From owner-freebsd-small Thu Jan 11 3:28:27 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 C1BB037B401 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 03:28:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by mimer.webgiro.com (Postfix, from userid 66) id 9E92B2DC0F; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:32:01 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx.webgiro.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 412637817; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:28:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.webgiro.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CD7110E1B; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:28:38 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:28:38 +0100 (CET) From: Andrzej Bialecki To: Luigi Rizzo Cc: small@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sash as a shell replacement ? In-Reply-To: <200101102352.f0ANqbI56681@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: > > sash has very poor shell functionality. I would suggest using Minix sh > > which is very Bourne-like, and is also very small. > > what kind of licensing does it have ? I was about to go BSD. The whole Minix was recently (October?) put under BSD license. > for a different approach, namely use the standard sh as > a shell, and a slightly modified 'sash' for a bunch of commands > such as more, grep etc. That's basically the same approach, except that Minix sh is already much much smaller. 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