Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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.

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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.

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

>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

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

>>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

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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 >

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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.

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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.

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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,

[CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

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?