Norm Jacobs wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> "Garrett D'Amore" <gdamore at sun.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> My only small concern with this project is the name "bsh". ISTR
>>> being on other systems where "bsh" meant the "Bourne Shell". It
>>> seems like "beansh" might be a better name here to avoid possible
>>> confusion. But if this is widely deployed on FOSS already using
>>> "bsh", then perhaps we ought to leave the name as is.
>>>
>>
>> "bsh" is used by my private shell for a much longer time (since 1984)
>> than people started to use "bsh" for the Bourne Shell. This is why I
>> use "bosh"
>> for my extended Bourne Shell.
>>
>> Please use "beansh"
> Forgive me for pointing out the obvious here, but /usr/bin/bsh on
> Fedora and Ubuntu appear to be BeanShell (I didn't check anywhere
> else). Given that this is a familiarity case, wouldn't it make sense
> to install it in the familiar location and have 'bsh' do the familiar
> thing?
It wasn't obvious -- not all of us have Ubuntu installations handy to
learn that.
-- Garrett
>
> -Norm
