On 10/22/07, Jean McCormack <Jean.McCormack at sun.com> wrote: > Jennifer Pioch wrote: > > On 10/19/07, Jean McCormack <Jean.McCormack at sun.com> wrote: > > > >> This is a code review for the following item: > >> > >> 4) Optimization to the code: > >> - Create the "big" microroot in a regular directory. > >> - Create the "small" microroot in /tmp, then, move to the proto area. > >> > >> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~jeanm/distro_constructor/ > >> > > > > Why are you using bash and not ksh93 for the scripts? > > > The Distro Constructor is currently in the prototype phase and was based > on the live media project which used bash. > The current code will be replaced with the final project. During the > design phase, the language to be used will be decided upon. > Any input to aid in that language selection will be welcomed and > appreciated. Please keep input to technical reasons such as > "ksh93 has <insert here>
Opensolaris currently ships /sbin/sh, /usr/bin/sh, /usr/bin/ksh, /usr/bin/ksh93 and /usr/bin/bash and uses all five shells at runtime, wasting 14MB of memory just for this extravagance. Neither Linux or the BSD world is doing that. You could reduce this to ksh93 to save disk space, memory usage and unify everything into one system shell. > "and not more subjective statements such as > "<whatever> is a better language". The statement "<whatever> is a better language" is not subjective. Descending from bourne shell ksh93 topmost leaf of shell family tree and a superset of the functionality of all previous bourne compatible shells. Why would anyone want bash when he can use ksh93? The only reason why Linux used bash was the non-GPL compatible license, a problem which doesn't exist for Opensolaris. Thanks, Jenny -- Jennifer Pioch, Uni Frankfurt
