Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ll-xn!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!quiroz
From: quiroz@cs.rochester.edu (Cesar Quiroz)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Counting sh users
Summary: Careful with empty fields in /etc/passwd.
 Used to be
 " Should ``csh'' be part of the System V distribution? "
 but isn't any more.
Message-ID: <9811@sol.ARPA>
Date: 18 May 88 21:20:18 GMT
References: <2599@usceast.UUCP> <2601@usceast.UUCP> <2593@polyslo.UUCP>
Reply-To: quiroz@cs.rochester.edu (Cesar Quiroz)
Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY 14627
Lines: 26
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:

This is an aside to the currently going discussion about the merits
of including csh in the standard Sys V distribution (on which I have
no opinion, so I changed the Subject line, excuse me the breach of
accepted etiquette).

From article <2593@polyslo.UUCP> (jeff@polyslo.UUCP (Skippy The Wonder Hacker)):
:
:  The system that I run is the major unix machine for the university.
:Here is the breakdown on shells:
:
:	csh(actually tcsh):	740
:	sh:			  5
:

I tried same in our systems and discovered NO sh users.  Now, that
is peculiar, as I know of at least one.  Careful inspection showed
that his entry in the /etc/passwd didn't have a shell field.   That
defaults to /bin/sh.  So, you too might be undercounting your sh
users, if their entries are just defaulting.

Not that this has much to do with anything that is being discussed.

-- 
Cesar Augusto Quiroz Gonzalez
Department of Computer Science     ...allegra!rochester!quiroz
University of Rochester            or
Rochester,  NY 14627               quiroz@cs.rochester.edu