*BSD News Article 64030


Return to BSD News archive

Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!news.gan.net.au!act.news.telstra.net!vic.news.telstra.net!news.mira.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.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: <DooFpn.Gr@twwells.com>
References: <4ih5qb$lae@blackice.winternet.com> <4ipdtv$d6m@helena.mt.net> <DoL1pq.Fzp@twwells.com> <4isrok$eor@uriah.heep.sax.de>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 16:12:58 GMT
Lines: 20

In article <4isrok$eor@uriah.heep.sax.de>,
J Wunsch <joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de> wrote:
: > shell....unless you're going to tell me that it blows because of
: > errors in the implementation of bash?
:
: bash is at least as broken as the 4.4BSD ash.

I'd have to see evidence before I believe that.....

: Both try to be Posix-
: compliant, i.e., the feature allot of things from the ksh.  Both have
: command line editing (even better than the Real ksh), but ash doesn't
: suffer from too much featurism.

Avoiding creeping featurism is a good thing (and caused me to
hesitate to install bash) but it takes a distinct second place to
making things *work*. As I couldn't make C news and, I think,
smail3, and maybe a few others, work with ash, I switched.  That
was a couple of years ago but since I've had no problems with
bash, I'm not going to change....