On 2/6/08, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 6, 2008 11:23 AM, Joerg Schilling > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 6, 2008 11:08 AM, Joerg Schilling > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > "Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ultimately, /sbin/sh is an unacceptable shell in a modern environment > > > > > for a variety of reasons. > > > > > > > > > > It isn't even POSIX compliant, and the base system shell should be. > > > > > > > > POSIX does not deal with path names and thus does not require that > > > > /bin/sh is POSIX compliant. > > > > > > What do path names have to do with the shell command language? > > > > Please try to understand how POSIX works.... > > > > POSIX requires a POSIX compliant shell to be available if ou type "sh" > > after you typed: "PATH=`getconf PATH`" > > > > POSIX does _not_ deal with PATH names and thus does not say anything about > > /bin/sh. > > I know that. You were assuming that I cared that POSIX said whether > /bin/sh should be a POSIX shell. > > I don't. > > All I care about is that the default shell used by root, etc. is: > > 1) *NOT* POSIX compliant > > 2) Buggy > > 3) Provides a poor user experience > > 4) Lacks proper internationalization support > > 5) Reflects poorly on Solaris > > 6) Hasn't been actively maintained > > 7) Continues to cause issues for users and developers when dealing > with multiple systems > > ...I could think of others, but the point is that there are better > options available.
+1 I think we should congratulate the person who had the guts to change /sbin/sh to ksh93 in Indiana. There is no point to turn Opensolaris into the last stronghold of the Bourne shell while everyone else moved to a POSIX shell Bruno _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
