diff --git a/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/book.sgml b/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/book.sgml
index 1bf39f7a75..4753f51422 100644
--- a/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/book.sgml
+++ b/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/book.sgml
@@ -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>