Re: Why reccomend Bash shell?
Parv wrote: in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote Matthew Seaman thusly... 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. ^ ^ ^ ^ What does a/c mean? account 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
Re: Why reccomend Bash shell?
Kevin D. Kinsey, DaleCo, S.P. wrote: I like a .30-06 for deer, antelope, etc, .762[mm] for terrorists, and a .340 Weatherby magnum for big game (cape buffalo, elephant, etc, where legal). The Weatherby is also great for moose and elk with a Nosler 210 gg. partition bullet and a good high-velocity powder. :-D You forgot the 5.56x45mm NATO, used in almost all modern military assault rifles (M16), carbines (M4), and light machine guns (M249), of which my personal favorites are the SOPMOD M4A1 Carbine, Mk 12 SPR, and HK53 Carbine. and thats 7.62x51mm NATO btw which is used for medium machine guns (M60), sniper rifles (M24, M40A3, Mauser SP66, SV-98, Erma SR100), etc. Also, you have your standard 9x19mm Parabellum, hand guns, submachine guns, etc. my personal favorites are the Glock 18C and MP5. Bash is an improvement on sh; tcsh is an improvement on csh, and there are others, generally spawned when someone wanted to add a feature or steal one from someone else. What are the main differences between tcsh and csh?, currently I use csh, this is because it was the first shell that FreeBSD presented me when I started using it and the fact that I didn't like bash (bash is trash, hmm? lol) from linux days. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why reccomend Bash shell?
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Nikolas Britton wrote: (...) What are the main differences between tcsh and csh?, currently I use csh, this is because it was the first shell that FreeBSD presented me when I started using it and the fact that I didn't like bash (bash is trash, hmm? lol) from linux days. I wrote three articles about csh and tcsh published in the daemon news ezine three years ago; maybe you're interested in reading them: http://ezine.daemonnews.org/200112/csh_tcsh_part1.html http://ezine.daemonnews.org/200201/tcsh2.html http://ezine.daemonnews.org/200202/tcsh3.html Best regards Konrad Heuer GWDG, Am Fassberg, 37077 Goettingen, Germany, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why reccomend Bash shell?
Adam wrote: 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
Re: Why reccomend Bash shell?
Matthew Seaman wrote: Adam wrote: 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. It was mentioned exactly 10 hours 58 minutes before your post on this very list - as a reply to 'ld-elf.so.1: Shared object libintl.so.6 not found' :-) Kris advised to open a doc PR requesting that this be documented somewhere, so that future generations don't run into this problem as well. I'd like to do that, but I've never done this before. Could anyone direct me? Personally, I'd like this caveat to be referenced next to every description of a way to change the default shell. Best wishes, Andrew P. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why reccomend Bash shell?
On 12/16/04 11:11 AM, Matthew Seaman sat at the `puter and typed: Adam wrote: 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). Gah! That happened to me too! Couldn't find the exact cause though. Now I know. Thanks! Looks like root is getting a facelift. 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. Also good to know. I've gotta find out if Grog mentions anything about that in The Book. 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. Definitely a good practice I've been threatening to start myself. I generally have several root xterms open in my X login, and even though I habitually lock my screen, I know it's A Bad Thing To Do. 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. Banjaxed? Is that a new word for Seriously Hosed? I like it. :) Those of us that live in denial regarding the reliability of Our Own Machines tend not to worry about that. Of course, more than one of us has shown up on this very list with sheepish grins all over our pleas for help. Myself included. Standard subject lines are What have I done? and I've done it, now how do I undo it? and the ever descriptive Oops and Oh crap. Matthew, I am sincerely glad to have read your response here. You've provided valuable advice to me specifically in the past, and I'm sure this ranks as one of the more enlightening ones. I'm going to install sudo on my systems right now, and change the root shell back to /bin/sh. I'm also going to break down and check out some of the other shells. I've been with Bash since my Linux days (geez, 4+ years ago now), and I guess it's time to try something new. Call it a New Years Resolution. Thanks a lot! Lou -- Louis LeBlanc [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fully Funded Hobbyist, KeySlapper Extrordinaire :) http://www.keyslapper.org ԿԬ Wrinkles should merely indicate where smiles have been. -- Mark Twain ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why reccomend Bash shell?
--On Thursday, December 16, 2004 11:11:03 AM + Matthew Seaman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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). I'm curious to know why you would change root's shell to bash. You can change shells at the cli easily. What's one more command before you start working? 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. Is this a religious argument? Or is there a sound security basis for it? I ask because I'm not sure I see the difference. I prefer to leave sudo set up to prompt for a password. This at least reminds you that what you're doing is root's work (and if you screw up, you could do bad things.) If I'm going to do a lot of work, I just su - to root, do the work and then get out. I don't allow remote root access, so I'm wondering - am I exposing my systems to some unnecessary risk? Or is this just a matter of personal preference? Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Adjunct Information Security Officer The University of Texas at Dallas AVIEN Founding Member http://www.utdallas.edu ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why reccomend Bash shell?
At 9:11 PM -0600 12/15/04, Adam wrote: 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? Personal preferences, mostly. In my case, my first unix accounts were setup with csh. I am a programmer, and am happy to write little scripts to automate minor repetitive tasks. I came across some situations where I just couldn't get csh to do what I wanted it to do, so I started using /bin/sh for all the scripts that I wrote. As I did that more, I ended up switching my shell to bash (since it uses syntax which is much closer to standard 'sh'). There are other 'sh-ish' alternatives to csh/tcsh, but I must admit I haven't really given them a fair trial. I've been using bash for at least twelve years now, and I haven't felt any need to change. I should also admit that these days I'm more likely to write scripts in perl or ruby, unless it is something fairly simple... Those are my personal preferences. Yours may be different. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn= [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rensselaer Polytechnic Instituteor [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why reccomend Bash shell?
Paul Schmehl wrote: --On Thursday, December 16, 2004 11:11:03 AM + Matthew Seaman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Is this a religious argument? Or is there a sound security basis for it? I ask because I'm not sure I see the difference. I prefer to leave sudo set up to prompt for a password. This at least reminds you that what you're doing is root's work (and if you screw up, you could do bad things.) If I'm going to do a lot of work, I just su - to root, do the work and then get out. I don't allow remote root access, so I'm wondering - am I exposing my systems to some unnecessary risk? Or is this just a matter of personal preference? The primary reason, IMHO, for such an opinion is just what you mention --- the danger that, as root, you'll fsck some command line (the infamous rm -rf /*) and cook your goose in its own grease [Come to think of it, I got myself in a little trouble once by quitting the editor on /etc/fstab a little too quickly (before double checking what I'd typed --- can't say it'd been any different using sudo, though)]. In your case, I'd venture the opinion that if you're not using NOPASSWD with sudo, you've pretty much got this concern taken care of, as much as can be expected. I also think maybe he meant to use encourage instead of discourage, but you'd really have to ask him Kevin Kinsey ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why reccomend Bash shell?
in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote Matthew Seaman thusly... 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. ^ ^ ^ ^ What does a/c mean? - Parv -- ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why reccomend Bash shell?
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? Because he likes it for some reason. He probably got used to using it (or sh - bash is basically an updated sh) and transferred his comfort to FreeBSD. I prefer tcsh (an updated version of csh) as my login shell but occasionally use sh for some scripts - mostly those already started in sh by someone else. csh - actually a link to tcsh nowdays - is installed by by default and is reasonably user friendly to command line input. For any slightly complicated scripts I use Perl anyway so... I, then don't have to bother installing the bash port - not much trouble, but just one more thing. Whichever you use is not going to affect how well your system works so don't worry about it. Use whichever you like. jerry Thanks, Adam ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why reccomend Bash shell?
MY personal opinion is, the shell one uses depends a lot on the personal taste of the user. For example, although people had said lots of good (and probably bad?) things about bash, I feel it's a bit too linuxish. My personal preference is the zsh shell. Regards S. Indian Institute of Information Technology Subhro Sankha Kar Block AQ-13/1, Sector V Salt Lake City PIN 700091 India -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-freebsd- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 8:41 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Why reccomend Bash shell? 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? Thanks, Adam ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions- [EMAIL PROTECTED] smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Why reccomend Bash shell?
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004, Adam wrote: 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? That's largely a religious issue. I used csh for my first 6 years or so of *nix use, switching to ksh around 1988. Personally I like ksh better than bash or csh/tcsh for interactive use, largely because I prefer using its ``r'' options to repeat previous commands to the csh and bash ``!''. Bill -- INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Campbell; Celestial Systems, Inc. UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way FAX:(206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676 URL: http://www.celestial.com/ ``If the government can take a man's money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists.'' Lysander Spooner, 1852 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why reccomend Bash shell?
In the immortal words of Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED]... In Greg Lehey's book The Complete FreeBSD he reccomends changing the default shell for users to bash shell. -p. 94 Because that is his shell of choice. I prefer to use TCSH for the same reason. What are the Pro's/Con's of using bash as opposed to the other shells? It depends entirely on what you are used to, both are good at what they do, both are easily scriptable, both are well documented, and both are widely used. The only drawback I have found with tcsh is the fact that if you install new software in your $PATH, then you need to type 'rehash' to let tcsh see it. However this being said, I should point out that tcsh is part of the base system on FreeBSD whereas bash is a port and must be installed separately. In short, play with both and make up your own mind. Cheers Tim -- Tim Aslat [EMAIL PROTECTED] Spyderweb Consulting http://www.spyderweb.com.au Phone: +61 0401088479 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why reccomend Bash shell?
Adam wrote: 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? Thanks, Adam I like a .30-06 for deer, antelope, etc, .762[mm] for terrorists, and a .340 Weatherby magnum for big game (cape buffalo, elephant, etc, where legal). The Weatherby is also great for moose and elk with a Nosler 210 gg. partition bullet and a good high-velocity powder. :-D Now, seriously, are you trying to start a jihad? And didn't Grog explain himself --- curious, if not... Bash is an improvement on sh; tcsh is an improvement on csh, and there are others, generally spawned when someone wanted to add a feature or steal one from someone else. # man sh # man csh # man bash (if it's installed) # man tcsh #lynx http://www.google.com/ # echo Don't start holy wars! | mail -s Just a little advice [EMAIL PROTECTED] My $0.02, ;-) Kevin Kinsey ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why reccomend Bash shell?
Bill Campbell wrote: On Wed, Dec 15, 2004, Adam wrote: 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? That's largely a religious issue. I used csh for my first 6 years or so of *nix use, switching to ksh around 1988. Personally I like ksh better than bash or csh/tcsh for interactive use, largely because I prefer using its ``r'' options to repeat previous commands to the csh and bash ``!''. BTW last time I checked (about three weeks ago the ksh93 port was broken, the old src tarballs have been removed from the servers listed in the Makefile because they released newer version. Christian Weisgerber (naddy at mips.inka.de) is listed as the maintainer. Bill -- INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Campbell; Celestial Systems, Inc. UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way FAX:(206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676 URL: http://www.celestial.com/ ``If the government can take a man's money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists.'' Lysander Spooner, 1852 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why reccomend Bash shell?
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004, Nikolas Britton wrote: Bill Campbell wrote: On Wed, Dec 15, 2004, Adam wrote: 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? That's largely a religious issue. I used csh for my first 6 years or so of *nix use, switching to ksh around 1988. Personally I like ksh better than bash or csh/tcsh for interactive use, largely because I prefer using its ``r'' options to repeat previous commands to the csh and bash ``!''. BTW last time I checked (about three weeks ago the ksh93 port was broken, the old src tarballs have been removed from the servers listed in the Makefile because they released newer version. Christian Weisgerber (naddy at mips.inka.de) is listed as the maintainer. Most of the extra stuff I'm running on FreeBSD is built under the OpenPKG.org packaging system rather than from ports so I haven't seen those problems. I'm running pkdsh-5.2.14 rather than the official ksh, largely out of habit. The current OpenPKG version of ksh is ksh-20040229. Bill -- INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way FAX:(206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676 URL: http://www.celestial.com/ When only cops have guns, it's called a ``police state''. -- Claire Wolfe, 101 Things To Do Until The Revolution ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
