Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > * The Hurd does use much fewer start up shells than Linux, because most > information (network, mount points etc) is transient and stays alive during > reboots (passive translators). There are only four or five scripts.
OK, I really should find out for myself! > * I would really like to avoid switching to another shell. This is because > every bug that is not Hurd specific only interrupts my Hurd work. I prefer > other people doing the work to find the bashisms in the scripts. So ash > will not likely be the default from the first moment. > > * A slightly political reason that doesn't affect Debian but GNU/Hurd is that > bash is the standard GNU shell, not ash. This is also a technical reasons, > because Hurd improvements will go into bash faster than in any other shell. I wonder why GNU themselves don't provide a non-interactive subset sh-compatible version of Bash. Is it to push readline? [g] > However, if it really boosts up the performance, we may consider this. On > the other hand, as Donal Knuth said, preliminary optimization is evil, or, > in other words, I prefer convenience and stability over performancew > increase in this stage of our development. Point taken. I'll stop wasting everyone's time now. Thanks. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ian Smith ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
