[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ash vs. bash

On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 06:29:29AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 10:28:34AM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> > Cool.  Well, I had another testimonial off-list by Steve Lamb, who uses
> > ash as his /bin/sh.
> > 
> > Anyone think of a reason why we shouldn't make this policy (does it have
> > to be policy, or can we just do it?)
> Because it's not worth the trouble for most people?

What trouble? All that is needed is a to make ash part of base, do a tweak
in the bash and one in the ash package and perhaps fix some bugs that have
gone undetected until now. (Which obviously should not even be a problem
after what people say.) It may not matter to many users, but if the speed
difference is anywhere in the direction of what has been said here, I
definitely think it should be worth the "trouble".

-- ______________________________________________________
--          To Him, even that machine here has to obey...
-- _________________________________Norbert "Nobbi" Nemec
-- Hindenburgstr. 44  ...  D-91054 Erlangen  ...  Germany
-- eMail: <nobbi@cheerful.com>    Tel: +49-(0)-911-204180

Reply to: