Re: Switching /bin/sh to dash without dash essential
On Fri, Jul 24 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 09:31:04AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I think you are not going far enough. Why should I have dash on
>> the system when my default shell is posh? or (gasp) zsh?
> Why would you set your default shell to posh? It's only marginally smaller
> than dash, and my understanding is that it's slower. It's more minimal from
> a policy perspective, but I don't see that this is relevant for a live
> Debian system.
> What's the advantage of having it be zsh? Is zsh faster than dash? Or is
> the only savings the elimination of the 84k dash binary from /bin?
It allows all the #!/bin/sh scripts that us zsh-isms to run.
>> I think one of the objections here is that we ought to have a
>> more generic approach that allows shells other than dash/bash to be the
>> default shell, and that the vendor not make the choice.
> And I think it has yet to be demonstrated that it's actually useful to
> support all these other possible values of /bin/sh. Without a concrete
> reason why these configurations should be supported, generalizing the
> implementation is needless overhead.
Demonstrated to whom? You see, viability of alternatives has to
be demonstrated to the decision maker. My contention is that the Vendor
ought not to be the decision maker here, that the quality of
implementation of the OS improves if the system owner or custodian has
the ability to make that determination.
In which case, proving which shell is better is taken out of the
equation, and what we have to do is support the custodian choice.
The whole earth is in jail and we're plotting this incredible
jailbreak. Wavy Gravy
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C