* Jennifer Pioch (piochjennifer at googlemail.com) wrote: > On 10/22/07, Jean McCormack <Jean.McCormack at sun.com> wrote: > > Jennifer Pioch wrote: > > > On 10/19/07, Jean McCormack <Jean.McCormack at sun.com> wrote: > > > > > >> This is a code review for the following item: > > >> > > >> 4) Optimization to the code: > > >> - Create the "big" microroot in a regular directory. > > >> - Create the "small" microroot in /tmp, then, move to the proto area. > > >> > > >> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~jeanm/distro_constructor/ > > >> > > > > > > Why are you using bash and not ksh93 for the scripts? > > > > > The Distro Constructor is currently in the prototype phase and was based > > on the live media project which used bash. > > The current code will be replaced with the final project. During the > > design phase, the language to be used will be decided upon. > > Any input to aid in that language selection will be welcomed and > > appreciated. Please keep input to technical reasons such as > > "ksh93 has <insert here> > > Opensolaris currently ships /sbin/sh, /usr/bin/sh, /usr/bin/ksh, > /usr/bin/ksh93 and /usr/bin/bash and uses all five shells at runtime, > wasting 14MB of memory just for this extravagance. Neither Linux or > the BSD world is doing that. > You could reduce this to ksh93 to save disk space, memory usage and > unify everything into one system shell. > > > "and not more subjective statements such as > > "<whatever> is a better language". > > The statement "<whatever> is a better language" is not subjective. > Descending from bourne shell ksh93 topmost leaf of shell family tree > and a superset of the functionality of all previous bourne compatible > shells. Why would anyone want bash when he can use ksh93? The only > reason why Linux used bash was the non-GPL compatible license, a > problem which doesn't exist for Opensolaris.
Shells are a religious war (just like editors), each and every time they come up for discussion in my experience. What would be constructive is to provide purely *technical* reasons why you would advocate using one shell vs another for the specific purpose at hand. Something along the lines of, we need to be able to do X in this script and shell Y can do that while shell Z can't (or something to that effect). And I've very rarely seen that happen in these sorts of discussions. Cheers, -- Glenn Lagasse Solaris Install Sun Microsystems, Inc.
