[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Bash

On Mon, 7 Jun 1999, Peter Carter wrote:

> I was not looking for your opion of bash (or perl), just a reason why it
> was not included. I find it quite usefull. I think it is a pain to compile
> something I think should be a part of a standard build.

One of the things I like most about OpenBSD, and the other *BSD camps I
suppose, is that the main distribution isn't bloated with stuff it doesn't
need. There are already three shells that come with the system; Bourne shell,
Korn shell, and C shell. These are the "traditional" shells. Imagine how large
the tree would be if it included everyone's favourite text editor and shell.
Why stop at bash? Why not include zsh too, and every other one? Why stop at
vi? Why not joe, jove, emacs, pico, etc. too?

Plus, there may be licensing issues with bash I'm not aware of... Really I
don't think it is a "pain" to compile it. You only have to do it once.

  .  _  _  _ _ . .   _ _ .  . _  _  _ . .
 :  |-||-||<|_||\|  |_|-||\/||-'|->|_-|_|_  DalTech, Halifax, NS, Canada
  `---------------------------------------- [http://www.biodome.org/~fx] -