On 6/17/20 15:58, brent s. wrote: > This is false. Or at the least, grievously inaccurate. To clarify: This is less-so aimed at OP; the only issue there was a poor choice of words and explaining the suggested switch. The previous post was aimed moreso at those that do not understand there are two shells: one the system uses in scripts (usually init scripts, but more on that in a moment) vs. one the user uses, the interactive shell (the one you run commands from). /bin/sh should be fully POSIX-compatible, /bin/bash has extra features that users would find useful (such as various completion functions, etc.) dash is written to be POSIX-compliant, but no more. Now, to init- because Arch uses systemd (and, yes, now Debian and Ubuntu), one must wonder what benefit, if any, this actually serves. systemd invokes the command directly, it does not spawn a shell to run an init script like sysvinit, upstart, openrc, etc. This is, primarily, the purpose of the system shell. I don't really see much of a benefit to it being that Arch uses systemd. Granted, it probably wouldn't harm much either given the purpose of the system shell, and probably why those who have already changed it haven't seen any noticeable effects. It just seems like an unnecessary change. -- brent saner https://square-r00t.net/ GPG info: https://square-r00t.net/gpg-info
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
