2007/5/24, Marek Bernat <marek.bernat_AT_gmail.com>:
> On 5/23/07, Jukka Salmi <j+dwm_AT_2007.salmi.ch> wrote:
> > Sander van Dijk --> dwm (2007-05-23 23:03:10 +0200):
> > > On 5/23/07, Marek Bernat <marek.bernat_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On the other hand kill, echo and other programs like this should of
> course
> > >> be outside the shell.
> > >
> > > Yes, [...]
> >
> > ...but on a system where you suddenly notice that the process table
> > is full and you thus can't fork new processes anymore I bet even you
> > will be quite happy if you have a kill(1) built into your still running
> > shell... ;-)
>
> Good point. I believe most of the built-ins are there because of reasons
> like this.
> Sanity vs. purity. Pragmatism vs. ideology :-)
>
I tend to agree with Sander. If fork() is expensive, it's an OS
problem. By hacking around sh, it only makes it worse because it hides
the real problem.
-- Cheers, zimbatmReceived on Thu May 24 2007 - 14:24:52 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 14:42:48 UTC