Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 00:02 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote: > > "fast enought" is in the eye of a beholder. Try with PII/64M with > > X deskop with 20 sessions of bash open. And opening firefox and xchat. > > What on earth is this nonsense about multiple invocations? Do you not > understand what shared text is? > > > > Anyway. What works for some is no indication of that it works for all. > > I'm not sure why people are so enthustiastic with bash. It's just a > > shell and there are alternatives to it - which are quite nice. > > I never understood what was so wonderful about perl. Yet, Debian > decided to make perl Essential, so there it is. Such decisions have to > be made. > > Nobody is telling you not to use the alternatives. Go ahead! Use them! > Encourage other people to! > > But don't tell me that I *must* use the alternative.
I'm not sure I follow. I' puzzled why you do not seem benefit in: - Making scripts sh-agnostict. That is making them portable - Supporting low end systems with minimal of effort - Improving the overall awaress of shells What I gather so far, you have suggested that it is better to put the shell name /bin/bash in scripts that /bin/sh. I'm not sure why should people need to install dash if equivalent sh-implementation woudl do the same? Could you elaborate. Jari -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
