Message-ID: <3E3AD5B4.8070206@steinkuehler.net> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:02:57 -0600 From: Charles Steinkuehler <charles@steinkuehler.net> Subject: Re: Linux Shells
Randy Weidman wrote:
> I was reading in a book, "Unix Using Linux" by Dent and Gaddis, where the
> statement "All Linux Versions use the Bash Shell by default".
>
> As I have only expertise in RedHat and Mandrake I was wondering if this
> were true?
As a generalization, I suppose, but there are *LOTS* of linux
distributions. Most of the embedded and firewall/router type systems I
know of use ash (or something even smaller) for a shell, if they run a
shell at all. There's no fundamental reason linux even needs a shell to
run, just like you don't really need init (many embedded systems simply
run their single application instead of init, and don't need the entire
concept of runlevels, inittab, etc).
Remember, "linux" is just the kernel...the bulk of what gets added to
make linux into a useful system is user-selectable from *LOTS* of
options. Just about everything from init to widget libraries for your
window manager has multiple solutions, with the appropriate selection
for your particular situation dependent on numerous variables.
SIDE NOTE: This brings to mind a discussion I was having with a friend
the other day about genetic algorithms. The point was made that linux
and the GPL have created what I suspect is the largest experiment to
date in genetic algorithms, with the entire OS being the 'algorithm'
that's constantly being re-invented and improved (and like all true
genetic programs, occasionally takes big steps backwards and/or sideways
:). Kind of wierd to think about, but I think the analogy is appropriate.
-- Charles Steinkuehler charles@steinkuehler.net