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

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: