[BusyBox] which shell?

Erik Andersen andersen at lineo.com
Sun Aug 5 20:49:29 UTC 2001


On Sun Aug 05, 2001 at 08:34:11PM -0600, Ray L wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 08:17:47PM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote:
> 
> > ash, msh, and lash are certain to have a long life in busybox.
> > I really like hush, but I am not as certain of its future, since
> > it has some problems, and needs someone willing to tend to its
> > care and feeding,
> 
> interesting!  what is the reason for maintaining 3 or 4 shells, versus a single
> shell with configuration-time feature selection?  surely a single unified shell
> would reduce duplicated coding and debugging effort?  or are they really that
> different from each other?

They are all quite radically different from each other.  I can't think of
a way to strip ash down to the size of lash, for example, because ash's
parser is much more complex (allowing it to handle much more complex things).
msh used vfork, not fork, allowing it to be used in uClinux systems.  I'm 
opposed to the idea.  I just believe it is more difficult then you might think,
and will likely produce unreadable code,

 -Erik

--
Erik B. Andersen   email:  andersen at lineo.com
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--





More information about the busybox mailing list