Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.questions:11201 gnu.misc.discuss:15408 Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions,gnu.misc.discuss Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!lll-winken.llnl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiitac From: iiitac@uk.ac.swan.pyr (Alan Cox) Subject: Re: Taylor UUCP on FreeBSD??? Message-ID: <1994Jun21.114816.7706@uk.ac.swan.pyr> Organization: Swansea University College References: <2u53jg$rrk@pdq.coe.montana.edu> <2u5bom$cb6@glitnir.ifi.uio.no> <2u5hnf$svv@pdq.coe.montana.edu> Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 11:48:16 GMT Lines: 25 In article <2u5hnf$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). >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. 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. Alan