Re: [Hampshire] Bash -> Dash for sh. Is it safe?

Top Page
Author: Alan Pope
Date:  
To: Hampshire LUG Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Hampshire] Bash -> Dash for sh. Is it safe?

Reply to this message
gpg: failed to create temporary file '/var/lib/lurker/.#lk0x57435100.hantslug.org.uk.16590': Permission denied
gpg: keyblock resource '/var/lib/lurker/pubring.gpg': Permission denied
gpg: Signature made Sat Jun 2 21:06:23 2007 BST
gpg: using DSA key 1E38DD6257A4363C
gpg: Can't check signature: No public key
Hi Graham,

On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 19:56 +0100, Graham Bleach wrote:
> On 01/06/07, Dr Adam J Trickett <adam.trickett@???> wrote:
> > I've seen a few reference to using dash rather than bash as the
> > symlink for sh rather than bash. Dash is mostly POSIX compliant,
> > and very much smaller than bash so scripts without bashism
> > run quite a bit faster.
>
> Did you see any benchmarks to prove that dash is actually faster? Most
> shell scripts I write and maintain actually spend most of their time
> running executables, which means I'd be surprised if there was any
> appreciable improvement in performance.
>
> > I've also seen people complain recently that a some scripts
> > on an ubuntu box break because though they called for /bin/sh
> > they were relying on a Bashism. I'm not sure which ubuntu
> > versions have taken the switch, or if it's the default
> > now.
>
> /bin/sh is certainly a symlink to /bin/bash in Feisty (7.04). I
> believe the transition happened in Edgy.
>


Not here it isn't.
alan@wopr:~$ ls -l /bin/sh
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 2006-11-14 21:48 /bin/sh -> dash
alan@wopr:~$ lsb_release -a
No LSB modules are available.
Distributor ID: Ubuntu
Description:    Ubuntu 7.04
Release:        7.04
Codename:       feisty


Cheers,
Al.