From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Apr 16 3:57:53 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 3903A37BCBE for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 03:57:39 -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 MAA26519 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:57:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id MAA00575 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:57:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from news-ma.rhein-neckar.de (news-ma.rhein-neckar.de [193.197.90.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE2ED37B9B0 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2000 20:07:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from naddy@bigeye.rhein-neckar.de) Received: from bigeye.rhein-neckar.de (uucp@localhost) by news-ma.rhein-neckar.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with bsmtp id FAA17350; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 05:07:07 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from naddy@bigeye.rhein-neckar.de) Received: (from naddy@localhost) by bigeye.rhein-neckar.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA67856; Sun, 16 Apr 2000 05:06:01 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from naddy) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 05:06:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Christian Weisgerber Message-Id: <200004160306.FAA67856@bigeye.rhein-neckar.de> To: Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Shells X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd.arch In-Reply-To: <200004152356.e3FNup102274@cwsys.cwsent.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG (Are shell wars really appropriate to -arch?) 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. (Side note: Incompatibilities between bash and sh fall into two categories: 1. Comparing a POSIX shell (bash) with a traditional Bourne shell. This is a non-issue since our sh is a POSIX shell, too. 2. General upwards compatibility issues, i.e. the existence of additional pre-defined variables, commands, etc in the name space. This was already rare those six years ago, and as Linux has become _a_, if not _the_ major unix platform since, any offending scripts have been fixed. I don't think replacing sh by bash is an issue. If there's a question, then that's whether bash should be _added_ alongside sh. Note that bash's license (GPL) makes an inclusion into the tree unattractive. Personally, I think the addition of a _Korn shell_ should be worth some consideration. Candidates are pdksh, which is of similar size to our sh and could quite possibly replace it as well (as done on OpenBSD), or maybe ksh93, if AT&T's license should allow this. Some facts: * {,/usr}/bin/ksh is widely provided on commercial unices and is actually ksh88 there. * pdksh implements a substantial subset of ksh88, with some deviations for POSIX compatibility. It is in the public domain(!). * ksh93 implements a superset of ksh88, with some deviations for POSIX compatibility. It is under AT&T's open source(?) license . (If anybody has managed to actually understand this thing, please provide details.) * NetBSD uses pdksh for /bin/ksh (and a relative of our sh for /bin/sh). OpenBSD uses pdksh for /bin/sh and /bin/ksh. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message