Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 04:07:00 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Shells Message-ID: <27309.955883220@zippy.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 15 Apr 2000 21:06:57 MDT." <200004160306.VAA30436@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> What does this mean. If it means that sh scripts won't run on BASH, sh scripts run fine on bash and I'll certainly challenge anyone to find me a /bin/sh script which behaves differently when fed to our 5.0-current ash shell vs bash 2.03. Since we've started this whole "commit the superset shell in favor of advanced user friendliness" argument, one supposes that replacing /bin/csh with tcsh and /bin/sh with bash2 with be merely orthoginal. Both options have also, it must be pointed out, been already taken by other flavors of *ix with far larger user bases than FreeBSD's and it can probably be reasonably supposed that these arguments have already taken place and been reasonably well-resolved or their own switch-overs would not have happened. I see /bin/sh as bash on probably every linux system I've ever used and linux's ability to run arbitrary "popular shell scripts" has not, to my knowledge, ever been brought into serious question. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?27309.955883220>