similar to: Bourne shell deprecated?

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,

>>> >>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 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

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

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

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

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

>>> >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 sh command, the Thompson

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

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

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

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,

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 but > only

On 26/04/16 09:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote: > 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 Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 03:32:49PM -0453, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: > > From NetBSD 6.1.5: > > > 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

On 04/27/16 15:18, Chris Adams 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: > >

On 4/24/2015 10:47 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 04/24/2015 03:57 AM, Pete Geenhuizen wrote: >> if you leave it out the script will run in whatever environment it >> currently is in. > > I'm reasonably certain that a script with no shebang will run with > /bin/sh. I interpret your statement to mean that if a user is using ksh > and enters the path to such a script,

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.

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