On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 21:30:36 +0800
"Casper Ti. Vector" <caspervec...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 02:33:50PM +0100, Oliver Schad wrote:
>  [...]  
> 
> A history note: once a friend of mine, when introduced to execline,
> told me about the Thompson shell [1].  The Wikipedia page said, "by
> the 1975 release of Version 6 Unix, it was becoming clear that the
> Thompson shell was inadequate for most serious programming tasks",
> which might also "explain" some people's feeling about execline.
> 
> [1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson_shell>.

I completely understand the purpose of execline but for server systems,
which allocates more than 1 GB RAM regulary and running on modern x86
CPUs, saving such resources is not needed for us(!).

So the comfort of porting stuff from existing oneshots overweights the
computer resource usage for us(!).

In an embedded area it might be needed to save every Byte/KByte.

Another point for our decision (for us) is, that we don't have knowlege
about other shells than sh/bash - cause we don't see big benefits for
us, we would stay in a homogeneous toolset.

The idea of switching the init system at all is internally in our
company not accepted from everyone. Changing more stuff, would mean to
make acceptance and therefore migration harder. So a political
dimension is there as well.

Best Regards
Oli

-- 
Automatic-Server AG •••••
Oliver Schad
Geschäftsführer
Turnerstrasse 2
9000 St. Gallen | Schweiz

www.automatic-server.com | oliver.sc...@automatic-server.com
Tel: +41 71 511 31 11 | Mobile: +41 76 330 03 47

Attachment: pgp6SnJtqfhTq.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to