Rob Lahaye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Rob Lahaye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | Darren Freeman wrote:
| > | > On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 16:13, Rob Lahaye wrote:
| > | > | > Or I can get off my arse and download sh. Naaaahhhh =)
| > | | You don't have access to another Unix box that actually
| > | has some decent version of the sh-shell?
| > You mean the like the traditional crippled excuse for a shell called
| > "sh"?
|
| Well, fact remains that "sh != bash" on non-Linux/GNU boxes.
|
| On my FreeBSD PC, I have /bin/sh and /usr/local/bin/bash, and these are
| NOT the same; sh is there by default, bash needs to be installed manually
| as a separate package.
|
| On an old IRIX workstation, I have /bin/sh, but bash is absent!
|
| Unless scripts (and the sofware in general) is only aimed at Linux boxes,
| one has to comply to what you call "traditional crippled excuse for a shell
| called sh"!
It was the comment that bash is not a decent sh that I reacted upon,
in most ways IMHO bash _is_-decent sh-shell.
But of course we should make our scripts work with trad. sh.
--
Lgb
