On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 11:46 +0930, Malcolm Kay wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 02:49 am, Dan D Niles wrote: > > I had been using csh/tcsh for 20 years and I just switched to > > bash. The recent discussion about the differences between the > > shells prompted me to take another look at bash. I thought > > I'd share my perception of the differences between tcsh and > > bash. > > It seems to me that it is a little late in the day to be changing > to bash. Some well known Linux distributions are beginning to see > that some non-posix features of bash can create difficulties. I > believe recent releases of Ubuntu use dash as the prefered > shell, and it looks as though Debian will be going the same way. > Dash is supposed to be a modern, faster and cleaner > implementation of sh -- if installed through FBSD ports it has > the same man page as sh.
For an interactive shell, it doesn't really matter if it has non-POSIX features or not. For scripts it is a different story. If you use non-POSIX features in a script, it becomes less portable. I switched my interactive shell not my scripting shell. The problem with Linux distros is they replaced /bin/sh with bash. I imagine that non-POSIX features started to creep into their shell scripts and they became less portable. I agree with Linux distros using a POSIX shell for /bin/sh instead of bash. Ubuntu has been using dash as of at least 9.04, BTW. _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
