On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 14:23:08 -0800, Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Oh, bash is great, we don't need a real sh anymore! We > can use bash everywhere, and _call_ it sh!"
I thought bash was supposed to be 100% compatible with sh, in that a pure sh script would run identically in both sh and bash? If that's the case, I don't see a problem with linking /bin/sh to /bin/bash. > No, there does _not_ have to be a default, except for root. The root > account has been *traditionally* a bourne shell; and for preference, a > statically-linked bourne shell. When you create a user-account, you > should *choose* the shell. Every Linux distribution I've installed has let me choose the default shell for new accounts. Yes, they have all given me a default default, and yes, the default default has always been bash. Are you saying there should be no default, so that there comes to be a little more variety, and people don't *assume* that bash is installed? > I dare say that most linux users NEVER give any other > shell an honest try -- they just go with the default. Why shouldn't they go with the default? On this note: Having never tried anything other than bash, and not having any heavy-duty scripting needs, what shell would you recommend I try, and why? I've heard korn is interesting. -todd -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
