From owner-freebsd-current Sun Oct 25 13:17:20 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA18569 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 13:17:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from dt053nb4.san.rr.com (dt053nb4.san.rr.com [204.210.34.180]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA18562 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 13:17:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Studded@gorean.org) Received: from gorean.org (Studded@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dt053nb4.san.rr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA06504; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 13:16:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Studded@gorean.org) Message-ID: <36339533.49D5D9F0@gorean.org> Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 13:16:35 -0800 From: Studded Organization: Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2.7-STABLE-1015 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Feldman CC: "Dag-Erling C. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?=" , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sh and ~ expansion References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Brian Feldman wrote: > > Why don't we just use pdksh? Oh dear. I've had in the back of my mind for a long time to suggest us replacing our pseudo-implementation of sh with Bash in posix mode, but I haven't made the suggestion because I can think of at least 3 holy wars that it would start right off hand, and I can guess that there are more I don't know about. :) In my opinion if we're going to replace our sh with anything it should be something as posix as possible. That is the trend amongst the various vendors and right now there is no clear winner between continuing with "historic" bourne shell implementations and posix versions, although the trend is toward posix and that direction seems to have the momentum. Amongst the publicly available shells Bash has a lot of virtues for a project like this. It's one of the older public shells, has a broad and deep installed base, and is being actively developed. It incorporates the best features from other shells, and posix compliance is a high priority. Some may think that the fact linux uses bash would be a drawback, personally I think it's an advantage since linux users who migrate would have a common point of contact. Finally, I've gathered from various comments that Chet (the principle maintainer for Bash) has made that he uses FreeBSD as his main platform. :) The other thing I would suggest is that anyone who's serious about making something like this happen read comp.unix.shell for about a month before the debate continues. There is a lot of information available, and if we're serious about making this kind of change those making the decision should be as well informed as possible. Doug -- *** Chief Operations Officer, DALnet IRC network *** To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message