Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:22:18 -0500 From: Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com> To: scarr <scarr@ineocom.com> Cc: Alexander Langer <alex@big.endian.de>, Jonathan Fortin <jonf@revelex.com>, FreeBSD Security <security@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: sh? Message-ID: <20000117152218.C34178@shadow.blackdawn.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10001171436120.7973-100000@aeon.ineocom.com>; from scarr@ineocom.com on Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 02:39:53PM -0500 References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10001171427030.92711-100000@hydrant.intranova.net> <Pine.BSF.4.10.10001171436120.7973-100000@aeon.ineocom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 02:39:53PM -0500, scarr wrote: > > I think this is mostly because /bin/sh is known to always be there, no > matter what unix-like system you're using. I know when I'm writing a > shell script that needs to be ultimately portable I use /bin/sh (as > painful as it may be). If you're going to write a shell script in bash or > ksh you're gambling on the fact that they system in question has it > installed. > > Of course, there could be other factors. Does anyone know if sh is used > for these types of things for any other reason than portability? Performance. sh(1) is the smallest, and therefore quickest, of all well-known shells. There are smaller shells, but they are not well known, and most do not support nearly as much as sh(1). --Will To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000117152218.C34178>