[Info-vax] CLI editing, was: Re: VMS - Virtual Terminals - A security risk way back yonder OR was that an Old Wives Tale ?

[William Pechter]

In article <n9qnd4$602$1 at Iltempo.Update.UU.SE>,
Johnny Billquist  <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
>On 2016-02-14 19:42, lists at openmailbox.org wrote:
>> I know Johnny loves to argue so here's an example of UNIX with a statically
>> linked shell. Read it and weep, babe.
>
>Oh, I love to argue. No denying that. I just have this inability to keep 
>quiet when I see something I think is wrong. :-)
>
>By the way, I can build static binaries all day long. It's not hard. But 
>I still find the concept of a "default" shell a bit weird. I've never 
>seen problems using whatever shell I personally prefer, no matter what 
>shells were already installed or not, and they have never been in the 
>way of installing whatever other software needed, so I find the claim 
>that you stick to bash in Linux because of some problem just super weird.
>
>	Johnny
>
>-- 
>Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
>                                   ||  on a psychedelic trip
>email: bqt at softjar.se             ||  Reading murder books
>pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol

Try changing the root user's default shell on a 1985-95 version of Unix
and see if the thing will be able to even boot correctly.

In the early days before #! /bin/sh was in common use the only way
the C shell scripts were often differentiated was by a : as the top line
and a hack that had those run by csh instead of sh.

Bill
-- 
-- 
Digital had it then.  Don't you wish you could buy it now!
pechter-at-gmail.com  http://xkcd.com/705/