search for: bourn

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...

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'...

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? Thanks, Jack

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...

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 on GNU and most other *nix systems. > > Bash can run Bourne, but not necessarily vice versa, which ca...

>>> >>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 versio...

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? >> >> ther...

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? > > >...

..., 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, >>>>&...

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? >>...

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 >> Ope...

...pulled in a bunch of qt5 dependencies. > > After install, I ran: > > teamviewer > > it worked fine. > Hi Johnny, Thanks for replying. I seem to be having a very bad day. I uninstalled the old TV, and installed the version you indicated, but I get nothing at all: /home/bourne # teamviewer Init... CheckCPU: SSE2 support: yes Checking setup... Launching TeamViewer ... Launching TeamViewer GUI ... /home/bourne # I deleted ~/.config/teamviewer* and ~/.local/share/teamviewer*, but still no luck. Is it possible that this has something to do with Centos 7 running as a vm...

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 any...

>>> >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...

Once upon a time, JJB <jack at internetguy.net> 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 here: https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo -- Chris Adams <linux at cmadams.net>

...1.5: > > > 4256EE1 # man sh ... > SH(1) > > NAME > sh -- command interpreter (shell) ... > > HISTORY > A sh command appeared in Version 1 AT&T UNIX. It was, however, > unmaintainable so we wrote this one. > 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. jl -- Jon H. LaBadie jon at jgcomp.com 11226 South Shore Rd....

<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: - multibyt...

Dear all, During a recent package submission, we were highlighted that some lines in our configure script didn't follow the correct syntax. The lines looked like this: x=$(($y/10)) We were indicated at the time that this is because the statement does not use Bourne shell syntax, which is absolutely true, and also that the manual warns about this, which is true again. So far everything is clear. However, what confuses me is that even when the manual says that "you can include an executable (Bourne) shell script configure in your package" [1], th...

...12/19/17 22:07, Jonathan Billings wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:54:36PM +0000, Manish Jain wrote: >>>> I uninstalled the old TV, and installed the version you indicated, but >>>> I >>>> get nothing at all: >>>> >>>> /home/bourne # teamviewer >>>> >>>> Init... >>>> CheckCPU: SSE2 support: yes >>>> Checking setup... >>>> Launching TeamViewer ... >>>> Launching TeamViewer GUI ... >>>> /home/bourne # >>>> >>>> I deleted...

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 thus cannot be certified for a full UNIX system b...