Subject: Re: should we replace the shell?
To: Timothy Newsham <email@example.com>
From: Zdenek Salvet <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/09/1994 11:09:30
Timothy Newsham wrote:
> > > But seriously folks, Ash is a perfectly good shell, and POSIX compliant,
> > > or not, I'm not going to give it up, regardless of what might be shipped
> > > as /bin/sh on NetBSD in the future.
> > I second that.
> > I think /bin/sh should be as small and fast as possible,
> > conformance and bloat-generating features be in alternative shell
> > for interactive use.
> The conformance should be for programming support more so than
> interactive support. If someone writes a shell script that uses
> features specified in a standard then it should run on the standard
> NetBSD shell. Isn't that what the standard is about in the first
Yes, perhaps my current practice of Bourne conformance ( absolutely necessary
in my multi-OS environment) influenced my post too much.