Le Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 03:03:29PM -0800, Chris Lumens a écrit:
> Before we get started up into a big shell war, let me just make the
> decision quickly. We can argue the merits of which shell is best later.
ok, let's do it now :-)
> ksh won't be our /bin/sh. It's not going to be on Intel, and I've used
> that as rationale for lots of things. I might as well at least be
> consistent. ksh will be put into the ap series, just like it is in the
> Intel distribution. So you can use it, but it won't be the /bin/sh.
Ok, this clarifies at least a lot of things for me. Having lots
of shells availables is a good point, changing the default one's
a bad.
> bash2 will no longer be known as /bin/bash. It will be moved to
> /bin/bash2. It doesn't work very well right now, so I'll just move it out
> of the way.
Well, just as I said to Octave just before, please, give me more
examples (and real ones, not ones linked with gcc/binutils/glibc(*))
of bash failures, as I haven't seen only one, since, say...
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 1342563 Jun 5 1997 bash-2.01.tar.gz
say mid-97, according to my local gnu mirror :)
i've used it on a variety of architectures, alpha, sparc, and of
course intel (even s390 recently!), and i've never had a real
problem with it.
> If anyone wants to use bash2 as their shell, they can just
> chsh.
of course. but you could do that for any shell you want.
> For people (like me) that still want to use ksh as /bin/sh, it's only one
> symlink to make. Does everyone agree that this would be the wisest course
> of action?
Yes. We can't change mad people doing stupid things ;-))) (just joking)
(*) yes, I really do not like gcc > egcs 1.1.2, binutils > 2.9
and glibc > 2.1.3, which have really prove themselves to be
reliable. glibc 2.2 is cripped with bugs, as any new software
release is, and I can't understand why it's already in slack.
isn't slack motto "stability and reliability" ?!? that's what I'm
waiting from it, not "using cutting-edge technology". I do not
want the latest kernels, neither latest glibc or binutils. just
include ones that have prove themselves to be what I need, that
is, stable and reliable. This, of course, is a comment for intel
and alpha arch, and i should probably cc: patrick. hm. let's
discuss it here a little more before sending him conclusions :)
Arnaud -- stability researcher, reliability engineer ;-)
-- BOFH excuse: The lines are all busy (busied out, that is -- why let them in to begin with?).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri May 09 2003 - 10:00:02 PDT