2 ms·
> One particular sore spot is the shell in POSIX.2 which Debian thought so highly of that they disposed of bash. Uh, no, actual reason was that they required o
by ilyt 3y ago
> One particular sore spot is the shell in POSIX.2 which Debian thought so highly of that they disposed of bash.
Uh, no, actual reason was that they required old sh compatibility anyway and dash was just much faster (we're talking 2-5x as fast for most scripts) for that
https://lwn.net/Articles/343924/ https://lwn.net/Articles/343924/
And it was Ubuntu that started the switch, not Debian, Debian just followed suit. So please don't spew bullshit reasons you think something happened as gospel.
At the time Debian was still using SysV so it was noticeable as sh invocations were far more numerous during boot.
- chasil 3y agoThis is very much not true. "A lot of effort was made to keep ksh88 small. In fact the size you report on Solaris is without stripping the symbol table. The size that I am getting for ksh88i on Solaris is 160K and the size on NetBSD on intel is 135K. "ksh88 was able to compile on machines that only allowed 64K text. There were many compromises to this approach." Without a doubt, that had a profound impact upon the POSIX shell. It was also the cause of the removal of many features in the Korn shell for the standard, especially arrays. This is why POSIX Powershell could never exist. https://news.slashdot.org/story/01/02/06/2030205/david-korn-tells-all https://news.slashdot.org/story/01/02/06/2030205/david-korn-...
- chasil 3y agoInteresting how expressed frustration with POSIX.2 is received.
- biorach 3y ago> So please don't spew bullshit reasons you think something happened as gospel. That's completely uncalled for and obnoxious.