From owner-freebsd-small Wed Jan 10 15:18:28 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-small@freebsd.org Received: from mimer.webgiro.com (unknown [213.162.128.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A14337B69D for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:18:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by mimer.webgiro.com (Postfix, from userid 66) id C73A92DC0E; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:22:01 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx.webgiro.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id E38AA7817; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:15:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.webgiro.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E181E10E1B; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:15:11 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:15:09 +0100 (CET) From: Andrzej Bialecki To: Luigi Rizzo Cc: small@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sash as a shell replacement ? In-Reply-To: <200101102211.f0AMBBS48285@iguana.aciri.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-small@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > hi, > i have been trying to use "sash" as a replacement for "sh" > and other utilities, but it seems problematic. Basically, > sash does not handle things like > > sh some_script_name [ arguments ] > > nor can be invoked with a different name to implement one of > the embedded commands. Does anyone else have a better experience, > or can suggest some patches ? sash has very poor shell functionality. I would suggest using Minix sh which is very Bourne-like, and is also very small. BTW. if someone has the time and inclination to make a couple of ports for useful small Minix programs, I can provide the patches to make them run under FreeBSD. Andrzej Bialecki // WebGiro AB, Sweden (http://www.webgiro.com) // ------------------------------------------------------------------- // ------ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve. http://www.freebsd.org -------- // --- Small & Embedded FreeBSD: http://www.freebsd.org/~picobsd/ ---- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-small" in the body of the message