On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 10:39 PM [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Monday, July 26, 2021 06:44 PM IST, Bob Friesenhahn < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, 26 Jul 2021, [email protected] wrote: > > >> > > >> The same applies (even more) for python. And ksh93 has been obsoleted > > >> in Linux, so guess what happens next in the foreseeable future... > > > > Linux is a kernel (which I modify, compile, and use in environments > > without bash or ksh93) so I have no idea what you are talking about > > above. > > > > > what i can't understand is the fascination people from our trade > > > have to constantly move to newer, fancier, shinier programming > > > systems/languages, especially when what exists is perfectly good if > > > used by following the philosophy of that environment. > > > > If Illumos supports Rust in kernel, and for security-sensitive areas, > > then that will likely attract new developers who are likely to > > contribute to the system. > > > > For any free operating system, there are only so many seats at the > > table when it comes to core developers. This means that Linux does > > not really have much more core developers than FreeBSD or Illumos. > > Linux has a great many contributors to kernel code but much of it is > > for the large profusion of filesystems and device drivers and > > contributions must pass through a few core developers who are > > empowered to bless and merge code. > > > > > i noticed a marked focus from the developers of the core system to > > > eliminate code which isn't being used, or can't be used, or won't be > > > used anymore (e.g. sparc support), but at the same time i am > > > appalled by the decisions taken by certain illumos distributions > > > (read omniosce) toward not maintaining leanness (they even use bash > > > as the root shell). > > > > There is really no reason to assault OmniOSce given that its > > maintainers recently did a whole lot of excellent work to update ksh93 > > for Illumos at large. If bash is already in the system then using it > > for a login shell does not make a system less lean. The base install > > of OmniOSce is pretty small by today's standards. > > > > OmniOS /bin/sh is still ksh93. The root shell is for interactive > > logins. > > is there any rationale for the belief that ksh93 doesn't make as good an > interactive login shell as bash? > i have been using ksh93 as an interactive login shell for over 8 years now > and haven't found it to be inferior to bash in any way, unless of course > one has been bred on gnu/linux systems and won't take the effort to wean > themselves off, even to the extent of forcing bash on everybody else who > comes to an illumos distribution with certain expectation about it's > operating environment being as close to a true unix as possible. > Since distros decide what to do, they get to decide what to do. For Belenix, we used to provide bash as the default interactive shell since the bulk of our users in India understood bash at that time. For the distro that you intend to base on Illumos or off the other Illumos-based distros, you can decide what you want as the interactive shell. -- Ram > ------------------------------------------ illumos: illumos-discuss Permalink: https://illumos.topicbox.com/groups/discuss/T8b661f3611aef44c-M8502efc3b18da1fde94ecc92 Delivery options: https://illumos.topicbox.com/groups/discuss/subscription
