On Saturday 15 May 2010 13:10:08 Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote: > On Fri, 14 May 2010, Rob Landley wrote: > > On Friday 14 May 2010 15:57:34 Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote: > > > Yes. Horrid obfuscation. > > > > By the way, if you were making the argument "this should work under > > busybox's own shells", I'd be all for it. You could even make a > > standards argment around SUSv4. > > I'll hold my breath :) > > > But making the argument "this should comply with Ubuntu's design > > mistakes", such as replacing the gcc binary with a perl wrapper (yes > > really, check Ubuntu 8.10)... > > No, I'm not making that argument. Aren't we diverging from the subject? > Weren't you running an ubuntu (flawed desingn) box?
Ubuntu installs bash by default. If you say #!/bin/bash at the top, you get bash. There's never been any plan to remove bash from the system, they're just adding more unnecessary glop on top. Their original rationale was to speed up init scripts. Yes really. They penalized the entire system because they hadn't yet thought of upstart, and then followed through because they'd never admit a mistake no matter how obvious. You are defending the single worst technical decision Ubuntu ever made. Rob -- Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
