CentOS - Apr 2015 - Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

<m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote:
> Ah. I don't remember if I was using csh, or ksh, and didn't realize
about
> bash. I *think* I vaguely remember that sh seemed to be more capable than
> I remembered.
If you like to check what the Bourne Shell did support in the late 1980s, I 
recommend you to fetch recent Schily tools from:

	https://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/

compile and install and test "osh".

This is the SVr4 Bourne Shell, so you need to take into account what has been 
added with Svr4:

-	multibyte character support. In the 1980s, the Bourne Shell was just
	8-bit clean.

-	job-control. If you do not call "jsh", or if you switch off
jobcontrol
	via "set +m" in a job shell, you have the job-control related
builtins
	but there is no processgroup management.

J?rg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.net                    (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353
Berlin
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'

On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:38 AM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at
fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> 
> This is the SVr4 Bourne Shell, so you need to take into account what has
been
> added with Svr4:
Is there any difference between your osh and the Heirloom Bourne Shell?

  http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/sh.html

I see that you already wrote up the differences between osh and bosh in an
earlier post.  Is there a good reason why these comparisons are not on the
Schily Tools web page already? :)

Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:38 AM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at
fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> > 
> > This is the SVr4 Bourne Shell, so you need to take into account what
has been
> > added with Svr4:
>
> Is there any difference between your osh and the Heirloom Bourne Shell?
>
>   http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/sh.html
Heirloom did make quick and dirty ports and then stopped working.

Heirloom e.g. did make the same attempt to port to platforms that may cause 
problems with own malloc() implemenetaions:

-	add a private malloc for sh internal use based on mmap().

This however caused problems with some Linux distros that have been reported 
against my old Bourne Shell port, so I assume the same problems exist with 
Heirloom.

Heirloom added support for uname -S and for some linux ulimit extensions but 
then stopped working on the code after a few months

You still cannot get a working Bourne Shell from heirloom that behaves exactly 
like the Solaris shell.

My code added a lot more new features and it converted the code cleanly to use 
malloc() from libc. My code also allows all the modifications to be disabled 
via #ifdef's. This happens with "osh".

My code is actively maintained and fixed _all_ documented historic bugs, see:

	http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/bourne/


> I see that you already wrote up the differences between osh and bosh in an
earlier post.  Is there a good reason why these comparisons are not on the
Schily Tools web page already? :)
The schily tools act as a container to publish the current code state. There is 
no such maintained web page. Given the fact that Sven Maschek wrote down a lot, 
it seems the information is still here.

I would be interested to understand why Heirloom seems to so well known and my 
portability attempts seem to be widely unknown.

J?rg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.net                    (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353
Berlin
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'