similar to: restart rsync process via shell script

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

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

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,

Hello, There appears to be an error in the stderr redirection of the crontab rsync entry. In Bourne shell and compatibles (crontab entries are run by the Bourne shell) redirections are processed from left to right and "2>&1" redirects the stderr to the same location stdout is currently directed and not to stdout. Hence: cmd 2>&1 > log directs stderr to the

>>> >>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

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

<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:

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

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

>>>>> I?aki ?car writes: Same from here: in addition to what the standards say, it always pays to be defensive and check "Portable Shell Programming" in the Autoconf manual. Among other things, this says '$((EXPRESSION))' Arithmetic expansion is not portable as some shells (most notably Solaris 10 '/bin/sh') don't support it. motivating

Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: > > The schily tools act as a container to publish the current code state. There is > > no such maintained web page. > > I was referring to the summary on the SourceForge page, where you just list the contents of the package without explaining why one would want to download it. I thought I don't need to make advertizing for

Pete Geenhuizen <pete at geenhuizen.net> wrote: > Initially Bourne was used because it was typically a static binary, > because the boot process didn't have access to any shared libraries. > When that changed it became a bit of a moot point, and you started to > see other interpreters being used. When dynamic linking was intruduced in 1988, people did kno know what we

Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: > On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:38 AM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > This is the SVr4 Bourne Shell, so you need to take into account what has been > > added with Svr4: > > Is there any difference between your osh and the Heirloom Bourne Shell? > >

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:32:45AM -0400, Scott Robbins wrote: > Wasn't Solaris, which for awhile at least, was probably the most popular > Unix, using ksh by default? Solaris /bin/sh was a real real dumb version of the bourne shell. Solaris included /bin/ksh as part of the core distribution (ksh88 was a part of the SVr4 specification) and so many scripts were written with #!/bin/ksh at

It was the mid/late-90s, but I seem to recall Bourne being the default shell, although sh/ksh/csh were all available with a typical install. On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Scott Robbins <scottro at nyc.rr.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:02:56AM -0400, mark wrote: > > On 04/24/15 06:57, Pete Geenhuizen wrote: > > > > > >On 04/24/15 06:07, E.B. wrote:

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

Solaris is pretty much dead at this point (closed source or not), but it is not the only oddball OS around. The need to support a wide palette of (Unix) OS variations has been rapidly declining in later years. Fifteen years ago every supercomputer seemed to have its own set of OS quirks and we wanted to be able to support the cutting edge. Now things seem to converge on a few variations on the

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

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

Hi All, Was wondering if anyone knows there are any separate rpms to be able to install a true bourne shell and not one linked to bash. Thanks in advance, Phil -- Manners are the unenforced standards of conduct which demonstrate that a person is proper, polite, and refined.