From fea381ec1ff3f47d9fa08e61ee692407ad78003e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Eitan Adler Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 13:00:56 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Update question relating to why sh(1) is minimal. PR: 174029 Submitted by: Derek Wood Reviewed by: jilles Approved by: bcr (mentor) --- en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/book.xml | 9 +++------ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/book.xml b/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/book.xml index 5f53857740..de47559c23 100644 --- a/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/book.xml +++ b/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/book.xml @@ -3986,13 +3986,10 @@ kern.timecounter.hardware: TSC -> i8254 - Because &posix; says that there shall be such a - shell. - - The more complicated answer: many people need to write + 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 other shells have. That is why the Ports Collection includes more featureful shells like bash, scsh, - tcsh, and zsh. (You + &man.tcsh.1;, 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