3 ms·

I find that it makes more sense to get the minimal and add what I want, rather than get the huge Ubuntu (and it's not the only one) bundle and try to remove eve

I find that it makes more sense to get the minimal and add what I want, rather than get the huge Ubuntu (and it's not the only one) bundle and try to remove everything that is unnecessary as I discover it. On a complex system I don't know what is installed and how it's installed. It's just too big to apprehend, I will never hold all this in memory. For instance I used Ubuntu for years before discovering that I do not use 'GNU bash' at all, it was a fork called 'dash'. It may be silly and won't make a big difference, but the fact remains that I didn't know for so long. If I had bash and 10 other binaries in total on my system, I would have realized earlier. A lot earlier.

derleth 15y ago
> I do not use 'GNU bash' at all, it was a fork called 'dash'. If I'm reading this right, you must be one of the very few people on Earth to use dash when you have the option to use bash. Anyway, I don't use bash, either, but that's because I moved to zsh before Ubuntu even existed. I think I was using Slackware then.
- dkersten 15y ago
  If I'm reading this right, you must be one of the very few people on Earth to use dash when you have the option to use bash. I think you misread that. It sounds to me that he didn't realise he was using dash because it was bundled with Ubuntu and Ubuntu being a large distro with lots of defaults, it took him a long time to find this out. Your comment just validates his point because he didn't want to use dash at all, he just didn't know he was using it until a lot later (possibly after the differences already wasted his time).
rat87 15y ago
Unless you set /bin/dash or /bin/sh as your shell you weren't using dash(interactivly). /bin/sh is just a symlink to /bin/dash so dash is only used for scripts with #!/bin/sh at the top. Even root has /bin/bash as its log in shell. /bin/dash is more like the original bourne shell which helps people write more portable shell scripts and it's faster(especially for startup). Dash is also /bin/sh in Debian. I'm pretty sure even unix V6 had > 11 binaries, http://man.cat-v.org/unix-6th/1/ http://man.cat-v.org/unix-6th/1/ maybe some systems using busbyox may have < 11 binaries.

derleth 15y ago

> I do not use 'GNU bash' at all, it was a fork called 'dash'. If I'm reading this right, you must be one of the very few people on Earth to use dash when you have the option to use bash. Anyway, I don't use bash, either, but that's because I moved to zsh before Ubuntu even existed. I think I was using Slackware then.

dkersten 15y ago
If I'm reading this right, you must be one of the very few people on Earth to use dash when you have the option to use bash. I think you misread that. It sounds to me that he didn't realise he was using dash because it was bundled with Ubuntu and Ubuntu being a large distro with lots of defaults, it took him a long time to find this out. Your comment just validates his point because he didn't want to use dash at all, he just didn't know he was using it until a lot later (possibly after the differences already wasted his time).

rat87 15y ago

Unless you set /bin/dash or /bin/sh as your shell you weren't using dash(interactivly). /bin/sh is just a symlink to /bin/dash so dash is only used for scripts with #!/bin/sh at the top. Even root has /bin/bash as its log in shell. /bin/dash is more like the original bourne shell which helps people write more portable shell scripts and it's faster(especially for startup). Dash is also /bin/sh in Debian. I'm pretty sure even unix V6 had > 11 binaries, http://man.cat-v.org/unix-6th/1/ http://man.cat-v.org/unix-6th/1/ maybe some systems using busbyox may have < 11 binaries.