Update question relating to why sh(1) is minimal.
PR: 174029 Submitted by: Derek Wood <ddwood@highdensity.org> Reviewed by: jilles Approved by: bcr (mentor)
This commit is contained in:
parent
88a8e194b8
commit
fea381ec1f
Notes:
svn2git
2020-12-08 03:00:23 +00:00
svn path=/head/; revision=40296
1 changed files with 3 additions and 6 deletions
|
@ -3986,13 +3986,10 @@ kern.timecounter.hardware: TSC -> i8254</screen>
|
|||
</question>
|
||||
|
||||
<answer>
|
||||
<para>Because &posix; says that there shall be such a
|
||||
shell.</para>
|
||||
|
||||
<para>The more complicated answer: many people need to write
|
||||
<para>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,
|
||||
in great detail. Most scripts are written in Bourne shell (&man.sh.1;),
|
||||
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
|
||||
|
@ -4008,7 +4005,7 @@ kern.timecounter.hardware: TSC -> i8254</screen>
|
|||
other shells have. That is why the Ports Collection
|
||||
includes more featureful shells like
|
||||
<command>bash</command>, <command>scsh</command>,
|
||||
<command>tcsh</command>, and <command>zsh</command>. (You
|
||||
&man.tcsh.1;, and <command>zsh</command>. (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
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue