On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Default User wrote:
> I just know I'm going to regret asking this, but . . .
> why does OpenBSD have ksh as the default shell, rather than bash?
>
> Also, what ever happened to the statically-compiled bash that used to be
> available in OpenBSD packages?
>
> BTW, thanks for making ksh the default shell for root - IMHO much easier
> to learn than csh, especially if you're used to bash.
>
> No flames, please. Just honest thoughtful discussion.
A better question is "why do others use bash instead of a more
standards-compliant shell"?
I suspect the answer might be that ksh was a little late being freed
(the original ksh, not pdksh).
And besides, bash isn't yet free, and probably never will be, and
there's enough GPL code around BSD already.
Bash is not good (not portable) for scripting, and the interactive
bits are not compelling reasons to use it. It has some annoying
differences from sh(1), and in some cases implements SysV ideas, and
this ain't SysV. (Consider the bash internal "echo" command for
an example. Compare 'echo "\nfoo"' and '/bin/echo "\nfoo"'. This
whole internal command thing is a bit irritating and possibly
bad. Very bad for root. Rule for root: no surprises.)
Perl has obviated the need for some sort of interactive interpreted
system language. Bash has some new and expanded features, but not
enough to make its use compelling.
Or so I think.
Dave
--
Experience runs an expensive school, but fools will learn in no other.
-- Benjamin Franklin
