Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!newshost.telstra.net!act.news.telstra.net!imci3!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!iol!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!twwells!bill From: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) Subject: Re: Is replacing /bin/sh with bash recommended? Organization: None, Mt. Laurel, NJ Message-ID: <DoJrqo.6F9@twwells.com> References: <4ih5qb$lae@blackice.winternet.com> <4ik5p6$qm6@helena.mt.net> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 03:44:48 GMT Lines: 29 In article <4ik5p6$qm6@helena.mt.net>, Nate Williams <nate@sneezy.sri.com> wrote: : In article <4ih5qb$lae@blackice.winternet.com>, : John D. Boggs <jdb@robigo.winternet.com> wrote: : >What sort of nasties (if any) should I expect if I replace /bin/sh : >with bash in FreeBSD-2.1.0? : : Big ones. This is a load of shit. Since I converted to NetBSD/FreeBSD on the various machines I've used over the last two odd years, I have *always* replaced /bin/sh with a statically linked bash. Except right at the beginning, when NetBSD's /usr/src Makefiles were fucked up, I have had _no_ problems. None at all. I run both my home machine (NetBSD) and an ISP (FreeBSD) in this configuration. With *NO* problems. Absolutely none. It's also worth noting *why* I switched to bash: because the !@#$ shell that comes with the system had problems, "big ones", in dealing with many shell scripts.... There is only one reason to not use bash instead of the standard shell and that's that bash is about 40% bigger. Still, there's no way I'd use the existing shell; in a word, it sucks, it always has sucked, and probably will never get any better -- because the *reason* for using it instead of bash is that it's smaller. Add the stuff to make it as useful as bash and it'll be as big as bash... at which point, you might just as well use bash.