6 ms·
glibc and bash are needed to have a traditional Unix-like Linux-based system and I don't think they have any fully compatible replacements (musl and BSD sh aren
by devit 7y ago
glibc and bash are needed to have a traditional Unix-like Linux-based system and I don't think they have any fully compatible replacements (musl and BSD sh aren't).
- figomore 7y agoI think ZSH is a valid alternative to Bash.
- tomnipotent 7y agoOS X Catalina even made ZSH the default.
- saagarjha 7y agoI don’t.
- bashinator 7y agoIIRC, not just a alternative, but a full super-set.
- saagarjha 7y agoNo, Zsh is not a full super-set of Bash.
- int_19h 7y agoTo the extent this is true, it's because other software relies on specific features (and sometimes quirks) of bash and glibc, not because you can't have a workable Unix without them. Which is to say - ironically, these last remaining dependencies wouldn't be there if open standards were followed more rigorously.
- remcob 7y agoAh yes, textbook "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" strategy. Very ironic that GNU now looks like it's following this pattern (obviously unintentionally).
- new_realist 7y agollvm-libc is in the planning stages.
- chubot 7y agoAlpine Linux and many other distros use musl and busybox (non GNU projects, although busybox is GPL). And I would definitely call them Unix systems, since they run almost all the same software. Although GCC is still a good argument, since very few distros use Clang by default, I think mostly because of the Linux kernel.
- crazypython 7y agoEven macOS runs with GNU Bash.
- saagarjha 7y agoNot for long, most likely.
- wazzaps 7y agoWas replaced with zsh recently
- saagarjha 7y agoBash is still available.
- crazypython 7y agoApple's Command Line Tools installer installs GNU Bash.