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 corroborate the >> claim. Is this true, is it a bash vs. Bourne FUD, or something else? > > there's no Bourne shell in CentOS anyways, /bin/sh is a symlink to > /bin/bash... > > last OS I can think of with an actual Bourne shell was Solaris.?? [root at an-striker01 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release CentOS release 6.7 (Final) [root at an-striker01 ~]# which bash /bin/bash [root at an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/bash -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 885K Sep 22 2015 /bin/bash [root at an-striker01 ~]# which sh /bin/sh [root at an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/sh lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 4 Mar 27 18:40 /bin/sh -> bash Same upstream on Fedora 23: 0 root at pulsar:/home/digimer# cat /etc/redhat-release Fedora release 23 (Twenty Three) 0 root at pulsar:/home/digimer# which bash /bin/bash 0 root at pulsar:/home/digimer# ls -lah /bin/bash -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 1.1M Jan 11 06:02 /bin/bash 0 root at pulsar:/home/digimer# which sh /bin/sh 0 root at pulsar:/home/digimer# ls -lah /bin/sh lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 4 Jan 11 06:02 /bin/sh -> bash -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education?
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 find anything online to corroborate the >>> claim. Is this true, is it a bash vs. Bourne FUD, or something else? >> >> there's no Bourne shell in CentOS anyways, /bin/sh is a symlink to >> /bin/bash... >> >> last OS I can think of with an actual Bourne shell was Solaris. > > ?? > > [root at an-striker01 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release > CentOS release 6.7 (Final) > > [root at an-striker01 ~]# which bash > /bin/bash > > [root at an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/bash > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 885K Sep 22 2015 /bin/bash > > [root at an-striker01 ~]# which sh > /bin/sh > > [root at an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/sh > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 4 Mar 27 18:40 /bin/sh -> bashYes, Red Hat and most (all?) GNU/Linux distributions have used bash as far back as I can remember. Some of the BSDs use to have a bourne shell and maybe some do, I don't know. 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. Bourne is for all practical purposes dead.
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 where the default is not compatible. Most of the script developers at my $job seem to prefer ksh for serious scripting, apparently its more consistent. -- john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
Hello all, On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 22:21:34 -0400 Digimer <lists at alteeve.ca> 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 find anything online to corroborate the > >> claim. Is this true, is it a bash vs. Bourne FUD, or something else? > > > > there's no Bourne shell in CentOS anyways, /bin/sh is a symlink to > > /bin/bash... > > > > last OS I can think of with an actual Bourne shell was Solaris. > > ?? > > [root at an-striker01 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release > CentOS release 6.7 (Final) > > [root at an-striker01 ~]# which bash > /bin/bash > > [root at an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/bash > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 885K Sep 22 2015 /bin/bash > > [root at an-striker01 ~]# which sh > /bin/sh > > [root at an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/sh > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 4 Mar 27 18:40 /bin/sh -> bash > > Same upstream on Fedora 23: > > 0 root at pulsar:/home/digimer# cat /etc/redhat-release > Fedora release 23 (Twenty Three) > > 0 root at pulsar:/home/digimer# which bash > /bin/bash > > 0 root at pulsar:/home/digimer# ls -lah /bin/bash > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 1.1M Jan 11 06:02 /bin/bash > > 0 root at pulsar:/home/digimer# which sh > /bin/sh > > 0 root at pulsar:/home/digimer# ls -lah /bin/sh > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 4 Jan 11 06:02 /bin/sh -> bashThere seems to be a big confusion in this thread. The Bourne shell has gone long time ago. The Bourne-Again shell is bash (which is GNU software). Bash is not the Bourne shell. FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourne_shell Regards, -- wwp -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20160427/dded7cb5/attachment-0001.sig>
On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:08:10 +0200 wwp <subscript at free.fr> wrote:> Hello all, > > > On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 22:21:34 -0400 Digimer <lists at alteeve.ca> 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 find anything online to corroborate the > > >> claim. Is this true, is it a bash vs. Bourne FUD, or something else? > > > > > > there's no Bourne shell in CentOS anyways, /bin/sh is a symlink to > > > /bin/bash... > > > > > > last OS I can think of with an actual Bourne shell was Solaris. > > > > ?? > > > > [root at an-striker01 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release > > CentOS release 6.7 (Final) > > > > [root at an-striker01 ~]# which bash > > /bin/bash > > > > [root at an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/bash > > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 885K Sep 22 2015 /bin/bash > > > > [root at an-striker01 ~]# which sh > > /bin/sh > > > > [root at an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/sh > > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 4 Mar 27 18:40 /bin/sh -> bash > > > > Same upstream on Fedora 23: > > > > 0 root at pulsar:/home/digimer# cat /etc/redhat-release > > Fedora release 23 (Twenty Three) > > > > 0 root at pulsar:/home/digimer# which bash > > /bin/bash > > > > 0 root at pulsar:/home/digimer# ls -lah /bin/bash > > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 1.1M Jan 11 06:02 /bin/bash > > > > 0 root at pulsar:/home/digimer# which sh > > /bin/sh > > > > 0 root at pulsar:/home/digimer# ls -lah /bin/sh > > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 4 Jan 11 06:02 /bin/sh -> bash > > There seems to be a big confusion in this thread. > The Bourne shell has gone long time ago. The Bourne-Again shell is bash > (which is GNU software). Bash is not the Bourne shell.Sorry if I wrote too fast: s/has gone/was born/. The Bourne shell seems to be still in use in FreeBSD. Regards, -- wwp -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20160427/e0fef50e/attachment-0001.sig>
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 > *nix systems.Bash can run Bourne, but not necessarily vice versa, which can be problematic if, say, moving a Linux script to a BSD or AIX box. I remember something I'd done which used, IIRC, $UID, without realizing it was a bashism, instead of using id -u. -- Scott Robbins PGP keyID EB3467D6 ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 ) gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6
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 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? >>> >>> there's no Bourne shell in CentOS anyways, /bin/sh is a symlink to >>> /bin/bash... >>> >>> last OS I can think of with an actual Bourne shell was Solaris. >> >> ?? >> >> [root at an-striker01 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release >> CentOS release 6.7 (Final) >> >> [root at an-striker01 ~]# which bash >> /bin/bash >> >> [root at an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/bash >> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 885K Sep 22 2015 /bin/bash >> >> [root at an-striker01 ~]# which sh >> /bin/sh >> >> [root at an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/sh >> lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 4 Mar 27 18:40 /bin/sh -> bash > > Yes, Red Hat and most (all?) GNU/Linux distributions have used bash as > far back as I can remember. > > Some of the BSDs use to have a bourne shell and maybe some do, I don't > know. > > 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. > > Bourne is for all practical purposes dead.Nope. FreeBSD (and its clones like PC-BSD) use Bourne shell for startup scripts. OpenBSD comes with Bourne shell as well (though they use ksh for system scripts if I remember it correctly). Not dead and there is a reason for that. Valeri> > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++