Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!cottrell@nbs-vms.ARPA From: cottrell@nbs-vms.ARPA Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: kluge vs design Message-ID: <8685@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Tue, 26-Feb-85 19:11:24 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.8685 Posted: Tue Feb 26 19:11:24 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 3-Mar-85 04:32:56 EST Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA Lines: 30 /* > > Those users could have their .profile, then `exec' their > > as the last statement. > > That can be done - it's what we did before we fixed "login" to permit > you to set TERM and TZ directly. However: > > 1) it's a kludge, the need for which can be obviated by a minor change > to "login"; It's NOT a kluge, it was DESIGNED that way. Why modify REAL CODE to do what you can with a PROFILE? What if Joe Blow wants the environment variable INPUT set to some special filename for his application? Are you going to go off to /usr/src & hack login.c for him too? Does everyone even HAVE the source? Program at the right level!!! > 2) it requires the system administrator to go through a song-and-dance > to set up their account ("No, Fred, you don't just set their "shell" > field to "/op/op/programs/shell", you leave it blank and stick the > following in their .profile...") - i.e., it renders the "shell" field > of the password file largely useless. Systems administrators LIKE to sing & dance. That's what they get paid for. The user sticks it to his own profile. Or asks the S.A. to do it. You have a point, tho. The shell field is largely useless and can be done away with altogether. `Exec' as the last line in .profile does the same thing at the expense of some extra startup time. jim */