Subject: Re: should we replace the shell?
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: David S. Miller <email@example.com>
Date: 12/07/1994 16:19:26
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 1994 12:10:30 -0800
From: "J.T. Conklin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
The reason I think the last point is the most important is because we
can expect drawbacks like the performance issues, and the remainder of
POSIX.2 work, to be addressed by others. Ash is what it is today, and
I don't see any volunteers lining up to fix it's defects. I know that
the pdksh maintainer is busy just like the rest of us, but he has been
very responsive to the the patches that I submitted and performance
issues I discovered during the alpha and beta process.
I am new around here, but may I ask why distributing the GNU Bash
shell hasn't been considered? It can't be strictly because it is GPL'd
code because gcc is in netbsd (albeit an old version). Is it due to
the core size that bash can take up? If this is the case then bash can
be compiled to be more minimal, and bash is a completely POSIXized
shell. I welcome your thoughts....
David S. Miller