines are the old text): > -- snip -- > > Q: Why isn't bash the default shell? > > > > A: Ksh93 is a better shell. It is more standards compliant, has all of the > > features you love about bash, and more. It also happens to be the best > > scripting shell available. > > Erm, neither "bash" or "ksh93" are the "default shell". IMO the term > "default shell" itself is a problem because there is no "default shell", > the nearest terms may be "default system shell" (=/bin/sh) and "default > user shell" (e.g. the shell used by default when a new user is created > (which is unfortunately /bin/sh)). Most of the ravings&&rants are AFAIK > about /bin/sh which is the "Bourne shell" (not "bash" (="Bourne Again > Shell")) and not a POSIX shell (like "bash" in POSIX mode) as many > applications and users seem to expect. Problem is now how to phrase it > (I'm notoriously bad at that stuff...) ...
Try this: Q: Why isn't bash the default shell? A1: Solaris uses the Bourne shell as default system shell, /bin/sh, to satisfy backward compatibility to historic releases of Solaris but will switch to ksh93 as soon as possible during project Indiana. A2: The default user shell may be selected using useradd or usermod, recommended is ksh93. It is more standards compliant, has all of the features you love about bash, and more. It also happens to be the best scripting shell available. -- robert neville - it consultant
