Subject: Re: should we replace the shell?
To: David S. Miller <email@example.com>
From: J.T. Conklin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/07/1994 13:27:58
>>>>> "David" == David S Miller <email@example.com> writes:
David> I am new around here, but may I ask why distributing the GNU
David> Bash shell hasn't been considered? It can't be strictly because
David> it is GPL'd code because gcc is in netbsd (albeit an old
David> version). Is it due to the core size that bash can take up? If
David> this is the case then bash can be compiled to be more minimal,
David> and bash is a completely POSIXized shell. I welcome your
One of NetBSD's goal is to be as GPL-free as possible. With a GPL'd
shell, users wouldn't be able to produce GPL-free run-time or turnkey
Also, I understand that some POSIX.2-required bits (like command line
editing) are disabled when bash is complied in it's "minimal" config,
and that config only effects code size, it is still 3-5 times as slow.