Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.questions:11199 gnu.misc.discuss:15405 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!sun4nl!news.nic.surfnet.nl!tuegate.tue.nl!news.iaehv.nl!news.iaehv.nl!not-for-mail From: devet@iaehv.iaehv.nl (Arjan de Vet) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions,gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Taylor UUCP on FreeBSD??? Date: 21 Jun 1994 16:45:49 +0200 Organization: Stichting Internet Access Eindhoven, the Netherlands Lines: 29 Message-ID: <2u6uet$q1d@iaehv.iaehv.nl> References: <1994Jun13.040754.17764@kosman.uucp> <2u53jg$rrk@pdq.coe.montana.edu> <2u5bom$cb6@glitnir.ifi.uio.no> <2u5hnf$svv@pdq.coe.montana.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: iaehv.iaehv.nl In article <2u5hnf$svv@pdq.coe.montana.edu>, Nate Williams <nate@bsd.coe.montana.edu> wrote: >ash is more standard than bash, and is MUCH (!!!) smaller. Why use a You're right, ash is smaller. >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. But many packages need a *working* /bin/sh. I tried using ash as a small sh on Linux for some time (bash 1.12 gave problems) but it broke at least INN's control scripts and trn's Pnews. I'm now using bash 1.14 on both Linux and FreeBSD and it works OK. Btw, bash containts a config.h.mini to create a version of bash without all the interactive stuff like history, completion etc. >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. I want a /bin/sh first to work *correctly*, and secondly it's nice when it's a small and fast program. Arjan