From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Apr 20 0:56:53 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ECC837BDDA for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:56:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA07098 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 09:56:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id JAA00671 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 09:56:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp03.primenet.com (smtp03.primenet.com [206.165.6.133]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 053FF37BFE9 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 14:37:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert@usr09.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp03.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA23088; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 14:36:56 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr09.primenet.com(206.165.6.209) via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAlyaacT; Wed Apr 19 14:36:51 2000 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA04673; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 14:36:52 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <200004192136.OAA04673@usr09.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Shells To: naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de (Christian Weisgerber) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 21:36:52 +0000 (GMT) Cc: Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <200004160306.FAA67856@bigeye.rhein-neckar.de> from "Christian Weisgerber" at Apr 16, 2000 05:06:01 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > In article <200004152356.e3FNup102274@cwsys.cwsent.com> you write: > > With commit of tcsh, I'd like to raise another question. Are there any > > plans to replace sh with bash. Granted they're not 100% compatible, > > though my only experience with bash vs sh incompatibility was over 6 > > years ago on a Linux system, > > bash is reputed to execute scripts rather slowly. I don't know if > this still holds true for the current version. It definitely is > rather large, though. This is because bash still tries to get the highest fd it can to avoid having to remember where it left the fd for the script currently being executed, and move it out of the way, should some user attempt to use it in their shell scripts. In other words, it is the result of lazy programmers not caring if they bloat the per process open file table to kingdom come, just so that they don't have to learn how to write proper resource tracking code, and do it The Right Way(tm). Back in The Old Days Before Resource Limits(tm), this would actually crash FreeBSD, since it was such a heinously bad idea to do this, no one had ever thought to protect the system from it happening, because no one could possibly be stupid enough to write code that acted that way, other than the while(1) fork(); weenies, and we threw them off the important computers already. -- All this said, the arguments against both tcsh and bash remain: Standard Plus Extensions Is Not Standard -- Terry Lambert Feel free to put that one in the fortunes database so that you can all see it without me having to post about it on inane threads like this one to point out that people writing shell scripts are not the type of people who will look at POSIX before using a shell specific construct that isn't cross-platform. Which brings up another one: Those who do not remember the UNIX Wars are doomed to repeat them in their operatings systems, in their shells, in their install tools, and in their system libraries; may their names live on forever -- as things with which to frighten children. -- Terry Lambert Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message