Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 17:31:26 -0700 From: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Shells V2 Message-ID: <200004160031.e3G0Vt302555@cwsys.cwsent.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
My first posting was so incoherent, I'm embarrassed to have my name on
it. So I'll do it better this time. BTW, any job worth doing is worth
doing twice :)
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, I still think it might be a good idea to
replace sh with bash.
Another point to consider is that most people who use a Bourne Shell
install and use the bash2 port, just like Csh users install and use the
tcsh port. I think that fewer people would be inconvenienced by the
replacement of sh with bash than there currently are of those who
install and use the bash2 port.
If replacing sh with bash is unpalatable for some or most of us, what
about putting bash2 in the base system along side of sh?
The only arguments I can see against this are:
1. Bash isn't 100% compatible with sh, but I've only experienced this
once
over my UNIX career.
2. Bloat. FreeBSD was small when I first started to use it (2.0.5).
Anyone care to comment?
Regards, Phone: (250)387-8437
Cy Schubert Fax: (250)387-5766
Team Leader, Sun/DEC Team Internet: Cy.Schubert@osg.gov.bc.ca
Open Systems Group, ITSD, ISTA
Province of BC
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200004160031.e3G0Vt302555>