Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucsfcgl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!arnold From: arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) Newsgroups: net.unix Subject: Re: Re: Alternate Shells Message-ID: <620@ucsfcgl.UUCP> Date: Fri, 23-Aug-85 01:28:28 EDT Article-I.D.: ucsfcgl.620 Posted: Fri Aug 23 01:28:28 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 19:57:41 EDT References: <242@cmu-cs-h.ARPA> Reply-To: arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold) Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab Lines: 20 In article <242@cmu-cs-h.ARPA> rfb@cmu-cs-h.ARPA (Rick Busdiecker) writes: >Why did you disable switching to other shells rather than simply demanding >the users password before completing the shell switch? (a) It was easier to implement (b) We saw little reason for anybody to use any other shell (you must remember that csh was new then, and there were no other alternative shells). The only other common shell used was a basic+ interpreter for one business class, which was given by the administrator when the class accounts were set up. I do not mean to defend this as the correct solution in today's circumstances. Somebody reported modifying their chsh to look in /lib/ok_shells instead of having a hardwired list, which makes more sense. But in a world where there were only two shells, it was the most obvious solution, and I thought I'd enlighten on a minor point of UNIX history in which I was involed. Ken Arnold