Re: ash vs. bash
On 19-Jul-99, 22:13 (CDT), Steve Lamb <email@example.com> wrote:
> Except for systems that don't have bash, which is the whole point of an
I thought the point of the exercize was to speed up system startup
and many scheduled tasks, and reduce the memory requirements thereof.
Eliminating bash from the system entirely is something else, and I'm not
sure I see the point of it (if you're that low on diskspace, which seems
the only possible point), then is having bash significanltly less than
ash + zsh (or whatever?).
> Can you explain why one would want an interactive shell doing
> non-interactive work and vice versa? To be honest, I never really got the
> logic of having scripting build into an interactive shell since they serve
> two different purposes.
I write "interactive scripts" (i.e. I use "scripting commands" on the
command line) (usually "for x in y" type stuff) all the time. Why not?