Re: Password file with over 3000 users.

[Thomas Goirand <thomas@goirand.fr>]

Nate Duehr wrote:
> So the answer to my question, "Why dash?"... the answers weren't very
> convincing seems to have boiled down to these answers:
> 
> - Bash is fat, especially for embedded systems, and smaller shells will
> boot faster.
> - Bash acts differently than other shells.
> - Shell scripts starting with a wimpy /bin/sh-shebang are broken by
> default.
> 
> In response, I'd say...
> 
> - Don't use bash if you don't want to, but don't push your smaller shell
> on me just because of that.
> - Duh.
> - Duh.
> 
> Seems like a dumb set of reasons to change the default non-login shell,
> to me... people tinkering with the defaults always leads to breakage,
> something Linux is uber-famous for.  It's getting old.
> 
> Anyone that doesn't know all of the above when choosing to use Linux,
> isn't paying any attention at all and shouldn't be designing anything,
> let alone an OS.  And especially not by committee.
> 
> (On the flip side, anyone using Linux not expecting the so-called
> "leadership" to constantly break working things, hasn't paid any
> attention to Linux history either.)
> 
> Linux as a whole is stuck in a never-ending break-fix cycle it can't
> break out of.  (No pun intended.)
> 
> Nate

To that, there's a simple answer: that's why Debian has release cycles,
and different flavours (unstable, experimental, etc.).

Thomas