Hello - Minix

This is a discussion on Hello - Minix ; Im newcomer to Minix. How many differents shell in Minix? Thanks...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Hello

  1. Hello

    Im newcomer to Minix.

    How many differents shell in Minix?

    Thanks



  2. Re: Hello

    All,

    On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:02:29 +0100, LegioFox wrote:
    > Im newcomer to Minix.
    >
    > How many differents shell in Minix?


    ash is in the base system. There are ready-to-go ports of zsh and
    bash. There are also other shell ports, such as ksh for minix.

    The list of package ports is at http://www.minix3.org/software/

    In my experience it's pretty easy to port other shells if you like.

    =Ben



  3. Re: Hello

    Hey Ben... just browsing the messages. Do you happen to know if there
    is a particular reason why ash was chosen as the default shell?

    Ben Gras wrote:
    > All,
    >
    > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:02:29 +0100, LegioFox wrote:
    > > Im newcomer to Minix.
    > >
    > > How many differents shell in Minix?

    >
    > ash is in the base system. There are ready-to-go ports of zsh and
    > bash. There are also other shell ports, such as ksh for minix.
    >
    > The list of package ports is at http://www.minix3.org/software/
    >
    > In my experience it's pretty easy to port other shells if you like.
    >
    > =Ben



  4. Re: Hello


    eatinglemur@gmail.com writes:

    > Hey Ben... just browsing the messages. Do you happen to know if there
    > is a particular reason why ash was chosen as the default shell?


    I'm not Ben, but I think I can say something about this (as an
    outsider, project insiders might know more).

    Minix 1.x and 2.x had to support memory restricted environments (like
    max 64K for instruction or data per process). "Modern" huge shells
    like bash or tcsh were probably out of question, apart from the fact
    that the first versions of bash were terribly buggy.

    The sh coming with Minix is very simple and provides hardly any
    functionality beyond the absolute necessary minimum (advantage:
    system(3) will not waste a lot of memory ...).

    It also was probably felt that having something close to a bourne
    shell as default shell would be good idea.

    And then the "normal" users probably wanted a shell with some editing
    capabilities like a command line history, support of navigation keys
    etc.


    Taking that together:

    - low memory requirements
    - fairly Bourne shell compatible
    - command line history

    you'll probably end up with ash as the only choice.

    To the insiders: Did I read the signs right?

    Regards -- Markus


  5. Re: Hello

    In article ,
    Markus E Leypold
    >It also was probably felt that having something close to a bourne
    >shell as default shell would be good idea.


    Well, you need a bourne shell, and the original Minix /bin/sh is not
    Posix compliant.

    >And then the "normal" users probably wanted a shell with some editing
    >capabilities like a command line history, support of navigation keys
    >etc.
    >
    >Taking that together:
    >
    > - low memory requirements
    > - fairly Bourne shell compatible
    > - command line history
    >
    >you'll probably end up with ash as the only choice.
    >
    >To the insiders: Did I read the signs right?


    As far as I know, ash is the only open source bourne shell implementation.
    Using bash as /bin/sh is not a good idea for various reasons (size is
    probably the biggest reason).

    For Minix3 the goal is to keep the base system small and under a BSD-like
    license. Anything else can be installed from the packages.

    I don't think that line editing is a requirement for /bin/sh. If you want
    a different login shell, just install one.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

  6. Re: Hello


    philip@ue.aioy.eu (Philip Homburg) writes:

    > In article ,
    > Markus E Leypold
    >>It also was probably felt that having something close to a bourne
    >>shell as default shell would be good idea.

    >
    > Well, you need a bourne shell, and the original Minix /bin/sh is not
    > Posix compliant.
    >
    >>And then the "normal" users probably wanted a shell with some editing
    >>capabilities like a command line history, support of navigation keys
    >>etc.
    >>
    >>Taking that together:
    >>
    >> - low memory requirements
    >> - fairly Bourne shell compatible
    >> - command line history
    >>
    >>you'll probably end up with ash as the only choice.
    >>
    >>To the insiders: Did I read the signs right?

    >


    > As far as I know, ash is the only open source bourne shell implementation.


    Just a second -- I thought /bin/sh was fairly bourne shell compatibel
    on Minix 2 and not identical with ash (I remember one shouldn't set
    the shell of root to ash, since that consumes more memory which might
    lead to diffculties in some situations -- it's somewhere in usage(8) I
    think).

    > Using bash as /bin/sh is not a good idea for various reasons (size is
    > probably the biggest reason).


    Didn't deter the Linux people.

    > For Minix3 the goal is to keep the base system small and under a BSD-like
    > license. Anything else can be installed from the packages.


    > I don't think that line editing is a requirement for /bin/sh. If you want


    I suggested it as a requirement for the user shell (not for
    /bin/sh).

    But perhaps we are talking on cross purposes anyway. The thing I
    remember, was that /bin/sh was a really minimal bourne shell
    implementation and ash was the different from it and the default shell
    for the users (or it was suggested to give it to the users as login
    shell, I don't remember for sure).

    Your comments on the other side seem to suggest that /bin/sh was ash?
    Am I confused?

    > a different login shell, just install one.


    Regards -- Markus




  7. Re: Hello

    In article <9rodoo1ulr.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>,
    Markus E Leypold
    wrote:
    >philip@ue.aioy.eu (Philip Homburg) writes:
    >> As far as I know, ash is the only open source bourne shell implementation.

    >
    >Just a second -- I thought /bin/sh was fairly bourne shell compatibel
    >on Minix 2 and not identical with ash (I remember one shouldn't set
    >the shell of root to ash, since that consumes more memory which might
    >lead to diffculties in some situations -- it's somewhere in usage(8) I
    >think).


    The old /bin/sh on Minix 2 was (as far as I know) not Posix compliant.

    However, for small systems, any shell is better than nothing. And ash
    was probably too big.

    >> Using bash as /bin/sh is not a good idea for various reasons (size is
    >> probably the biggest reason).

    >
    >Didn't deter the Linux people.


    The lack of VM results in even more problems was big binaries for Minix 3
    than on other systems. Anyhow, what the Linux people do is up to them.

    >> For Minix3 the goal is to keep the base system small and under a BSD-like
    >> license. Anything else can be installed from the packages.

    >
    >> I don't think that line editing is a requirement for /bin/sh. If you want

    >
    >I suggested it as a requirement for the user shell (not for
    >/bin/sh).


    There is no point in putting a shell for users in the base system.
    (At least, not if you want to keep the base system as small as possible)

    >But perhaps we are talking on cross purposes anyway. The thing I
    >remember, was that /bin/sh was a really minimal bourne shell
    >implementation and ash was the different from it and the default shell
    >for the users (or it was suggested to give it to the users as login
    >shell, I don't remember for sure).


    Yes that is the way it was in Minix 2.

    >Your comments on the other side seem to suggest that /bin/sh was ash?
    >Am I confused?


    No, /bin/sh is now ash (on Minix 3) because the old /bin/sh has too many
    limitations.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

  8. Re: Hello


    philip@ue.aioy.eu (Philip Homburg) writes:

    >>Didn't deter the Linux people.

    >
    > The lack of VM results in even more problems was big binaries for Minix 3
    > than on other systems. Anyhow, what the Linux people do is up to them.


    That was not to imply that Minix should have done it the Linux
    way. Actually in the recent years I've started to become quite
    critical of some trends and traditions in the Linux movement (like the
    tradition of absence of proper systems engineering in the
    distributions ...).

    When I wrote that I cosidered for a moment to add some qualifiers to
    that remark. I see I should have done that. On the other side I don't
    want to go down in the usenet archives as a Linux basher. My world in
    that respect is rather grey in grey than black and white.


    >>> For Minix3 the goal is to keep the base system small and under a BSD-like
    >>> license. Anything else can be installed from the packages.

    >>
    >>> I don't think that line editing is a requirement for /bin/sh. If you want

    >>
    >>I suggested it as a requirement for the user shell (not for
    >>/bin/sh).

    >
    > There is no point in putting a shell for users in the base system.
    > (At least, not if you want to keep the base system as small as possible)


    Yes. Note I'm still talking about history all the time, not how things
    should be in Minix3. Wasn't ash in the base system in Minix2? Or was
    the base system defined as what came on the root disk and CMD.TGZ
    was the system extension?

    >
    >>But perhaps we are talking on cross purposes anyway. The thing I
    >>remember, was that /bin/sh was a really minimal bourne shell
    >>implementation and ash was the different from it and the default shell
    >>for the users (or it was suggested to give it to the users as login
    >>shell, I don't remember for sure).

    >
    > Yes that is the way it was in Minix 2.


    :-).

    >
    >>Your comments on the other side seem to suggest that /bin/sh was ash?
    >>Am I confused?

    >
    > No, /bin/sh is now ash (on Minix 3) because the old /bin/sh has too many
    > limitations.


    Ah, I understand now.

    So I understood the OPs question totally wrong, since I'm still living
    in the past. :-) But I think his question ("Why ash?" -- Probably "Why
    ash and not bash for /bin/sh?") also got answered in this thread, so
    we can now all be happy and content :-).

    Thanks -- Markus


  9. Re: Hello

    On Jan 24, 6:36 am, Markus E Leypold
    wrote:
    > So I understood the OPs question totally wrong, since I'm still living
    > in the past. :-) But I think his question ("Why ash?" -- Probably "Why
    > ash and not bash for /bin/sh?") also got answered in this thread, so
    > we can now all be happy and content :-).


    I'm content too... that seemed to answer my question comprehensively.

    As a person with some programming experience, there is always that
    urge--that frantic passion for efficiency--to be a minimalist with
    regard to system design. Therefore, I do relate to choice to use ash.

    Low memory requirements always were my favorite aspect of Minix.


+ Reply to Thread