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:
Eitan Adler 2012-12-07 13:00:56 +00:00
parent 88a8e194b8
commit fea381ec1f
Notes: svn2git 2020-12-08 03:00:23 +00:00
svn path=/head/; revision=40296

View file

@ -3986,13 +3986,10 @@ kern.timecounter.hardware: TSC -&gt; 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 -&gt; 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