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....