[linux-elitists] Freeing parts of Unix?

Aaron Sherman ajs@ajs.com
Wed Jun 13 06:32:21 PDT 2001


On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 04:49:32PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:

> I really wouldn't want to see sh -- judging by experiences with
> Solaris' sh.

Yeah, I tend to agree. What *would* be very valuable is ripping bash up,
and creating a lightweight shell for smaller (read single-user and
embedded) systems.

bash is a really nice shell (I'm about to convert my last remaining
tcsh account over), but for many reasons, it's way too much of a
heavyweight for times when you need to conserve memory or optimize for 
speed (try a modern bash on a 386... it's not fun).

Actually, though, I can't think of anything that UnixWare has that
isn't done better by GNU, BSD or the various suites of Linux tools.

X is free and always has been. sendmail and bind exist free in their
latest and greatest forms. UNIX network daemons are mostly inferior
to the open source equivalents....

What does the UNIX code have that the open source world would benefit
from? It's not that UNIX wasn't revolutionary in its day, but the only 
parts of UnixWare that I can think of wanting to see source for are in 
the kernel.

Oh well.

-- 
Aaron Sherman		
ajs@ajs.com		finger ajskey@b5.ajs.com for GPG info. Fingerprint:
www.ajs.com/~ajs	6DC1 F67A B9FB 2FBA D04C  619E FC35 5713 2676 CEAF
	"I want a drug store in The Twilight Zone." -Shriekback



More information about the linux-elitists mailing list