From 4aefe9c65b0ee2362bacb1c399a92c119f98001b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Dima Dorfman Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 07:28:00 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Move the minimal-sh question down to the end of the chapter. The real 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 --- en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/book.sgml | 68 ++++++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) 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 @@ The FreeBSD Documentation Project - $FreeBSD: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/book.sgml,v 1.249 2001/08/09 07:20:16 dd Exp $ + $FreeBSD: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/book.sgml,v 1.250 2001/08/09 07:21:45 dd Exp $ 1995 @@ -4805,39 +4805,6 @@ kern.timecounter.hardware: TSC -> i8254 - - - Why is /bin/sh so minimal? Why doesn't - FreeBSD use bash or another shell? - - - - Because POSIX says that there shall be such a shell. - - 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. - - The existing implementation is our best effort at meeting as - many of these requirements simultaneously as we can. In order to - keep /bin/sh 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 - VSZ and RSS columns in a ps - -u listing.) - - - Where do I find libc.so.3.0? @@ -5027,6 +4994,39 @@ crw-rw-rw- 1 root wheel 41, 1 Oct 15 22:14 spx /etc/periodic.conf. + + + + Why is /bin/sh so minimal? Why doesn't + FreeBSD use bash or another shell? + + + + Because POSIX says that there shall be such a shell. + + 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. + + The existing implementation is our best effort at meeting as + many of these requirements simultaneously as we can. In order to + keep /bin/sh 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 + VSZ and RSS columns in a ps + -u listing.) + +