On 24/03/2021 14.09, David T-G wrote:
Linda, et al --
...and then L A Walsh said... % % On 2021/03/23 05:57, David T-G wrote: % >Again, I disagree. This is probably a religious^Wphilosophical % >difference, but IMHO it is better to fail upon a failure, even if that % >means that your login is interrupted and you have to fix it, than to % >quietly mask the failure. The trivial % ---- % Uh...If you can't login and you are logging in remotely, you % are saying it is better for you to have to abort your vacation % in ....wherever... I think that might be defined as % self-masochism.
No, I wouldn't say that at all. I would become root -- which I would in advance make darned sure didn't have any stupid errors that would blow up a shell -- and go and fix the stupid user's problem. And I wouldn't be the one on call while I'm on vacation, either :-)
More to the point, I have not yet seen an error which would actually cause a login to fail and leave me not at a shell prompt.
I have. More than once on these mails lists or other places. I do not remember particulars, but the most typical one is a missing /home mount, full home, read-only home, etc. Me myself, too, no more than a year ago. Having that as a result of changing the defaults in bash or whatever... I remember one not two years ago, but again, not the details or how to google it. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.2 x86_64 at Telcontar)