Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[Bill Maltby (C4B)]

On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 15:39 -0700, JJB wrote:
> On 04/27/16 15:18, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Once upon a time, JJB  said:
> >> Interesting.  Back in 1980 we called /bin/sh the Mashey shell.  It
> >> did not have command substitution or other things we now take for
> >> granted.  Bourne did that for us.  So there's a version or two
> >> missing in history...
> > Check the history here:
> >
> > https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo
> >
> 
> This history might be that of a particular lineage.  CB UNIX and PWB 
> UNIX existed in the gap between 1975 and 1979.

PWB is the one I started with back in '77ish. Running on Dec 11/70.

When SCO's Unix, which had an IBM-compatible Cobol compiler available,
became available I installed on PC and over time converted our Cobol
development folks to compile, debug, test on the PCs and then install on
mainframe through the PDP 11/70 emulating 3270 terminal into mainframe,
IIRC. Maybe by then it was a VAX 11/780.

When Bourne's shell came around it was a big boost for me - added a lot.

> 

Bill

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[Brandon Vincent]

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Pouar  wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that's a variant of the Almquist Shell

You would be correct. All of the BSDs and some GNU/Linux distributions
use Almquist for sh if not using a symlink to bash or dash.

In fact, the first release of Slackware in 1993 had sh as a symlink to bash.

I'm looking at the source code for the Bourne shell as included with
UNIX SVR4 (circa 1988) and it's obvious that the version which Sun
Microsystems/Oracle shipped with Solaris under the CDDL is a direct
decedent.

The license on the source code for the Bourne shell shipped with SVR4
clearly states:

"THIS IS UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE OF AT"

Brandon Vincent
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[Pouar]

On 04/27/16 15:16, William A. Mahaffey III wrote:
> On 04/27/16 13:21, Pouar wrote:
>> On 04/27/16 08:49, William A. Mahaffey III wrote:
>>> On 04/26/16 21:13, John R Pierce wrote:
 On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote:
> Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated,
> one of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues.  Well
> that's all news to me, and I cannot find anything online to
> corroborate the claim.  Is this true, is it a bash vs. Bourne FUD,
> or something else?
 there's no Bourne shell in CentOS anyways, /bin/sh is a symlink to
 /bin/bash...

 last OS I can think of with an actual Bourne shell was Solaris.


>>> The various *BSD's have & use the actual Bourne shell 
>>>
>>>
>> Which one? All the BSDs I know of use the Almquist Shell except for
>> OpenBSD which uses a patched version of the Public Domain Korn Shell
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> CentOS mailing list
>> CentOS@centos.org
>> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
> NetBSD 6.1.5 uses the Bourne shell by default for root logins & uses
> it for the rc.d system. FreeBSD 9.3 Release has it installed because
> it is needed for the rc.d system. All I can vouch for 
>
>
I'm pretty sure that's a variant of the Almquist Shell*
*

-- 
Pouar

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[JJB]

On 04/27/16 15:33, Jon LaBadie wrote:

The V1 shell was of course not Bourne's.

However Bourne's code was consider "unmaintainable" as he was an
algol coder, not a C coder.  He had numerous macros defined to
allow him to use his algol coding style with a C compiler.


So *that's* what it is!  I have a copy of the source (on paper). What a 
hoot!  I thought he was trying to make C look like shell code.


Jack

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[JJB]

On 04/27/16 15:18, Chris Adams wrote:

Once upon a time, JJB  said:

Interesting.  Back in 1980 we called /bin/sh the Mashey shell.  It
did not have command substitution or other things we now take for
granted.  Bourne did that for us.  So there's a version or two
missing in history...

Check the history here:

https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo



This history might be that of a particular lineage.  CB UNIX and PWB 
UNIX existed in the gap between 1975 and 1979.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CB_UNIX

Jack

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[Jon LaBadie]

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 03:32:49PM -0453, William A. Mahaffey III wrote:
> 
> From NetBSD 6.1.5:
> 
> 
> 4256EE1 # man sh
...
> SH(1)
> 
> NAME
>  sh -- command interpreter (shell)
...
> 
> HISTORY
>  A sh command appeared in Version 1 AT UNIX.  It was, however,
>  unmaintainable so we wrote this one.
> 

The V1 shell was of course not Bourne's.

However Bourne's code was consider "unmaintainable" as he was an
algol coder, not a C coder.  He had numerous macros defined to
allow him to use his algol coding style with a C compiler.

jl
-- 
Jon H. LaBadie j...@jgcomp.com
 11226 South Shore Rd.  (703) 787-0688 (H)
 Reston, VA  20190  (703) 935-6720 (C)
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, JJB  said:
> Interesting.  Back in 1980 we called /bin/sh the Mashey shell.  It
> did not have command substitution or other things we now take for
> granted.  Bourne did that for us.  So there's a version or two
> missing in history...

Check the history here:

https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo
-- 
Chris Adams 
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[Valeri Galtsev]

On Wed, April 27, 2016 3:16 pm, William A. Mahaffey III wrote:
> On 04/27/16 13:21, Pouar wrote:
>> On 04/27/16 08:49, William A. Mahaffey III wrote:
>>> On 04/26/16 21:13, John R Pierce wrote:
 On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote:
> Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated,
> one of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues.  Well
> that's all news to me, and I cannot find anything online to
> corroborate the claim.  Is this true, is it a bash vs. Bourne FUD,
> or something else?
 there's no Bourne shell in CentOS anyways, /bin/sh is a symlink to
 /bin/bash...

 last OS I can think of with an actual Bourne shell was Solaris.


>>> The various *BSD's have & use the actual Bourne shell 
>>>
>>>
>> Which one? All the BSDs I know of use the Almquist Shell except for
>> OpenBSD which uses a patched version of the Public Domain Korn Shell
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> CentOS mailing list
>> CentOS@centos.org
>> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
> NetBSD 6.1.5 uses the Bourne shell by default for root logins & uses it
> for the rc.d system. FreeBSD 9.3 Release has it installed because it is
> needed for the rc.d system. All I can vouch for 
>

Yes. Here is excerpt from "man sh" (appears the same on FreeBSD 9.3 and
10.3):

 A sh command, the Thompson shell, appeared in Version 1 AT UNIX.  It
 was superseded in Version 7 AT UNIX by the Bourne shell, which inher-
 ited the name sh.

 This version of sh was rewritten in 1989 under the BSD license after the
 Bourne shell from AT System V Release 4 UNIX.



>
> --
>
>   William A. Mahaffey III
>
>   --
>
>   "The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war
>ever devised by man."
> -- Gen. George S. Patton Jr.
>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>



Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[William A. Mahaffey III]

On 04/27/16 14:19, John R Pierce wrote:



>>last OS I can think of with an actual Bourne shell was Solaris.
>>
>>

>
>The various *BSD's have & use the actual Bourne shell 
>
>

Which one? All the BSDs I know of use the Almquist Shell except for
OpenBSD which uses a patched version of the Public Domain Korn Shell


indeed, the man for sh(1) on freebsd 10.3 says (in part)

HISTORY
 A sh command, the Thompsonshell, appearedin Version 1 
AT UNIX. It
 was superseded in Version 7 AT UNIX by the Bourne shell,
which inher-

 ited the name sh.

 This version of shwas rewritten in 1989 under theBSD 
license after the

 Bourne shell from AT System V Release 4 UNIX.

AUTHORS
 This version of shwas originally written by Kenneth Almquist.






From NetBSD 6.1.5:


4256EE1 # man sh
man: Formatting manual page...
SH(1)   General Commands Manual  
SH(1)


NAME
 sh -- command interpreter (shell)

SYNOPSIS
 sh [-aCefnuvxIimqVEb] [+aCefnuvxIimqVEb] [-o option_name]
[+o option_name] [command_file [argument ...]]
 sh -c [-aCefnuvxIimqVEb] [+aCefnuvxIimqVEb] [-o option_name]
[+o option_name] command_string [command_name [argument ...]]
 sh -s [-aCefnuvxIimqVEb] [+aCefnuvxIimqVEb] [-o option_name]
[+o option_name] [argument ...]

DESCRIPTION
 sh is the standard command interpreter for the system.  The current
 version of sh is in the process of being changed to conform with the
 POSIX 1003.2 and 1003.2a specifications for the shell.  This 
version has
 many features which make it appear similar in some respects to the 
Korn

 shell, but it is not a Korn shell clone (see ksh(1)).  Only features
 designated by POSIX, plus a few Berkeley extensions, are being
 incorporated into this shell.  This man page is not intended to be a
 tutorial or a complete specification of the shell.

.
.
.


HISTORY
 A sh command appeared in Version 1 AT UNIX.  It was, however,
 unmaintainable so we wrote this one.

BUGS
 Setuid shell scripts should be avoided at all costs, as they are a
 significant security risk.

 PS1, PS2, and PS4 should be subject to parameter expansion before 
being

 displayed.

 The characters generated by filename completion should probably be 
quoted
 to ensure that the filename is still valid after the input line 
has been

 processed.

NetBSD 6.1.5October 4, 2011 NetBSD 6.1.5
4256EE1 #


There was/is nothing at the end w/ any more identifying info.


From FreeBSD 9.3R:

[root@kabini1, /etc, 3:22:38pm] 888 % man sh
SH(1)   FreeBSD General Commands Manual  
SH(1)


NAME
 sh -- command interpreter (shell)

SYNOPSIS
 sh [-/+abCEefhIimnPpTuVvx] [-/+o longname] [script [arg ...]]
 sh [-/+abCEefhIimnPpTuVvx] [-/+o longname] -c string [name [arg ...]]
 sh [-/+abCEefhIimnPpTuVvx] [-/+o longname] -s [arg ...]

DESCRIPTION
 The sh utility is the standard command interpreter for the 
system.  The
 current version of sh is close to the IEEE Std 1003.1 
(``POSIX.1'') spec-
 ification for the shell.  It only supports features designated by 
POSIX,

 plus a few Berkeley extensions.  This man page is not intended to be a
 tutorial nor a complete specification of the shell.

.
.
.

HISTORY
 A sh command, the Thompson shell, appeared in Version 1 AT UNIX.  It
 was superseded in Version 7 AT UNIX by the Bourne shell, which 
inher-

 ited the name sh.

 This version of sh was rewritten in 1989 under the BSD license 
after the

 Bourne shell from AT System V Release 4 UNIX.

AUTHORS
 This version of sh was originally written by Kenneth Almquist.

BUGS
 The sh utility does not recognize multibyte characters other than 
UTF-8.
 Splitting using IFS and the line editing library editline(3) do 
not rec-

 ognize multibyte characters.

FreeBSD 9.3 January 3, 2014 FreeBSD 9.3
[root@kabini1, /etc, 3:31:58pm] 889 %



So FreeBSD does indeed appear to use the Almquist shell.


--

William A. Mahaffey III

 --

"The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war
 ever devised by man."
   -- Gen. George S. Patton Jr.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[William A. Mahaffey III]

On 04/27/16 13:21, Pouar wrote:

On 04/27/16 08:49, William A. Mahaffey III wrote:

On 04/26/16 21:13, John R Pierce wrote:

On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote:

Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated,
one of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues.  Well
that's all news to me, and I cannot find anything online to
corroborate the claim.  Is this true, is it a bash vs. Bourne FUD,
or something else?

there's no Bourne shell in CentOS anyways, /bin/sh is a symlink to
/bin/bash...

last OS I can think of with an actual Bourne shell was Solaris.



The various *BSD's have & use the actual Bourne shell 



Which one? All the BSDs I know of use the Almquist Shell except for
OpenBSD which uses a patched version of the Public Domain Korn Shell



___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


NetBSD 6.1.5 uses the Bourne shell by default for root logins & uses it 
for the rc.d system. FreeBSD 9.3 Release has it installed because it is 
needed for the rc.d system. All I can vouch for 



--

William A. Mahaffey III

 --

"The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war
 ever devised by man."
   -- Gen. George S. Patton Jr.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[John R Pierce]

On 4/27/2016 12:59 PM, JJB wrote:




Interesting.  Back in 1980 we called /bin/sh the Mashey shell.  It did 
not have command substitution or other things we now take for 
granted.  Bourne did that for us.  So there's a version or two missing 
in history... 


this suggests the PWB/Mashey shell was pretty short lived... 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PWB_shell


derivatives of Unix Version 7 were about the first Unix version most 
people outside of a few universities ever saw, like I believe my first 
in depth exposure to Unix was 4.1BSD, on Dec VAX 11/780.   I remember 
having to get a Unix/32V license from AT, then photocopy the label of 
the tape and fax it to Berkeley before we could get 4.1BSD from them due 
to licensing weirdness.  I don't remember ever even mounting that AT tape.



--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[JJB]

>The various *BSD's have & use the actual Bourne shell 
>
>

Which one? All the BSDs I know of use the Almquist Shell except for
OpenBSD which uses a patched version of the Public Domain Korn Shell


indeed, the man for sh(1) on freebsd 10.3 says (in part)

HISTORY
 A sh command, the Thompsonshell, appearedin Version 1 
AT UNIX. It
 was superseded in Version 7 AT UNIX by the Bourne shell,
which inher-

 ited the name sh.

 This version of shwas rewritten in 1989 under theBSD 
license after the

 Bourne shell from AT System V Release 4 UNIX.



Interesting.  Back in 1980 we called /bin/sh the Mashey shell.  It did 
not have command substitution or other things we now take for granted.  
Bourne did that for us.  So there's a version or two missing in history...


Jack
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[John R Pierce]

>>last OS I can think of with an actual Bourne shell was Solaris.
>>
>>

>
>The various *BSD's have & use the actual Bourne shell 
>
>

Which one? All the BSDs I know of use the Almquist Shell except for
OpenBSD which uses a patched version of the Public Domain Korn Shell


indeed, the man for sh(1) on freebsd 10.3 says (in part)

HISTORY
 A sh command, the Thompson shell, appeared in Version 1 AT UNIX.  It
 was superseded in Version 7 AT UNIX by the Bourne shell, which inher-
 ited the name sh.

 This version of sh was rewritten in 1989 under the BSD license after the
 Bourne shell from AT System V Release 4 UNIX.

AUTHORS
 This version of sh was originally written by Kenneth Almquist.



--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[Pouar]

On 04/27/16 08:49, William A. Mahaffey III wrote:
> On 04/26/16 21:13, John R Pierce wrote:
>> On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote:
>>>
>>> Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated,
>>> one of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues.  Well
>>> that's all news to me, and I cannot find anything online to
>>> corroborate the claim.  Is this true, is it a bash vs. Bourne FUD,
>>> or something else? 
>>
>> there's no Bourne shell in CentOS anyways, /bin/sh is a symlink to
>> /bin/bash...
>>
>> last OS I can think of with an actual Bourne shell was Solaris.
>>
>>
>
> The various *BSD's have & use the actual Bourne shell 
>
>
Which one? All the BSDs I know of use the Almquist Shell except for
OpenBSD which uses a patched version of the Public Domain Korn Shell

-- 
Pouar

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[Gordon Messmer]

On 04/27/2016 05:20 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:

While older versions of the Bourne Shell are not POSIX compliant, recent
versions only miss the feature "arithmetic expansion" and are otherwise
probably closer to POSIX than bash or dash. Note that "dash" does not support
multi-byte characters and thus cannot be certified for a full UNIX system but
only for embedded UNIX systems.


That's good to know.  But, since there seem to be several forks of 
Bourne shell, currently, is there a reference for the differences 
between them?



As far as I can see, this was related to "mailx" and not to the shell.


I looked for substantiation of the original claim that the bourne shell 
had security problems.  Apparently I should have looked closer.  Thanks 
for catching that.


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[Valeri Galtsev]

On Tue, April 26, 2016 9:27 pm, Alice Wonder wrote:
> On 04/26/2016 07:21 PM, Digimer wrote:
>> On 26/04/16 10:07 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
>>> On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote:

 Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, one
 of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues.  Well that's
 all news to me, and I cannot find anything online to corroborate the
 claim.  Is this true, is it a bash vs. Bourne FUD, or something else?
>>>
>>> there's no Bourne shell in CentOS anyways, /bin/sh is a symlink to
>>> /bin/bash...
>>>
>>> last OS I can think of with an actual Bourne shell was Solaris.
>>
>> ??
>>
>> [root@an-striker01 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release
>> CentOS release 6.7 (Final)
>>
>> [root@an-striker01 ~]# which bash
>> /bin/bash
>>
>> [root@an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/bash
>> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 885K Sep 22  2015 /bin/bash
>>
>> [root@an-striker01 ~]# which sh
>> /bin/sh
>>
>> [root@an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/sh
>> lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 4 Mar 27 18:40 /bin/sh -> bash
>
> Yes, Red Hat and most (all?) GNU/Linux distributions have used bash as
> far back as I can remember.
>
> Some of the BSDs use to have a bourne shell and maybe some do, I don't
> know.
>
> bash is mostly compatible with bourne (can run most bourne scripts)
> which is why /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash on GNU and most other
> *nix systems.
>
> Bourne is for all practical purposes dead.

Nope. FreeBSD (and its clones like PC-BSD) use Bourne shell for startup
scripts. OpenBSD comes with Bourne shell as well (though they use ksh for
system scripts if I remember it correctly). Not dead and there is a reason
for that.

Valeri

>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>



Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[Valeri Galtsev]

On Wed, April 27, 2016 10:01 am, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Scott Robbins wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 07:27:26PM -0700, Alice Wonder wrote:
>>>
>>> Some of the BSDs use to have a bourne shell and maybe some do, I don't
> know.
>>>
>> Yup.
>>
>>> bash is mostly compatible with bourne (can run most bourne scripts)
> which is why /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash on GNU and most other
> *nix systems.
>>
>> Bash can run Bourne, but not necessarily vice versa, which can be
> problematic if, say, moving a Linux script to a BSD or AIX box.   I
> remember something I'd done which used, IIRC, $UID, without realizing it
> was a bashism, instead of using id -u.

There is at least one good reason Bourne shell is still alive and not
striving to cover all Bourne-Again shell (bash) features IMHO. Bourne
shell is very well debugged, and code is much smaller, hence much less
chance to have undiscovered bugs. Therefore, it should be much better
security wise. Imagine you never heard about shellshock, and I ask you is
it bash or is it Bourne shell, what would you bet be? (90 or 95% it is
bash would be mine, - if I recollect correctly my reaction when I first
heard about that).

Just my $0.02

Valeri

>
> I'll also note that all *production* scripts were once required to be
> bourne, but by the mid-ninties, management was starting to mandate that
> they be Korn shell, instead, for many reasons - capabilities, etc. Bash -
> I don't think I saw that till I started running RH 5.1, I think it was,
> about 18 years ago
>
>   mark
>
>
>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>



Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[m . roth]

Scott Robbins wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 07:27:26PM -0700, Alice Wonder wrote:
>>
>> Some of the BSDs use to have a bourne shell and maybe some do, I don't
know.
>>
> Yup.
>
>> bash is mostly compatible with bourne (can run most bourne scripts)
which is why /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash on GNU and most other
*nix systems.
>
> Bash can run Bourne, but not necessarily vice versa, which can be
problematic if, say, moving a Linux script to a BSD or AIX box.   I
remember something I'd done which used, IIRC, $UID, without realizing it
was a bashism, instead of using id -u.

I'll also note that all *production* scripts were once required to be
bourne, but by the mid-ninties, management was starting to mandate that
they be Korn shell, instead, for many reasons - capabilities, etc. Bash -
I don't think I saw that till I started running RH 5.1, I think it was,
about 18 years ago

  mark



___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[William A. Mahaffey III]

On 04/26/16 21:13, John R Pierce wrote:

On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote:


Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, 
one of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues.  Well 
that's all news to me, and I cannot find anything online to 
corroborate the claim.  Is this true, is it a bash vs. Bourne FUD, or 
something else? 


there's no Bourne shell in CentOS anyways, /bin/sh is a symlink to 
/bin/bash...


last OS I can think of with an actual Bourne shell was Solaris.




The various *BSD's have & use the actual Bourne shell 


--

William A. Mahaffey III

 --

"The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war
 ever devised by man."
   -- Gen. George S. Patton Jr.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[Scott Robbins]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 07:27:26PM -0700, Alice Wonder wrote:
> 
> Some of the BSDs use to have a bourne shell and maybe some do, I don't know.
> 
Yup.  

> bash is mostly compatible with bourne (can run most bourne scripts)
> which is why /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash on GNU and most other
> *nix systems.

Bash can run Bourne, but not necessarily vice versa, which can be
problematic if, say, moving a Linux script to a BSD or AIX box.   I
remember something I'd done which used, IIRC, $UID, without realizing it
was a bashism, instead of using id -u.  


-- 
Scott Robbins
PGP keyID EB3467D6
( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 )
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[wwp]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:08:10 +0200 wwp  wrote:

> Hello all,
> 
> 
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 22:21:34 -0400 Digimer  wrote:
> 
> > On 26/04/16 10:07 PM, John R Pierce wrote:  
> > > On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, one
> > >> of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues.  Well that's
> > >> all news to me, and I cannot find anything online to corroborate the
> > >> claim.  Is this true, is it a bash vs. Bourne FUD, or something else?
> > >>  
> > > 
> > > there's no Bourne shell in CentOS anyways, /bin/sh is a symlink to
> > > /bin/bash...
> > > 
> > > last OS I can think of with an actual Bourne shell was Solaris.
> > 
> > ??
> > 
> > [root@an-striker01 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release
> > CentOS release 6.7 (Final)
> > 
> > [root@an-striker01 ~]# which bash
> > /bin/bash
> > 
> > [root@an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/bash
> > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 885K Sep 22  2015 /bin/bash
> > 
> > [root@an-striker01 ~]# which sh
> > /bin/sh
> > 
> > [root@an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/sh
> > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 4 Mar 27 18:40 /bin/sh -> bash
> > 
> > Same upstream on Fedora 23:
> > 
> >  0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# cat /etc/redhat-release
> > Fedora release 23 (Twenty Three)
> > 
> >   0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# which bash
> > /bin/bash
> > 
> >   0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# ls -lah /bin/bash
> > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 1.1M Jan 11 06:02 /bin/bash
> > 
> >   0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# which sh
> > /bin/sh
> > 
> >   0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# ls -lah /bin/sh
> > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 4 Jan 11 06:02 /bin/sh -> bash  
> 
> There seems to be a big confusion in this thread.
> The Bourne shell has gone long time ago. The Bourne-Again shell is bash
> (which is GNU software). Bash is not the Bourne shell.

Sorry if I wrote too fast: s/has gone/was born/. The Bourne shell seems
to be still in use in FreeBSD.


Regards,

-- 
wwp


pgplMm_IZrmjT.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[wwp]

Hello all,


On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 22:21:34 -0400 Digimer  wrote:

> On 26/04/16 10:07 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> > On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote:  
> >>
> >> Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, one
> >> of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues.  Well that's
> >> all news to me, and I cannot find anything online to corroborate the
> >> claim.  Is this true, is it a bash vs. Bourne FUD, or something else?   
> > 
> > there's no Bourne shell in CentOS anyways, /bin/sh is a symlink to
> > /bin/bash...
> > 
> > last OS I can think of with an actual Bourne shell was Solaris.  
> 
> ??
> 
> [root@an-striker01 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release
> CentOS release 6.7 (Final)
> 
> [root@an-striker01 ~]# which bash
> /bin/bash
> 
> [root@an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/bash
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 885K Sep 22  2015 /bin/bash
> 
> [root@an-striker01 ~]# which sh
> /bin/sh
> 
> [root@an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/sh
> lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 4 Mar 27 18:40 /bin/sh -> bash
> 
> Same upstream on Fedora 23:
> 
>  0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# cat /etc/redhat-release
> Fedora release 23 (Twenty Three)
> 
>   0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# which bash
> /bin/bash
> 
>   0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# ls -lah /bin/bash
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 1.1M Jan 11 06:02 /bin/bash
> 
>   0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# which sh
> /bin/sh
> 
>   0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# ls -lah /bin/sh
> lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 4 Jan 11 06:02 /bin/sh -> bash

There seems to be a big confusion in this thread.
The Bourne shell has gone long time ago. The Bourne-Again shell is bash
(which is GNU software). Bash is not the Bourne shell.

FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourne_shell


Regards,

-- 
wwp


pgpsSAXPa4CcQ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[John R Pierce]

On 4/26/2016 7:27 PM, Alice Wonder wrote:


bash is mostly compatible with bourne (can run most bourne scripts) 
which is why /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash on GNU and most other 
*nix systems. 



when bash is invoked as /bin/sh, it reverts to more Bourne like 
behaviors in some circumstances where the default is not compatible.


Most of the script developers at my $job seem to prefer ksh for serious 
scripting, apparently its more consistent.




--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[Alice Wonder]

On 04/26/2016 07:21 PM, Digimer wrote:

On 26/04/16 10:07 PM, John R Pierce wrote:

On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote:


Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, one
of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues.  Well that's
all news to me, and I cannot find anything online to corroborate the
claim.  Is this true, is it a bash vs. Bourne FUD, or something else?


there's no Bourne shell in CentOS anyways, /bin/sh is a symlink to
/bin/bash...

last OS I can think of with an actual Bourne shell was Solaris.


??

[root@an-striker01 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release
CentOS release 6.7 (Final)

[root@an-striker01 ~]# which bash
/bin/bash

[root@an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/bash
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 885K Sep 22  2015 /bin/bash

[root@an-striker01 ~]# which sh
/bin/sh

[root@an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/sh
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 4 Mar 27 18:40 /bin/sh -> bash


Yes, Red Hat and most (all?) GNU/Linux distributions have used bash as 
far back as I can remember.


Some of the BSDs use to have a bourne shell and maybe some do, I don't know.

bash is mostly compatible with bourne (can run most bourne scripts) 
which is why /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash on GNU and most other 
*nix systems.


Bourne is for all practical purposes dead.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[Digimer]

On 26/04/16 10:07 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote:
>>
>> Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, one
>> of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues.  Well that's
>> all news to me, and I cannot find anything online to corroborate the
>> claim.  Is this true, is it a bash vs. Bourne FUD, or something else? 
> 
> there's no Bourne shell in CentOS anyways, /bin/sh is a symlink to
> /bin/bash...
> 
> last OS I can think of with an actual Bourne shell was Solaris.

??

[root@an-striker01 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release
CentOS release 6.7 (Final)

[root@an-striker01 ~]# which bash
/bin/bash

[root@an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/bash
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 885K Sep 22  2015 /bin/bash

[root@an-striker01 ~]# which sh
/bin/sh

[root@an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/sh
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 4 Mar 27 18:40 /bin/sh -> bash

Same upstream on Fedora 23:

 0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# cat /etc/redhat-release
Fedora release 23 (Twenty Three)

  0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# which bash
/bin/bash

  0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# ls -lah /bin/bash
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 1.1M Jan 11 06:02 /bin/bash

  0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# which sh
/bin/sh

  0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# ls -lah /bin/sh
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 4 Jan 11 06:02 /bin/sh -> bash


-- 
Digimer
Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/
What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without
access to education?
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[Gordon Messmer]

On 04/26/2016 06:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote:
Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, one 
of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues.  Well that's 
all news to me, and I cannot find anything online to corroborate the 
claim.  Is this true, is it a bash vs. Bourne FUD, or something else? 



The Bourne shell is not POSIX conforming.  It's not widely available.  
It was included in Solaris until 11, when it was replaced with a POSIX 
compatible sh.



It was affected by a security issue in 2014:

http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-15053/year-2014/Heirloom.html


I think it's hard to argue that it's not deprecated.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[John R Pierce]

On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote:


Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, one 
of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues.  Well that's 
all news to me, and I cannot find anything online to corroborate the 
claim.  Is this true, is it a bash vs. Bourne FUD, or something else? 


there's no Bourne shell in CentOS anyways, /bin/sh is a symlink to 
/bin/bash...


last OS I can think of with an actual Bourne shell was Solaris.


--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[John D]

There was the "Shell Shock" Vulnerability patched on the 24th of September
2014
Maybe this person was Misinformed after this incident.
Microsoft and Ubuntu just announced BASH for Windows ( they called it Linux
on Windows or something like that ).




On 27 April 2016 at 13:47, Digimer  wrote:

> On 26/04/16 09:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote:
> > Hello List,
> >
> > Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, one
> > of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues.  Well that's all
> > news to me, and I cannot find anything online to corroborate the claim.
> > Is this true, is it a bash vs. Bourne FUD, or something else?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jack
>
> [Citation Needed]
>
> --
> Digimer
> Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/
> What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without
> access to education?
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[Digimer]

On 26/04/16 09:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote:
> Hello List,
> 
> Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, one
> of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues.  Well that's all
> news to me, and I cannot find anything online to corroborate the claim. 
> Is this true, is it a bash vs. Bourne FUD, or something else?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jack

[Citation Needed]

-- 
Digimer
Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/
What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without
access to education?
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

[Jack Bailey]

Hello List,

Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, one 
of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues.  Well that's all 
news to me, and I cannot find anything online to corroborate the claim.  
Is this true, is it a bash vs. Bourne FUD, or something else?


Thanks,
Jack

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos