Re: Why it's so slow?
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> * The Hurd does use much fewer start up shells than Linux, because most
> information (network, mount points etc) is transient and stays alive during
> reboots (passive translators). There are only four or five scripts.
OK, I really should find out for myself!
> * I would really like to avoid switching to another shell. This is because
> every bug that is not Hurd specific only interrupts my Hurd work. I prefer
> other people doing the work to find the bashisms in the scripts. So ash
> will not likely be the default from the first moment.
>
> * A slightly political reason that doesn't affect Debian but GNU/Hurd is that
> bash is the standard GNU shell, not ash. This is also a technical reasons,
> because Hurd improvements will go into bash faster than in any other shell.
I wonder why GNU themselves don't provide a non-interactive subset
sh-compatible version of Bash. Is it to push readline? [g]
> However, if it really boosts up the performance, we may consider this. On
> the other hand, as Donal Knuth said, preliminary optimization is evil, or,
> in other words, I prefer convenience and stability over performancew
> increase in this stage of our development.
Point taken. I'll stop wasting everyone's time now. Thanks.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Smith
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: