Justin Zygmont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This looks like a missunderstanding. > > > > Bourne shell stays Bourne shell. > > > > Bash tries to reimplement ksh. > > > > The fact that some Platforms do not care about backwards compatibility > > and replaced /bin/sh by bash does not make a sysV system stoneage. They just > > give you the freedom to choose your favorite shell. > > Then the name is misleading since it stands for Bourne Again Shell, i've > found it able to execute bourne shell scripts 100% compatible, but not ksh > scripts.
bash is neither 100% Bourne shell compatible nor ksh compatible. The biggest problem with bash is that is does useless jobcontrol with sh -c command and thus causes make file systems to behave incorrect when e.g. interrupted by ^C if /bin/sh is bash. > I meant its just the Bourne shell that was stoneage, I don't > think its changed in about 20 years. I wrote complete programs in bash, > i'd find it hard to go back now. http://sourceforge.net/projects/ibbs > You should be glad for stability.... What feature are you really missing in the Bourne shell? Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
