[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Interactive vs non-interactive shell for users



Martin Stricker writes....
> 
> Cliff Sarginson wrote:
> 
> > No sane-person uses tcsh to write scripts in, it is obscure and
> > arcane and riddled with problems..but is also an excellent
> > interactive shell.
> 
> I'm taking this as an insult! ;=D Actually, I've moved most scripts over
> to Perl, but for the small ones I remain with tcsh. Bash is the
> nightmare - doesn't work in a coherent way.
> 
> > Then there is the zsh, which really is the bees-knees of all
> > shells...but hardly known about.
> 
> Yup, but I'm so used to tcsh...
> 
> > If you want to restrict users in some way to what they can do,
> > examine the use of the "restricted" shell options, or the use of
> > chroot environments. Or write a shell script that locks them inside
> > it somehow and disallows certain commands.
> 
> Of course all these restrictons can be circumvented. I think a
> "restricted shell" is the best you can get.

All perfect examples/reason why most shell scripts are written in
Bourne (/bin/sh) and very few people use that as their interactive
shell.

-- Jay Crews
jpc jaycrews com





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]