Re: Password file with over 3000 users.
> > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 05:34:07PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > > > So, you would rather that things stay the same rather than improve (and
> > > > potentially break)? There is an operating system targeted at just that
> >
> > On 25.09.07 18:25, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > actually, it's replacing bash with ash/dash as the default sh which has
> > > the potential to break things.
On 25.09.07 18:46, Craig Sanders wrote:
> [ i note that you carefully deleted the paragraphs about locally written
> scripts - presumably because you have no answer and wish to ignore it
> and hope nobody notices. ]
I did not feel I have to differ between them.
> > > changing something that will break things for the majority in order
> > > to cater for a miniscule minority (embedded systems developers) is a
> > > ludicrous proposition. it makes no sense at all.
> >
> > those things are already broken. using dash as /bin/sh will not break them.
>
> no, those locally written ARE NOT BROKEN.
If any sscript calling /bin/sh uses bashisms, it IS broken by definition.
The fact that it's not visible, because /bin/sh and /bin/bash are the same,
does NOT mean they are not broken.
> bash has been /bin/sh on debian systems for over a decade. it is
> perfectly reasonable for a local sysadmin to take advantage of the
> non-POSIX features of the debian standard /bin/sh.
did I or anyone else say that bash MUST NOT be installed as /bin/sh?
I have no objections against this possibility. But having bash installed
just because some people break things is sick.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Spam = (S)tupid (P)eople's (A)dvertising (M)ethod
Reply to: