Talk:Debian Almquist shell

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Debian Almquist shell redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Computing: Software Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

Differences from ash?

The article doesn't give any information on what new or changed functionality it has compared to its parent shell, ash. Pimlottc 03:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not faster than bash

Just to clear up: dash is not faster during script execution than bash, however it starts quite a bit faster so that there is a big performance boost when launching a large number of small shell scripts (like what's done during the init sequence). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.188.33.23 (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"believed to be more reliable"

Should such a statement say more specifically who believes dash to be more reliable? Mateub (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC) mateub[reply]

- Its a trivial hypothetical situation... like saying the first person to move in go-moku has an advantage, (strategy stealing argument). Dash only depends on libc6, which would trash the whole system (including Bash) if it were corrupt, or damaged in upgrade. Bash depends on libc6 AND other libraries (which would trash the system)... Of course statically linked busybox has no dependencies and includes those necessary system tools... making it superior to both for a rescue shell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.67.225 (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it should be simply "more reliable" or "more reliable because of fewer dependencies". 85.77.161.155 (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fix the box

Can the ugly and useless screenshot text be removed from the box? Or if not somebody could provide a screenie. (Doesn't make much sense, after all it's a shell we're talking here) 85.77.161.155 (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]