Joerg Schilling wrote: > Norm Jacobs <Norm.Jacobs at sun.com> wrote: > >> Joerg Schilling wrote: >>> "Garrett D'Amore" <gdamore at sun.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> My only small concern with this project is the name "bsh". ISTR being >>>> on other systems where "bsh" meant the "Bourne Shell". It seems like >>>> "beansh" might be a better name here to avoid possible confusion. But >>>> if this is widely deployed on FOSS already using "bsh", then perhaps we >>>> ought to leave the name as is. >>>> >>> "bsh" is used by my private shell for a much longer time (since 1984) than >>> people started to use "bsh" for the Bourne Shell. This is why I use "bosh" >>> for my extended Bourne Shell. >>> >>> Please use "beansh" >> Forgive me for pointing out the obvious here, but /usr/bin/bsh on Fedora >> and Ubuntu appear to be BeanShell (I didn't check anywhere else). Given >> that this is a familiarity case, wouldn't it make sense to install it in >> the familiar location and have 'bsh' do the familiar thing? > > Do you like to copy this mistake?
Exactly why is it a mistake ? Your private shell being called bsh is quite frankly irrelevant. It would only be relevant if there was an already existing or likely to be filed soon case to include it as part of the OpenSolaris distro (you can choose to do what ever you please in your distro - if you want /bin/bsh being "my private shell" and /bin/beanshell being this case that is your choice for your distro) - you have made no such indication and the fact that you referred to it as "my private shell" seems to support that. I vote that we follow the practice of Fedora and Ubuntu on the grounds of familiarity to far more people and the very people we are trying to attract to OpenSolaris. -- Darren J Moffat
