> On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 12:14:39AM -0000, Duncan Barclay wrote: > > > > From: "David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > I'll seriously argue against the 2nd point above. I don't know of a > > > SINGLE person that uses /bin/sh as their interactive shell when > > > multi-user. Not ONE. Every Bourne shell'ish user I've ever met uses > > > Bash, AT&T ksh, pdksh, zsh. > > > > I don't know anyone that farms lama's, so there cannot be any lama farmers. > > One has to make a strong statement to get the people to come out of the > woodwork.
Ack. > > computer$ grep dmlb /etc/passwd > > dmlb:*:1166:1166:Duncan Barclay:/home/dmlb:/bin/sh > > Good. Now do you need NSS support? Do the benefits of supporting NSS in > /bin/sh for you out-weigh the performance issue of building it > dynamically? Couldn't you just as easily use the pdksh port? The machine use I generate doesn't really require a lot of /bin/sh invocations. Either I have file servers, shell boxes, or compute engines running CPU bound jobs for half an hour upwards. Whether it takes a gnats longer to start /bin/sh doesn't really matter to me. However, NSS is likely to feature as needed sometime soon. Duncan > -- > -- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"