Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 16:37:58 -0800 From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.Org> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Changing sh for compatibility sake Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19981026163758.009dd550@localhost> In-Reply-To: <v04011703b25a8ff095ff@[128.113.24.47]> References: <19981026125133.A2717@netmonger.net> <Pine.BSF.4.05.9810252016090.375-100000@picnic.mat.net> <3633C8F8.EF8E14D5@null.net> <Pine.BSF.4.05.9810252016090.375-100000@picnic.mat.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
FreeBSD sh is not the lowest common denominator. Neither is bash. Neither is pdsh. Neither is ksh or whatever your favorite shell is. They are all factors of the lowest common denominator. Changing FreeBSD sh to something else will: 1) not improve the portability of existing scripts. In fact, the change can only decrease portability of existing scripts. 2) not change the lowest common denominator for script developers. That is, FreeBSD sh will still be in use and, hence, will still be a factor. Even if the target is just FreeBSD, both old and new shells would be factors. This change can only add new factors to the lowest common denominator. Changing the sh for compatibility sake does not make much sense. If you are going to change sh, do it for functionality sake... just make sure the functionality gain is worth the resulting portability losses. Kurt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.5.32.19981026163758.009dd550>