From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 16 01:00:39 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hackers@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B868345B; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 01:00:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 697F21218; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 01:00:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id rBG10Vbo041322; Sun, 15 Dec 2013 18:00:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) with ESMTP id rBG10Uj2041319; Sun, 15 Dec 2013 18:00:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 18:00:30 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block To: Ian Lepore Subject: Re: Interactive /bin/sh In-Reply-To: <1387125253.1177.2.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> Message-ID: References: <20131215.105840.948.1@DOMY-PC> <1387125253.1177.2.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Sun, 15 Dec 2013 18:00:32 -0700 (MST) Cc: rank1seeker@gmail.com, hackers@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 01:00:39 -0000 On Sun, 15 Dec 2013, Ian Lepore wrote: >> If just those 2 features would be implemented, I would be completely into /bin/sh > > An alternate viewpoint: I would prefer that /bin/sh remain as lean and > mean as possible, conforming to posix and especially NOT becoming > bloated with interactive usability stuff. If you want a user-friendly > bourne shell and can afford the memory and cycle bloat, use bash. An alternate, alternate viewpoint: the code that keeps the command history is already there, adding code that searches through it for completion would probably not make it significantly larger. So the cost is small. If people want to use it as their main shell, that's fine. Personally, I would just like it to make things easier and faster when only sh is available. The command history was a good step in that direction.