From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Apr 20 1:35: 6 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C667837BDC4 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 01:35:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07321 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:34:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id KAA00871 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:34:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gilgamesch.bik-gmbh.de (T1-Hansenet.BIK-GmbH.de [192.76.134.246]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7812137BBE3 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 01:34:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cracauer@gilgamesch.bik-gmbh.de) Received: (from cracauer@localhost) by gilgamesch.bik-gmbh.de (8.9.3/8.7.3) id KAA16904; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:34:02 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:34:02 +0200 From: Martin Cracauer To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Cc: Alfred Perlstein , Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Shells Message-ID: <20000420103402.F14732@cons.org> References: <20000415182916.U4381@fw.wintelcom.net> <31345.955883432@zippy.cdrom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <31345.955883432@zippy.cdrom.com>; from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com on Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 04:10:32AM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In <31345.955883432@zippy.cdrom.com>, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > Two reasons of the top of my head: GPL'd and gratuitously incompatible. > > GPL'd things go into /usr/src/gnu - no big deal. If we were overly > squeamish about the GPL then we wouldn't have "grep" or a compiler > toolchain either, among other things, and I doubt anybody's arguing > for killing those. /bin/sh is critical for system startup and is used on almost every FreeBSD system, even on floppy-only ones. Many systems can live without grep or compilers. Consider the set of commercations applications where you would take FreeBSD and make use of the BSD license and keep the source changes for themself. I don't see a point in doing so for a complete commandline-enabled Unix clone, but I see a lot of applications that all would ship without a compiler and could live without (or with a minial) grep. That raises the bar for license considerations, IMHO. > The ash shell is just bad enough that I'd consider > a change of license for a truly functional shell out-of-the-box to > be a more than acceptable trade-off. > > As to the second argument, you'll have to explain yourself, sonny. :) It's no question that bash2 is better than our ash, but with regards for "is just bad enough" I can only ask you to report the problems you have (in doubt directly to me). I also have some sh fixes in the queue. Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ BSD User Group Hamburg, Germany http://www.bsdhh.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message