Re: Question about "Depends: bash"
Thomas Bushnell BSG <email@example.com> writes:
> On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 00:02 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> > "fast enought" is in the eye of a beholder. Try with PII/64M with
> > X deskop with 20 sessions of bash open. And opening firefox and xchat.
> What on earth is this nonsense about multiple invocations? Do you not
> understand what shared text is?
> > Anyway. What works for some is no indication of that it works for all.
> > I'm not sure why people are so enthustiastic with bash. It's just a
> > shell and there are alternatives to it - which are quite nice.
> I never understood what was so wonderful about perl. Yet, Debian
> decided to make perl Essential, so there it is. Such decisions have to
> be made.
> Nobody is telling you not to use the alternatives. Go ahead! Use them!
> Encourage other people to!
> But don't tell me that I *must* use the alternative.
I'm not sure I follow. I' puzzled why you do not seem benefit in:
- Making scripts sh-agnostict. That is making them portable
- Supporting low end systems with minimal of effort
- Improving the overall awaress of shells
What I gather so far, you have suggested that it is better to
put the shell name /bin/bash in scripts that /bin/sh. I'm not sure why
should people need to install dash if equivalent sh-implementation
woudl do the same?
Could you elaborate.