Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.questions:11060 gnu.misc.discuss:15332 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!netnews.upenn.edu!dsinc!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uhog.mit.edu!grapevine.lcs.mit.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!bsd.coe.montana.edu!nate From: nate@bsd.coe.montana.edu (Nate Williams) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions,gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Taylor UUCP on FreeBSD??? Date: 21 Jun 1994 15:09:10 GMT Organization: Montana State University, Bozeman Montana Lines: 45 Message-ID: <2u6vqm$3vl@pdq.coe.montana.edu> References: <2u53jg$rrk@pdq.coe.montana.edu> <2u5bom$cb6@glitnir.ifi.uio.no> <2u5hnf$svv@pdq.coe.montana.edu> <1994Jun21.114816.7706@uk.ac.swan.pyr> NNTP-Posting-Host: 153.90.192.29 In article <1994Jun21.114816.7706@uk.ac.swan.pyr>, Alan Cox <iiitac@uk.ac.swan.pyr> wrote: >In article <2u5hnf$svv@pdq.coe.montana.edu> nate@bsd.coe.montana.edu (Nate Williams) writes: >>>With all due respect, I suggest that you clean up your "default build >>>tools" so that they work with bash instead of tying your users to a >>>non-standard Bourne shell. >> >>ash is more standard than bash, and is MUCH (!!!) smaller. Why use a >>swiss army knife when a pen-knife works just fine. If you want to use >>bash as your login shell, so be it, but I'll kick and scream when you >>tell me that it has to be the shell used for programming and such. I >>don't need command line editing, history and the like for simple scripts >>in the system. > >I don't either but I've found I can't trust ash to get it right (I can't >always trust bash either for that matter, but it seems to cope better). Agreed. The bugs in ash need to be fixed, but as with all of the free projects we've got more 'things to do' than folks to do them, so it gets relegated to the bottom of the heap since a work-around exists. >>And there was a big push a while back to replace bash with ash due >>to it's size. Again, for an interactive shell bash is great, but >>for system performance it just doesn't stack up. > >Theres still a good argument for cleaning up your build tools to work with >any decent Posix compliant shell. To be honest, I'm not sure *why* it doesn't work with bash, but there are reports that it doesn't from the core members. >I still use ash compiled to use readline >on smaller machines, and use bash on them for scripts. If I was worried >about performance of my scripts I'd rewrite them in perl or C. Agreed, but perl isn't installed by default, and re-writing the scripts in C is a bigger challenge than fixing the bugs in ash. ;) Nate -- nate@bsd.coe.montana.edu | FreeBSD core member and all around tech. nate@cs.montana.edu | weenie. work #: (406) 994-4836 | home #: (406) 586-0579 | Available for contract/otherwise work.