Re: POSIX shell; bash ash pdksh & /bin/sh

[<aqy6633@acf5.nyu.edu>(Alex Yukhimets)]

>  Alex> What is really essential for the system is the
>  Alex> presence of /bin/sh. Since it looks like we shall have an
>  Alex> alternatives for /bin/sh link, I can easily imagine systems
>  Alex> which may not want to have bash at all.
> 
> 	All very true. I know systems that do not want Perl
>  either. However, the OS does impose some baggage, and our essential
>  package are the excess baggage.


I wouldn't mind to give possibility to our users to get rid of perl either :)
But it looks like more difficult problem *now*.

The argument of backward compatibility is a strong one. Backward compatibility 
is a good thing. But we already have an example of an OS which tries to be
backward compatible at all cost - including all its bugs and "excess baggage"
of this OS is enormous. While we probably all agree that size of the installed
operating environment with all bells and whistles will grow with time,
it is very important to retain ability to boot the system with only minimal 
(and small) configuration.

Thanks.


Alex Y.
-- 
   _ 
 _( )_
(     (o___           +-------------------------------------------+
 |      _ 7           |            Alexander Yukhimets            |
  \    (")            |       http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/      |
  /     \ \           +-------------------------------------------+


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org