os/doc
3
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Move the minimal-sh question down to the end of the chapter. The real

Browse source 
reason for the move is that what is now the second question (about
libc.so.3) refers to "the previous" question, and it means question
one, not the minimal-sh one.  I moved it to the end since it didn't
seem to fit anywhere else.

PR:		29547
Noticed by:	shill@free.fr
This commit is contained in:
Dima Dorfman 2001-08-09 07:28:00 +00:00
parent 11f46b8e37
commit 4aefe9c65b
Notes: svn2git 2020-12-08 03:00:23 +00:00 
svn path=/head/; revision=10265
1 changed files with 34 additions and 34 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

68
en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/book.sgml
View file

@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
<corpauthor>The FreeBSD Documentation Project</corpauthor>
<pubdate>$FreeBSD: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/book.sgml,v 1.249 2001/08/09 07:20:16 dd Exp $</pubdate>
<pubdate>$FreeBSD: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/book.sgml,v 1.250 2001/08/09 07:21:45 dd Exp $</pubdate>
<copyright>
<year>1995</year>
@ -4805,39 +4805,6 @@ kern.timecounter.hardware: TSC -&gt; i8254</screen>
</answer>
</qandaentry>
<qandaentry>
<question id="minimal-sh">
<para>Why is <command>/bin/sh</command> so minimal? Why doesn't
FreeBSD use <command>bash</command> or another shell?</para>
</question>
<answer>
<para>Because POSIX says that there shall be such a shell.</para>
<para>The more complicated answer: many people need to write shell
scripts which will be portable across many systems. That is why
POSIX specifies the shell and utility commands in great detail.
Most scripts are written in Bourne shell, and because several
important programming interfaces (&man.make.1;, &man.system.3;,
&man.popen.3;, and analogues in higher-level scripting
languages like Perl and Tcl) are specified to use the Bourne
shell to interpret commands. Because the Bourne shell is so
often and widely used, it is important for it to be quick to
start, be deterministic in its behavior, and have a small
memory footprint.</para>
<para>The existing implementation is our best effort at meeting as
many of these requirements simultaneously as we can. In order to
keep <command>/bin/sh</command> small, we have not provided many
of the convenience features that other shells have. That is why the
Ports Collection includes more featureful shells like bash, scsh,
tcsh, and zsh. (You can compare for yourself the memory
utilization of all these shells by looking at the
<quote>VSZ</quote> and <quote>RSS</quote> columns in a <command>ps
-u</command> listing.)</para>
</answer>
</qandaentry>
<qandaentry>
<question id="missing-libcso30">
<para>Where do I find libc.so.3.0?</para>
@ -5027,6 +4994,39 @@ crw-rw-rw- 1 root wheel 41, 1 Oct 15 22:14 spx</screen>
<filename>/etc/periodic.conf</filename>.</para>
</answer>
</qandaentry>
<qandaentry>
<question id="minimal-sh">
<para>Why is <command>/bin/sh</command> so minimal? Why doesn't
FreeBSD use <command>bash</command> or another shell?</para>
</question>
<answer>
<para>Because POSIX says that there shall be such a shell.</para>
<para>The more complicated answer: many people need to write shell
scripts which will be portable across many systems. That is why
POSIX specifies the shell and utility commands in great detail.
Most scripts are written in Bourne shell, and because several
important programming interfaces (&man.make.1;, &man.system.3;,
&man.popen.3;, and analogues in higher-level scripting
languages like Perl and Tcl) are specified to use the Bourne
shell to interpret commands. Because the Bourne shell is so
often and widely used, it is important for it to be quick to
start, be deterministic in its behavior, and have a small
memory footprint.</para>
<para>The existing implementation is our best effort at meeting as
many of these requirements simultaneously as we can. In order to
keep <command>/bin/sh</command> small, we have not provided many
of the convenience features that other shells have. That is why the
Ports Collection includes more featureful shells like bash, scsh,
tcsh, and zsh. (You can compare for yourself the memory
utilization of all these shells by looking at the
<quote>VSZ</quote> and <quote>RSS</quote> columns in a <command>ps
-u</command> listing.)</para>
</answer>
</qandaentry>
</qandaset>
</chapter>