On Aug 8, 2007, at 2:25 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
..
>
> Just a point of clarification - /bin/sh isn't encumbered, it's just
> old. And that affects the current OpenSolaris in two ways I think
sorry, I got the ksh and sh discussions intertwined in my head ;<
>
> 1) Users who are unfortunate enough to have /bin/sh as their
> shell are in for a rather trying experience, especially if
> they've come to rely on things like history and command-line
> editing. One of those users does happen to be "root" although
> again, that's just a historical convention. I suspect that
> changing root's own shell to something like /bin/bash or
> /bin/ksh is a much easier first step than changing /bin/sh
> itself.
easier first step for who? It's easier for us, harder for the
consumer. I think TimB has hit it on the head there, we need to cater
to their expectations for Indiana.
>
> 2) Users have begun to write scripts that depend on the details
> of different implementations of /bin/sh. Given that the
> OpenSolaris /bin/sh is of a very old and unique vintage, some
> of those scripts don't work or need work in order to get them
> working on OpenSolaris.
>
> Although it's interesting to see all the comments/votes on what to
> replace /bin/sh with, what I haven't seen is any sort of analysis.
> For
> example, what choices have other OS distributions made here?
Ubuntu root : bash
Fedora root : bash
mac root : well root isn't enabled as such but it's passwd file
entry is /bin/sh. However, since the way
things are handled by default is to have the
administrative user use sudo, the result of
sudo $SHELL is bash. All except one machine in my ensemble
which seems to have zsh in some contexts.
There are a very large number of linux distributions, but I don't
think we're going to find a lot of traditional /bin/sh for root.
> What sort
> of standards do the various contenders adhere to? And more
> importantly, how are each of the contenders compatible with each other
> and especially the current /bin/sh. If we're going to change /bin/sh,
> what is the upgrade path for those users *and* ISVs who are already
> depending on the current behavior (yes, I said ISVs because a
> number of
> them have spoken to me that they've already made allowances for
> OpenSolaris' /bin/sh and a change would affect them too!)
I think they are effectively bash, with some small amount of version
skew. Someone with either more linux chops or more time on their
hands can provide more depth ... but in terms of marketshare isn't it
RH (my assumption that Fedora represents RH correctly is, admittedly,
an untested hypothesis) SuSE and Ubuntu (order variable based on
geography and market segment; developers skewed towards the debian
family and industrial ISVs towards RH and SuSE).
And thus an example of the "fork in the road" ensuring that our
existing Solarians are least unhappy would either mean sticking with /
bin/sh or perhaps ksh93 for root ... and to appeal to Penguinistas
we'd make it /bin/bash as has become the industry norm.
Thus, in a nutshell, the case for a virtual fork, with different
branded zones ... with the Indiana brand being allowed to suffer/
benefit from disruptive change for quite a while until things settle
out. In an ideal world, the Solaris.Next "zone" would be so much like
Indiana that only the hardcore will care about the differences ...
but we may not live in an ideal world.
Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Strategic Engagement Team | AIM: kbiermank
<speaking for myself, not Sun*> Copyright 2007
_______________________________________________
indiana-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
