On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Gerhard S. wrote: > > > typing bash or ksh set -o emacs after every su. Not > > very friendly. > > So put it into root's .profile. Not exactly hard > > work. > > But shouldn't be needed. In Linux it works all out of > the box without adding magic commands.
Solaris is not Linux. Also, what Linux calls sh is not actually sh. It is merely bash under a different name. Just because it is called sh doesn't make it actully be sh. > In what way is making broken cursor keys work > not backward compatible? That functionality isn't there in the Bourne Shell. > Do you expect that some old time user will get > a hearth attack when her cursor keys suddenly > start to work? No, but other thing might possibly get broken. > I cannot really think of any reason how changing > this would not be backward compatible. > Switching to a new shell might, but adding > command line editing to /bin/sh not. How would switching to a new shell break compatibilty? By switching shells, one is by definition introducing a change into the environment, and therefore one should consider its consequences. > ksh is fine, if it was more user friendly out of the box. > This means working command line editing without configuration. Jeez! We're UNIX admins! What's so hard about editting one's .profile ONCE per machine/install at most?! > I was proposing two things: > - Change /bin/sh to use the Solaris command line editing library Unlikely to be acceptable due to backwards compatibilty requirements. > - Make set -o emacs (or a subset of it that only enables the cursor > keys and command completion if the "e" word offends somebody) default in ksh Ditto. > The Bourne shell is defined by not having > command line editing? Or cursor keys are No, the Bourne shell is defined by the SVID (or whatever standard documents it). Any deviation from that documented standard would likely be unacceptable. > against the true Solaris spirit? Real administrators do > never typo and when they do they should be punished by typing > the full line again? Or what are you advocating here? I'm advocating what we've come to expect from Solaris: long term backwards compatibility. I've got nothing against introducing new programs/shells with greater functionality, but they should not touch the current ones. Hence, we keep the crufty old sh as as the one true Bourne Shell, and have several other shells avalable to chose from. Case in point: one of the first thing I do when I install a new system (personal one that is, not in my shared professional working environment) is install a .profile for root that runs ksh, because I like the features ksh has over sh. Do I find this any great hardship? No. -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
