[sf-lug] BASH vs DASH to SH vs DASH ?

[Sujit K M]

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Michael Paoli
<Michael.Paoli at cal.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> sh would be ambiguous, as various shells may possibly provide sh.
> E.g. in Debian, at various times, sh has been bash or dash.
>
> Unless perhaps you're talking context of first line of shell script,
> notably:
> #!/bin/sh
> vs.
> #!/bin/bash

I have read the article I had sent in my previous mail.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DashAsBinSh
I found that DASH being performance friendly safer than BASH or SH for
that matter in the case
of booting, but many startup scripts use BASH. So instead of changing
each of these scripts it
was better to change the shell.

quote from the wiki below.

"A large number of shell instances are started as part of the Ubuntu
boot process. Rather than change each of them individually to run
explicitly under /bin/dash, a change which would require significant
ongoing maintenance and which would be liable to regress if not paid
close attention, the Ubuntu core development team felt that it was
best simply to change the default shell. "

Why SH vs DASH rather than BASH vs DASH, quote from the wiki.

"The boot speed improvements in Ubuntu 6.10 were often incorrectly
attributed to Upstart, which is a fine platform for future development
of the init system but in Ubuntu 6.10 was primarily running in System
V compatibility mode with only small behavioural changes. These
improvements were in fact largely due to the changed /bin/sh."


>
>> From: "Sujit K M" <kmsujit at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [sf-lug] glorious dash :-)
>> Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 09:21:06 +0530
>
>
>> I would suggest you change the BASH vs DASH to SH vs DASH.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sf-lug mailing list
> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
> Information about SF-LUG is at http://www.sf-lug.org/