> sake. I understand the alleged benefits of ash (small, loads faster on a > slow/small memory machine). Why would I, Debian user, benefit from being > able to run pdksh as /bin/sh? (Remembering that standards compliance, in > and of itself, does not give me a sexual thrill.)
I answered this explicitly already. It gives you a smaller, faster-loading shell and it supports brace expansions, which are the number one bug filed against #!/bin/sh scripts. So, if someone needs to run a low-memory machine in production, and is not interested in finding brace expansions in #!/bin/sh the hard way, it's safer to use pdksh as /bin/sh than it is to use current ash, and you will still get a memory benefit. Is this not an answer? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
