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 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 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/centos > > NetBSD 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 .... >Yes. Here is excerpt from "man sh" (appears the same on FreeBSD 9.3 and 10.3): 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.> > -- > > William A. Mahaffey III > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > "The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war > ever devised by man." > -- Gen. George S. Patton Jr. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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 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/centos > > NetBSD 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 .... > >I'm pretty sure that's a variant of the Almquist Shell* * -- Pouar
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Pouar <thepouar at gmail.com> wrote:> I'm pretty sure that's a variant of the Almquist ShellYou 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 in 1993 had sh as a symlink to bash. I'm looking at the source code for the Bourne shell as included with UNIX SVR4 (circa 1988) and it's obvious that the version which Sun Microsystems/Oracle shipped with Solaris under the CDDL is a direct decedent. The license on the source code for the Bourne shell shipped with SVR4 clearly states: "THIS IS UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE OF AT&T" Brandon Vincent