Questions concerning BaSH

Chet Ramey chet at odin.INS.CWRU.Edu
Fri Jan 11 10:00:59 AEST 1991


In article <1991Jan10.183056.20614 at spool.cs.wisc.edu> bothner at sevenlayer.cs.wisc.edu (Per Bothner) writes:

>> = Michael D Mellinger
> = Per Bothner

>>I found BASH 1.05 to be very unstable.
>
>I haven't. Very infrequently (less than once a month),
>I've noticed it freeze up on me, but generally I have no problems.
>
>>I wouldn't use it as my login shell.
>
>I do on my home Sony (68020, bsd 4.3-based), on my friend's
>DECstation3100, and I use it as my main shell (though I haven't
>updated /etc/passwd) on my office DEC3100.

I can't let an opportunity like this go by :-)

(CWRU bash is what is described in the manual page, available for anon
ftp from ftp.cwru.edu (aka cwns2.ins.cwru.edu, 129.22.8.44) in the
directory pub/bash.  Differences from the distributed versions of bash
are in the file CWRU-differences in the same directory.)

Everyone in my department uses CWRU bash as his login shell, and I have 
given it to a number of other departments here, where it is also in daily
use as a login shell.  It has been my login shell since version 0.93.
(Of course, I fix all the problems I find myself.)

It runs as /bin/sh on my home machine (an IBM RT running 4.3 BSD) and on
a pool of RTs here at work.  Again, few or no complaints.  A couple of
people here are writing large shell applications using it -- it's far more
capable than the BSD sh.

>Version 1.06 is long overdue...

Agreed.

>tcsh is ok, but it is a bit of a kludge, and it requires csh
>source. Also, I would advise against writing major macros
>or programs using [t]csh, given that the Posix standard
>(and ksh and bash) are based on Bourne shell syntax.

CWRU Bash is an implementation of the Posix.2 shell spec, as of
draft 9 (and bits of draft 10).  It also includes most of the
Posix.2a spec, as of draft 5.

(I'd advise against writing csh applications anyway; the parser is
flakier than a bowl of cereal.)

>>BTW:  The BASH binary(like most GNU binaries) is quite large.

It was not `written small' like sh.  It actually uses the C library.
It does not have some of the built-in size limits of sh.  The line
editing code takes up a tremendous amount of space.

Chet
-- 
Chet Ramey				``There's just no surf in
Network Services Group			  Cleveland, U.S.A. ...''
Case Western Reserve University
chet at ins.CWRU.Edu		My opinions are just those, and mine alone.



More information about the Comp.unix.shell mailing list