> If other systems think Linux is irrelevant, Linux crowd can easily take > the same stance and declare all other (unix) systems irrelevant. > I leave it up to you to guess who is going to win such battle.
I don't know who's going to win, but I know for sure who's going to lose: the users. I don't care whether hush or ash supports brace expansion or not. I have stopped using the shell as a script language altogether anyway, and am using execline instead (and other people working in embedded environments should definitely consider it too). What I do care about, though, is compatibility from one Unix platform to another, and calling a spade a spade. http://www.busybox.net/FAQ.html#standards says: "portability to dozens of platforms is only interesting in terms of offering a restricted feature set that works everywhere, not growing dozens of platform-specific extensions." Bashisms are arguably Linux-specific extensions to Single Unix, don't you think ? ;) If hush is supposed to emulate "bash, the GNU shell" rather than "sh, the POSIX shell", then it's fine, no problem, but it needs to be clearly documented as such. In any case, a FAQ entry such as "Why are there two shells implementations in BusyBox?" or "What are the differences between ash and hush?" would help, and avoid such arguments in the future. I would gladly write such an entry myself if I knew more about the internal workings of ash and hush. -- Laurent _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
