Kai Gro�johann writes:
> Pete Forman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > My question was somewhat rhetorical, I think that making the
> > remote shell interactive will lead to other problems. My
> > .profile is just an example.
>
> So, are you saying that my change was a bad one and that it should
> be reversed? Hm. Even with the old mechanism, one used to get
> interactive shells. But since nobody noticed, probably nobody
> really used all that. Hm.
>
> Do you think it would be a wrong approach to fix the `ls' problem
> now and to fix other problems as they appear?
My mistake. I had been confusing "login" and "interactive". A login
shell will read .profile or similar prior to reading commands which is
what was worrying me. An interactive, non-login shell generally will
not read any file. It may read .bashrc, .cshrc or .kshrc depending on
a number of factors.
--
Pete Forman
Western Geophysical
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
