[TUHS] A few comments on porting the Bourne shell

[Adam Thornton]

> On Jan 2, 2023, at 2:08 PM, Joseph Holsten <joseph at josephholsten.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2023, at 13:00, Dan Cross wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 3:41 PM Larry McVoy <lm at mcvoy.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> If we wanted to use Makefiles in our customer run product, we would have
>>> shipped it.
>> 
>> Couldn't you also ship a shell? That kinda seems like the simplest solution.
> 
> Then you have to ship documentation on how to properly install the shell. Also, add guardrails to make sure that the correct shell is being loaded instead of someone getting ambitious with their exec path.
> 
> cf every products trying to ship its own python, ruby, etc instead of accepting defeat and shipping a statically build tool in a docker container in an OVA virtual machine image.
> 
> Obviously, that’s what should have been done with Bourne shell in the first place.

You came very close to owing me a new keyboard there.

Adam