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 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. > >The various *BSD's have & use the actual Bourne shell .... -- William A. Mahaffey III ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war ever devised by man." -- Gen. George S. Patton Jr.
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. 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. >>> >>> >> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centosNetBSD 6.1.5 uses the Bourne shell by default for root logins & uses it for the rc.d system. FreeBSD 9.3 Release has it installed because it is needed for the rc.d system. All I can vouch for .... -- William A. Mahaffey III ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war ever devised by man." -- Gen. George S. Patton Jr.
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 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. >> >> > > 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 -- Pouar
>>> >>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 Shellindeed, the man for sh(1) on freebsd 10.3 says (in part) HISTORY A sh command, the Thompson shell, appeared in Version 1 AT&T UNIX. It was superseded in Version 7 AT&T UNIX by the Bourne shell, which inher- ited the name sh. This version of sh was rewritten in 1989 under the BSD license after the Bourne shell from AT&T System V Release 4 UNIX. AUTHORS This version of sh was originally written by Kenneth Almquist. -- john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz