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

Re: ash vs. bash

On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 05:51:35PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > b. Make ash the /bin/sh default shell.
> > 
> > Easy. Manage /bin/sh by update-alternatives.

No. update-alternatives is too fragile for this role. (If /bin/sh
breaks, the system is pretty dead.)

> This is what I meant.  b - make ash the /bin/sh shell - because it is
> faster, and equally POSIX compliant.

If people are going to keep making this claim, someone needs to post
some useful numbers. I'm not interested in whether ash starts .2s faster
than bash; if people want to argue that using ash speeds up the system,
let's have some real comparisons of common system tasks. I'd like to see
some real justification before breaking a working system.

Mike Stone

Attachment: pgplo2TxnauWQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: