Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "bourne_shell".
2016 Apr 27
0
Bourne shell deprecated?
...gimer# 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.
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&g...
2015 Feb 14
3
C5 BASH IF
On 02/14/2015 12:03 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:36 AM, J Martin Rushton
> <martinrushton56 at btinternet.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> To understand it completely you need to know the order of
>>> operations as the shell makes multiple passes over the line,
>>> parsing, processing metacharacters, and expanding variables. And
2016 Apr 27
6
Bourne shell deprecated?
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