Re: bash should not be essential
On 13 Nov 1997, James Troup wrote:
[lots snipped]
> What on earth for? That's completely redundant if bash is essential.
Nice post, but very little in the way of rational arguments why bash
should be essential when it doesn't have to be. It's not like there is
significatly more power there than in a normal /bin/sh. While I can't
personally see myself living without bash, and since it compiles almost
anywhere I don't see myself not having it, I don't see the point in
needlessly forcing others to use it. I'm sure there are plenty of people
who always use tcsh for their usual work, which is about half the size of
bash. The below lines are the Installed-Size values from the copys of the
shells on my drive. People installing in cramped spaces could benifit
from working with something a tad less bloated (not to mention the speed
benifit from a smaller, less complex shell).
ash: 126
tcsh: 380
bash: 683
libreadlineg2: 167
--
Scott K. Ellis <storm@gate.net> http://www.gate.net/~storm/
Reply to: