3 ms·
Why not just go to Bash or ZSH?
by gigatexal 5y ago
Why not just go to Bash or ZSH?
- TravelPiglet 5y agoSo that it can be maintained in tree
- 0mp 5y agoThose are not part of the base system.
- 1500100900 5y agoAnd for good reason. If people already call command completion bloat, imagine the uproar if they found out that bash or zsh is built in and the default shell.
- throw0101a 5y agoFreeBSD is often used as the base for appliances, so some downstream users it may indeed be unnecessary code to maintain. (You perhaps get 'extra' CVEs against your product that may increase maintenance.) For those with CLI access, adding a more full-featured shell is fairly easy with pkg.
- trasz 5y agoBash has prohibitive license. What I've heard about zsh is that integrating it with FreeBSD build system would be non-trivial.
- gigatexal 5y agoAhh ok. Didn’t know about the license issue. The CVE idea is also very valid. Thanks for clarifying everyone.
- vermaden 5y agoThe ZSH shell would be actually great choice for shell in the FreeBSD Base System because it uses the MIT license. As BASH uses the GPL3 license it does not have the chance of being included in the FreeBSD Base System because the FreeBSD project currently tries to remove all GPL3 licensed software from its base. Details here: https://wiki.freebsd.org/GPLinBase https://wiki.freebsd.org/GPLinBase
- kevans91 5y agoMinor nit that we mostly hadn't moved to GPL3 stuff, and now we're working on replacing the remainder of the GPL2 stuff.
- unanswered 5y agozsh isn't POSIX compliant though.
- gigatexal 5y agoIt's not? In what ways?
- mst 5y agoKeeping more complicated stuff in ports rather than base means users can easily get the exact version they wany so FreeBSD tries to keep base as explicitly a base system. It's a tradeoff but one I find more useful than not.