From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19421 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2014 16:56:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Users List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 19403 Received: (qmail 9676 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2014 16:56:48 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 Message-ID: <546B7A65.2070806@necoro.eu> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:57:09 +0100 From: =?windows-1252?Q?Ren=E9_Neumann?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: zsh-users@zsh.org Subject: Re: 'login' vs 'interactive' ? References: <20141118163929.71afd221@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> In-Reply-To: <20141118163929.71afd221@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Just noted a small flaw in the FAQ: Am 18.11.2014 um 17:39 schrieb Peter Stephenson: > >> 2) is 'login' vs 'interactive' similar to "every square is a rectangle >> but a rectangle is not necessarily a square"? >> >> As in "Every login shell is interactive, but an interactive shell is >> not necessarily a login shell"? > > Not necessarily, in fact, because neither of the two points above is a > subset of the other. For example, something managing the way your > window system starts may decide to launch the shell that sets up the > environment as a login shell, but without a terminal. vs (from the FAQ-excerpt you quoted) > All login shells are interactive. - René