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
*/