Re: Several reason a minimal POSIX /bin/bash is a bad idea
- To: Clint Adams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Several reason a minimal POSIX /bin/bash is a bad idea
- From: Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: 02 Aug 1998 13:54:00 -0500
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: Clint Adams's message of "Fri, 31 Jul 1998 14:36:26 -0400"
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <Pine.LNX.3.96.980731081354.670Aemail@example.com> <19980731131514.A12307@scowler.ml.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <19980731143626.C12898@scowler.ml.org>
>>"Clint" == Clint Adams <email@example.com> writes:
>> As long as it is optional, I am with the lobby.
Clint> As long as the option requires effort against the status quo, not
Clint> the other way 'round.
Nope. Not until the other shells have been tested. Reliability.
Fault tolerance. Dependabilty. OK?
>> I do, for one. I have extensive customizations in my shell,
>> and /bin/sh bypasses all those.
Clint> How do you cope with something like a Solaris system where /bin/sh
Clint> is pretty unbearable?
I don't use Solaris. I restrict myself to digital UNXI, AIX,
And HP-UX. Anyway, broken shells on other operating systems
are not my concern. I never advocate changing Debian to accomodate
breajage on Windows 95, for example.
"It's better to get mugged than to live a life of fear." Freeman
Dyson Freeman did indeed say that, but I'm probably the only person
who was listening to him at the time. So, you won't find it written
in any of his books. Russell Nelson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com