Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two
Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 13:43 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> >
> > Bash is not essential for running Debian. It is possible to run old
> > PCs and old laptops completely free of bash. The point here is not the
> > disk consumption, but the reduced memory constrainsts. When scripts
> > are written with only "sh" in mind, they become portable to even
> > embedded systems (think busybox). Every bash-dependent scipt that runs
> > on the system, takes memory out from other processes.
>
> What about "perl". Is that essential? Why are you not going for big
> targets?
I don't see perl used that much for maintainer scripts, or daemon
scripts. As I explained in previous mails that there is no viable
alternative versions of Perl, like there are alternative versions of
shells.
Perl isn't likely to be included in embedded systems either.
> > Education sector and 3rd world still have PCs that are *years* and
> > *tears* old. Everybody do not live in countries where computers or
> > hardware are cheap.
>
> Guess what? I used bash on that old hardware when it was shiny and new
> also. Didn't seem to have any problems.
The issue is not having or experiencing problems or not. The issue is
portability and making things work in wider spectrum than bash. People
have personal preferences and it is possible to accomodate those.
Some prefer bash and see no problems. Others consider bash's memory
consumption a problem when compared to other alternatives.
Jari
Reply to: