Importing mksh in base

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
58 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Importing mksh in base

Baptiste Daroussin-2
Hi everyone,

I would like to import mksh in base, https://www.mirbsd.org/mksh.htm
And make it the default root shell (not necessary in one step)

Why:
1/ it is tiny 400k (in the packaged version) all other shells fitting the
expectation are bigger
2/ it's default frontend in interactive mode is very close to what most people
are used to with bash and shells as default root shell on other BSD and most
linuxes
3/ from my narrow window csh as a default root shell is one of the major
complaint (usually the first thing a user get faced to) from new comers and
also for some long timers who are reinstalling a machine and have not yet
installed/configured a bourne compatible shell

What this proposal is _NOT_ about:
1/ the removal of tcsh from base
2/ any kid of denial of the quality and interest or features of csh

What do you think?
Best regards,
Bapt

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Importing mksh in base

Edward Napierala
On 0125T1757, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to import mksh in base, https://www.mirbsd.org/mksh.htm
> And make it the default root shell (not necessary in one step)

Yes, please.

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Importing mksh in base

Gleb Popov-2
In reply to this post by Baptiste Daroussin-2
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 8:58 PM Baptiste Daroussin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to import mksh in base, https://www.mirbsd.org/mksh.htm
> And make it the default root shell (not necessary in one step)
>
> Why:
> 1/ it is tiny 400k (in the packaged version) all other shells fitting the
> expectation are bigger
> 2/ it's default frontend in interactive mode is very close to what most
> people
> are used to with bash


Are there FreeBSD users that are used to bash? If not, this proposal looks
like another "let's do like Linux" thing.

and shells as default root shell on other BSD and most

> linuxes
> 3/ from my narrow window csh as a default root shell is one of the major
> complaint (usually the first thing a user get faced to) from new comers and
> also for some long timers who are reinstalling a machine and have not yet
> installed/configured a bourne compatible shell
>
> What this proposal is _NOT_ about:
> 1/ the removal of tcsh from base
> 2/ any kid of denial of the quality and interest or features of csh
>
> What do you think?
> Best regards,
> Bapt
>
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Importing mksh in base

Edward Napierala
On 0125T2110, Gleb Popov wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 8:58 PM Baptiste Daroussin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I would like to import mksh in base, https://www.mirbsd.org/mksh.htm
> > And make it the default root shell (not necessary in one step)
> >
> > Why:
> > 1/ it is tiny 400k (in the packaged version) all other shells fitting the
> > expectation are bigger
> > 2/ it's default frontend in interactive mode is very close to what most
> > people
> > are used to with bash
>
>
> Are there FreeBSD users that are used to bash? If not, this proposal looks
> like another "let's do like Linux" thing.

To be honest I'd expect most FreeBSD users to be used to bash.  I know
I was, until few years ago I've moved to zsh.

Most people nowadays come from Linux background, sometimes also OSX.
And that means their primary shell, the one they are used to, is bash,
since it's the default on both of those platforms.  It's fine to
provide something different if it is actually better - but being different
just for the sake of it, like defaulting to a shell that can't handle
a basic "2>&1", is not.

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Importing mksh in base

Cy Schubert-4
In reply to this post by Baptiste Daroussin-2
On January 25, 2019 8:57:51 AM PST, Baptiste Daroussin <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Hi everyone,
>
>I would like to import mksh in base, https://www.mirbsd.org/mksh.htm
>And make it the default root shell (not necessary in one step)
>
>Why:
>1/ it is tiny 400k (in the packaged version) all other shells fitting
>the
>expectation are bigger
>2/ it's default frontend in interactive mode is very close to what most
>people
>are used to with bash and shells as default root shell on other BSD and
>most
>linuxes
>3/ from my narrow window csh as a default root shell is one of the
>major
>complaint (usually the first thing a user get faced to) from new comers
>and
>also for some long timers who are reinstalling a machine and have not
>yet
>installed/configured a bourne compatible shell
>
>What this proposal is _NOT_ about:
>1/ the removal of tcsh from base
>2/ any kid of denial of the quality and interest or features of csh
>
>What do you think?
>Best regards,
>Bapt

Why not ksh93 instead? It is the original and authoritative Korn shell. EPL is compatible with the BSD license. Personally, I've been toying with the idea of importing ksh93 for a while now.

As to replacing root's shell, replacing tcsh is a large POLA violation.  Maybe give users the option at install time instead.
--
Pardon the typos and autocorrect, small keyboard in use.
Cheers,
Cy Schubert <[hidden email]>
FreeBSD UNIX: <[hidden email]> Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org

        The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Importing mksh in base

Michael Gmelin-3
In reply to this post by Baptiste Daroussin-2


> On 25. Jan 2019, at 17:57, Baptiste Daroussin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to import mksh in base, https://www.mirbsd.org/mksh.htm
> And make it the default root shell (not necessary in one step)
>
> Why:
> 1/ it is tiny 400k (in the packaged version) all other shells fitting the
> expectation are bigger
> 2/ it's default frontend in interactive mode is very close to what most people
> are used to with bash and shells as default root shell on other BSD and most
> linuxes
> 3/ from my narrow window csh as a default root shell is one of the major
> complaint (usually the first thing a user get faced to) from new comers and
> also for some long timers who are reinstalling a machine and have not yet
> installed/configured a bourne compatible shell
>
> What this proposal is _NOT_ about:
> 1/ the removal of tcsh from base
> 2/ any kid of denial of the quality and interest or features of csh
>
> What do you think?

Without knowing mksh in detail, based on your description I’m in favor of replacing csh with something closer to bash as the default root shell. In over 20 years of FreeBSD I didn’t manage to warm up with csh and none of the people I introduced to FreeBSD in that time did either.

Michael
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Importing mksh in base

Devin Teske-3


> On Jan 25, 2019, at 9:13 AM, Michael Gmelin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 25. Jan 2019, at 17:57, Baptiste Daroussin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I would like to import mksh in base, https://www.mirbsd.org/mksh.htm
>> And make it the default root shell (not necessary in one step)
>>
>> Why:
>> 1/ it is tiny 400k (in the packaged version) all other shells fitting the
>> expectation are bigger
>> 2/ it's default frontend in interactive mode is very close to what most people
>> are used to with bash and shells as default root shell on other BSD and most
>> linuxes
>> 3/ from my narrow window csh as a default root shell is one of the major
>> complaint (usually the first thing a user get faced to) from new comers and
>> also for some long timers who are reinstalling a machine and have not yet
>> installed/configured a bourne compatible shell
>>
>> What this proposal is _NOT_ about:
>> 1/ the removal of tcsh from base
>> 2/ any kid of denial of the quality and interest or features of csh
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> Without knowing mksh in detail, based on your description I’m in favor of replacing csh with something closer to bash as the default root shell. In over 20 years of FreeBSD I didn’t manage to warm up with csh and none of the people I introduced to FreeBSD in that time did either.
>

Working at Vicor for 10 years, where phk and jelischer used to work, nearly everyone there was well-versed in csh. I learned a lot of cool stuff and features it had to offer (such as "repeat N cmd"). Now the topic of replacing csh root shell with a bourne variant, I can't help but think of those old-hands at Vicor. The people that, every time I have lunch with, teach me ever more lore and impart priceless historical data points.
--
Devin
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Importing mksh in base

Jamie Landeg-Jones-2
Heavy tcsh user here - strictly for interactive use (I use bourne shell for
shell scripting)

Still, as long as it continues in base (and I'd be first to volunteer
to maintain that if needed - it already contains a few patches of mine),
then that's ok

cheers, Jamie
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Importing mksh in base

Conrad Meyer-2
In reply to this post by Gleb Popov-2
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 9:11 AM Gleb Popov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Are there FreeBSD users that are used to bash?

Sure, I am.  I used Linux for about a decade, probably exclusively
with bash, before using FreeBSD at all.  I don't know enough about
mksh to comment on it, though.

Best,
Conrad
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Importing mksh in base

Adam Vande More
In reply to this post by Baptiste Daroussin-2
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 10:58 AM Baptiste Daroussin <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to import mksh in base, https://www.mirbsd.org/mksh.htm
> And make it the default root shell (not necessary in one step)
>
> Why:
> 1/ it is tiny 400k (in the packaged version) all other shells fitting the
> expectation are bigger
> 2/ it's default frontend in interactive mode is very close to what most
> people
> are used to with bash and shells as default root shell on other BSD and
> most
> linuxes
> 3/ from my narrow window csh as a default root shell is one of the major
> complaint (usually the first thing a user get faced to) from new comers and
> also for some long timers who are reinstalling a machine and have not yet
> installed/configured a bourne compatible shell
>
> What this proposal is _NOT_ about:
> 1/ the removal of tcsh from base
> 2/ any kid of denial of the quality and interest or features of csh
>
> What do you think?
> Best regards,
> Bapt
>

I do not wish to have a bash like root shell since imo its interactive mode
isn't that great.  I don't think conformity is a great argument for change
in this regard.  I don't see any other advantage to this change.  I could
be wrong but I also think it might be incorrect to say bash is the default
root shell on other BSD's.

If there is some change to the root shell, I'd rather see it to be zsh
which does have a good interactive mode.

--
Adam
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Importing mksh in base

Baptiste Daroussin-2


Le 25 janvier 2019 18:41:51 GMT+01:00, Adam <[hidden email]> a écrit :

>On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 10:58 AM Baptiste Daroussin <[hidden email]>
>wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I would like to import mksh in base, https://www.mirbsd.org/mksh.htm
>> And make it the default root shell (not necessary in one step)
>>
>> Why:
>> 1/ it is tiny 400k (in the packaged version) all other shells fitting
>the
>> expectation are bigger
>> 2/ it's default frontend in interactive mode is very close to what
>most
>> people
>> are used to with bash and shells as default root shell on other BSD
>and
>> most
>> linuxes
>> 3/ from my narrow window csh as a default root shell is one of the
>major
>> complaint (usually the first thing a user get faced to) from new
>comers and
>> also for some long timers who are reinstalling a machine and have not
>yet
>> installed/configured a bourne compatible shell
>>
>> What this proposal is _NOT_ about:
>> 1/ the removal of tcsh from base
>> 2/ any kid of denial of the quality and interest or features of csh
>>
>> What do you think?
>> Best regards,
>> Bapt
>>
>
>I do not wish to have a bash like root shell since imo its interactive
>mode
>isn't that great.  I don't think conformity is a great argument for
>change
>in this regard.  I don't see any other advantage to this change.  I
>could
>be wrong but I also think it might be incorrect to say bash is the
>default
>root shell on other BSD's.


I am not saying bash is the default but bourne like shell on openbsd for instance it is a variant or ksh which mksh is a fork of, for example

>
>If there is some change to the root shell, I'd rather see it to be zsh
>which does have a good interactive mode.

zsh is big and evolving quickly, imho not a good candidate for base
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Importing mksh in base

Baptiste Daroussin-2
In reply to this post by Cy Schubert-4


Le 25 janvier 2019 18:12:58 GMT+01:00, Cy Schubert <[hidden email]> a écrit :

>On January 25, 2019 8:57:51 AM PST, Baptiste Daroussin
><[hidden email]> wrote:
>>Hi everyone,
>>
>>I would like to import mksh in base, https://www.mirbsd.org/mksh.htm
>>And make it the default root shell (not necessary in one step)
>>
>>Why:
>>1/ it is tiny 400k (in the packaged version) all other shells fitting
>>the
>>expectation are bigger
>>2/ it's default frontend in interactive mode is very close to what
>most
>>people
>>are used to with bash and shells as default root shell on other BSD
>and
>>most
>>linuxes
>>3/ from my narrow window csh as a default root shell is one of the
>>major
>>complaint (usually the first thing a user get faced to) from new
>comers
>>and
>>also for some long timers who are reinstalling a machine and have not
>>yet
>>installed/configured a bourne compatible shell
>>
>>What this proposal is _NOT_ about:
>>1/ the removal of tcsh from base
>>2/ any kid of denial of the quality and interest or features of csh
>>
>>What do you think?
>>Best regards,
>>Bapt
>
>Why not ksh93 instead? It is the original and authoritative Korn shell.
>EPL is compatible with the BSD license. Personally, I've been toying
>with the idea of importing ksh93 for a while now.
>

The reason I chose mksh is because it is heavily maintained and from the testing I have done it was the "nicer" interface

>As to replacing root's shell, replacing tcsh is a large POLA violation.

It will not replace in existing installation just make it the default in new installation I can t see how this is a POLA violation if it is in new setup on new major version (upgrades won t be affacted)

> Maybe give users the option at install time instead.

Doable, unsure it is worth it but yes we can do that if that is asked a lot
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Importing mksh in base

Eric van Gyzen-2
In reply to this post by Conrad Meyer-2

> On Jan 25, 2019, at 11:37 AM, Conrad Meyer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 9:11 AM Gleb Popov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Are there FreeBSD users that are used to bash?
>
> Sure, I am.  I used Linux for about a decade, probably exclusively
> with bash, before using FreeBSD at all.  I don't know enough about
> mksh to comment on it, though.

Ditto, except only 2 years on Linux before coming to FreeBSD.  I tried tcsh, since it was the default and in base, but I hated it for interactive use.  Notably absent are one-line “for" loops.  On new installs, after networking is up, my very first command is “pkg install bash [and others]”.

I would love to see any license-compatible Bourne-like shell in base and the default.  Our /bin/sh is a lot better for interactive use than it was years ago (thanks mostly to Jilles!), but it would be nice to keep /bin/sh small and fast, while taking advantage of upstream maintainership of a full-featured interactive shell.

Eric
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Importing mksh in base

Cy Schubert-4
In reply to this post by Baptiste Daroussin-2
On January 25, 2019 10:26:58 AM PST, Baptiste Daroussin <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>Le 25 janvier 2019 18:41:51 GMT+01:00, Adam <[hidden email]> a
>écrit :
>>On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 10:58 AM Baptiste Daroussin <[hidden email]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I would like to import mksh in base, https://www.mirbsd.org/mksh.htm
>>> And make it the default root shell (not necessary in one step)
>>>
>>> Why:
>>> 1/ it is tiny 400k (in the packaged version) all other shells
>fitting
>>the
>>> expectation are bigger
>>> 2/ it's default frontend in interactive mode is very close to what
>>most
>>> people
>>> are used to with bash and shells as default root shell on other BSD
>>and
>>> most
>>> linuxes
>>> 3/ from my narrow window csh as a default root shell is one of the
>>major
>>> complaint (usually the first thing a user get faced to) from new
>>comers and
>>> also for some long timers who are reinstalling a machine and have
>not
>>yet
>>> installed/configured a bourne compatible shell
>>>
>>> What this proposal is _NOT_ about:
>>> 1/ the removal of tcsh from base
>>> 2/ any kid of denial of the quality and interest or features of csh
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>> Best regards,
>>> Bapt
>>>
>>
>>I do not wish to have a bash like root shell since imo its interactive
>>mode
>>isn't that great.  I don't think conformity is a great argument for
>>change
>>in this regard.  I don't see any other advantage to this change.  I
>>could
>>be wrong but I also think it might be incorrect to say bash is the
>>default
>>root shell on other BSD's.
>
>
>I am not saying bash is the default but bourne like shell on openbsd
>for instance it is a variant or ksh which mksh is a fork of, for
>example
>
>>
>>If there is some change to the root shell, I'd rather see it to be zsh
>>which does have a good interactive mode.
>
>zsh is big and evolving quickly, imho not a good candidate for base
>_______________________________________________
>[hidden email] mailing list
>https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
>To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"

Mksh is not a fork of ksh93.  It is a fork of pdksh. If we are to import a ksh, let's import the real ksh. Not some clone.

--
Pardon the typos and autocorrect, small keyboard in use.
Cheers,
Cy Schubert <[hidden email]>
FreeBSD UNIX: <[hidden email]> Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org

        The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Importing mksh in base

John Baldwin
In reply to this post by Baptiste Daroussin-2
On 1/25/19 11:07 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>> As to replacing root's shell, replacing tcsh is a large POLA violation.
>
> It will not replace in existing installation just make it the default in new installation I can t see how this is a POLA violation if it is in new setup on new major version (upgrades won t be affacted)

I'm mostly struggling to find a reason to care what is in root's /etc/passwd
line, but aside from that, for people who use mergemaster or etcupdate, it
will try to merge the new shell during an upgrade of an existing system.
Granted, if you have an actual root password set the line will be a
conflict, but it's not strictly true to say that existing installs wouldn't
be affected.
 
>> Maybe give users the option at install time instead.
>
> Doable, unsure it is worth it but yes we can do that if that is asked a lot

I think we should avoid the tendency to add new questions to the install if
we can avoid it.  I often see this mentioned for potential POLA-type changes
and I think there are two issues: 1) it doesn't address upgrades, and 2) we
should keep a streamlined install process as much as possible IMO.  If we
start piling up a bunch of extra questions during the install it will just
make users' eyes glaze over.

--
John Baldwin

                                                                            
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Importing mksh in base

Cy Schubert-4
In reply to this post by Baptiste Daroussin-2
First time I've tried replying inline on this newer phone. Bear with me as this reply may not look like I intend it to.

On January 25, 2019 11:07:55 AM PST, Baptiste Daroussin <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>Le 25 janvier 2019 18:12:58 GMT+01:00, Cy Schubert
><[hidden email]> a écrit :
>>On January 25, 2019 8:57:51 AM PST, Baptiste Daroussin
>><[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>Hi everyone,
>>>
>>>I would like to import mksh in base, https://www.mirbsd.org/mksh.htm
>>>And make it the default root shell (not necessary in one step)
>>>
>>>Why:
>>>1/ it is tiny 400k (in the packaged version) all other shells fitting
>>>the
>>>expectation are bigger
>>>2/ it's default frontend in interactive mode is very close to what
>>most
>>>people
>>>are used to with bash and shells as default root shell on other BSD
>>and
>>>most
>>>linuxes
>>>3/ from my narrow window csh as a default root shell is one of the
>>>major
>>>complaint (usually the first thing a user get faced to) from new
>>comers
>>>and
>>>also for some long timers who are reinstalling a machine and have not
>>>yet
>>>installed/configured a bourne compatible shell
>>>
>>>What this proposal is _NOT_ about:
>>>1/ the removal of tcsh from base
>>>2/ any kid of denial of the quality and interest or features of csh
>>>
>>>What do you think?
>>>Best regards,
>>>Bapt
>>
>>Why not ksh93 instead? It is the original and authoritative Korn
>shell.
>>EPL is compatible with the BSD license. Personally, I've been toying
>>with the idea of importing ksh93 for a while now.
>>
>
>The reason I chose mksh is because it is heavily maintained and from
>the testing I have done it was the "nicer" interface
>

Ksh93 is also heavily maintained.  Look at their github activity. My ksh93-devel port has been tracking updates (I consider important).

>>As to replacing root's shell, replacing tcsh is a large POLA
>violation.
>
>It will not replace in existing installation just make it the default
>in new installation I can t see how this is a POLA violation if it is
>in new setup on new major version (upgrades won t be affacted)
>
>> Maybe give users the option at install time instead.
>
>Doable, unsure it is worth it but yes we can do that if that is asked a
>lot

I'm less concerned about this and am willing to concede this point if I have to.

However as ksh93 is IMO the better ksh and it's not a clone, it's the real ksh, and the license is compatible,  why would we settle on less than the real thing?



--
Pardon the typos and autocorrect, small keyboard in use.
Cheers,
Cy Schubert <[hidden email]>
FreeBSD UNIX: <[hidden email]> Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org

        The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Importing mksh in base

Cy Schubert-4
In reply to this post by John Baldwin
On January 25, 2019 11:14:23 AM PST, John Baldwin <[hidden email]> wrote:

>On 1/25/19 11:07 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>>> As to replacing root's shell, replacing tcsh is a large POLA
>violation.
>>
>> It will not replace in existing installation just make it the default
>in new installation I can t see how this is a POLA violation if it is
>in new setup on new major version (upgrades won t be affacted)
>
>I'm mostly struggling to find a reason to care what is in root's
>/etc/passwd
>line, but aside from that, for people who use mergemaster or etcupdate,
>it
>will try to merge the new shell during an upgrade of an existing
>system.
>Granted, if you have an actual root password set the line will be a
>conflict, but it's not strictly true to say that existing installs
>wouldn't
>be affected.
>
>>> Maybe give users the option at install time instead.
>>
>> Doable, unsure it is worth it but yes we can do that if that is asked
>a lot
>
>I think we should avoid the tendency to add new questions to the
>install if
>we can avoid it.  I often see this mentioned for potential POLA-type
>changes
>and I think there are two issues: 1) it doesn't address upgrades, and
>2) we
>should keep a streamlined install process as much as possible IMO.  If
>we
>start piling up a bunch of extra questions during the install it will
>just
>make users' eyes glaze over.

I'm willing to concede what shell root uses by default part of this thread.

--
Pardon the typos and autocorrect, small keyboard in use.
Cheers,
Cy Schubert <[hidden email]>
FreeBSD UNIX: <[hidden email]> Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org

        The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Importing mksh in base

Robert Clausecker
In reply to this post by Cy Schubert-4
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 09:12:58AM -0800, Cy Schubert wrote:
> Why not ksh93 instead? It is the original and authoritative Korn
> shell. EPL is compatible with the BSD license. Personally, I've been
> toying with the idea of importing ksh93 for a while now.

Note that ksh93 comes with a builtin user land from AT&T which should
behave quite a bit differently from the FreeBSD userland.  So unless we
want to maintain two slightly different userlands (one of which needs to
be maintained in conflict with upstream), that has to be torn out, which
kills one of the performance advantages of ksh93.

Yours,
Robert Clausecker

--
()  ascii ribbon campaign - for an 8-bit clean world
/\  - against html email  - against proprietary attachments
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Importing mksh in base

Rodney W. Grimes-4
In reply to this post by Baptiste Daroussin-2
> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to import mksh in base, https://www.mirbsd.org/mksh.htm
> And make it the default root shell (not necessary in one step)
>
> Why:
> 1/ it is tiny 400k (in the packaged version) all other shells fitting the
> expectation are bigger
It is more than twice the size of our current /bin/sh, and giving up
200k on the nano/tiny/wifi BSD is hard to justify.  400k is near the
size of tcsh.

Having expressed that concern, when pkg base is a reality and we can
pkg choose at install time if we get the current tiny /bin/sh or
your mksh proposal, or the whole basket which is bash I would support
adding more shells to the base system.

> 2/ it's default frontend in interactive mode is very close to what most people
> are used to with bash and shells as default root shell on other BSD and most
> linuxes

Getting close to usually does not satisfy those that do actually
use bash, zsh, ksh, etc.  Just as vi falls short for vim users.

> 3/ from my narrow window csh as a default root shell is one of the major
> complaint (usually the first thing a user get faced to) from new comers and
> also for some long timers who are reinstalling a machine and have not yet
> installed/configured a bourne compatible shell

I do not ever recall hearing a complaint about csh as a default root shell,
and, um I thought we encouraged new users to create an account and use
su/sudo type things so that they are not running around in a root shell
very much anyway.  I think the more norm complaint is from long time
Linux users making the transition to a BSD finding anything different
difficult to handle, much as I curse every few minutes when I am working
in a shell on a Linux box and find yet another thing I have to apt get
to even be close to a BSD system.

>
> What this proposal is _NOT_ about:
> 1/ the removal of tcsh from base
I would like to bring the invoked /bin/csh settings just a bit
closer to ancient /bin/csh, but I have learned to deal with the
subtle non conformance.

> 2/ any kid of denial of the quality and interest or features of csh
>
> What do you think?
I think we need pkg base so we can have all those shells
mentioned in other replies, so long as some one steps forward
willing to maintain them and all the scripts that need to run
on them without alteration.

> Best regards,
> Bapt
--
Rod Grimes                                                 [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Importing mksh in base

Bruce Evans-4
In reply to this post by Gleb Popov-2
On Fri, 25 Jan 2019, Gleb Popov wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 8:58 PM Baptiste Daroussin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I would like to import mksh in base, https://www.mirbsd.org/mksh.htm
>> And make it the default root shell (not necessary in one step)
>>
>> Why:
>> 1/ it is tiny 400k (in the packaged version) all other shells fitting the
>> expectation are bigger
>> 2/ it's default frontend in interactive mode is very close to what most
>> people
>> are used to with bash

You should warm up with a more modest task, such as replacing vi by emacs
as the default editor.

> Are there FreeBSD users that are used to bash? If not, this proposal looks
> like another "let's do like Linux" thing.

I have used /bin/bash as the root shell for more about 20 years.  The
currently install version is slightly newer -- only about 15 years old
(bash-1.14.7(1) installed by mv'ing it from /usr/local/bin where some
port put it.

toor still uses csh, but I never use toor.

I still use /bin/sh and of course /bin/ed for the single user shell and
editing there, except on one system which is misconfigured with /usr
on the root partition so that vi is accidentally available for editing.
If need, I exec bin/bash from /bin/sh or mount /usr, but my /usr is
usually on nfs and most boot-time editing is to fix network
configuratation so that nfs is available.

Bruce
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
123