Re: /etc/init.d/network is too simple?
On Sat, Apr 17, 1999 at 11:21:53AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sun, 18 Apr 1999 01:48:34 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> >Big deal. Honestly, I don't see that the saving is even worth a discussion.
>
> Then butt out of it if you don't find it worth your time.
Do you think that this tone will be effective?
> >RAM is cheap, swap space even cheaper.
>
> To you, maybe to me. That still doesn't make it the right thing to do.
> I ash again, why load all the interactive crap for a non-interactive task?
I agree with your premise that bash is a burden when running small
scripts. Similarly, it is sometimes worthwhile running vi to do a
quick edit on a host that is heavily loaded or has little RAM.
Is it feasible to use ash for our configuration scripts? If it has
enough of the necessary features then it seems to be a simple choice
to make. As to whether or not it is used as /bin/sh, it may work all
right if we make the default login shell /bin/bash. The big win here
is that a stripped down machine can be made quite easily without
affecting hosts that support interactive users. However, if ash won't
run the majority of scripts that run on bash then we're in for a big
battle getting it to be the default script shell.
-O
Reply to: