Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!metro!wabbit.its.uow.edu.au!news.ci.com.au!newshost.telstra.net!act.news.telstra.net!psgrain!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!surfnet.nl!tuegate.tue.nl!news.IAEhv.nl!adv.IAEhv.nl!adv.IAEhv.nl!not-for-mail From: devet@adv.IAEhv.nl (Arjan de Vet) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Is replacing /bin/sh with bash recommended? Date: 20 Mar 1996 20:42:30 +0100 Organization: Internet Access Eindhoven, the Netherlands Lines: 25 Message-ID: <4ipn36$3aq@adv.IAEhv.nl> References: <4ih5qb$lae@blackice.winternet.com> <4ik5p6$qm6@helena.mt.net> <DoJrqo.6F9@twwells.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: adv.iaehv.nl In article <DoJrqo.6F9@twwells.com>, T. William Wells <bill@twwells.com> wrote: >It's also worth noting *why* I switched to bash: because the !@#$ >shell that comes with the system had problems, "big ones", in >dealing with many shell scripts.... I experienced the same in the past, the current version seems better. >There is only one reason to not use bash instead of the standard >shell and that's that bash is about 40% bigger. Still, there's no >way I'd use the existing shell; in a word, it sucks, it always has >sucked, and probably will never get any better -- because the >*reason* for using it instead of bash is that it's smaller. Add Smaller? When I compile bash with config.h.mini, statically linked and stripped, and compare it with the statically linked and stripped /bin/sh I get (on 2.0.5): -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 290816 Mar 20 20:35 bash -r-xr-xr-x 1 bin bin 299008 Jun 10 1995 sh >the stuff to make it as useful as bash and it'll be as big as >bash... at which point, you might just as well use bash. Arjan